• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill would take guns from stalkers, abusive dating partners

ludin said:
why can't you stick to the topic I never said anything about this and your strawman just blows away in the wind.
Click to expand...

"you can't restrict someone's rights because of a fear they might do something"

I was pointing out that in certain cases we can and do take away every last right someone has, precisely because of a fear they might do something. Off thread, a bit, but your argument is false.
 

my argument isn't false at all.
unless someone has been deemed mentally incompetent and that they are a harm to themselves or others without a conviction no
people retain their rights.
 
Instead of this, what about stronger enforcement of restraining orders. This might send the personal rights and freedoms folks aflutter, but in this day and age do we not have the ability to impose some tracking measure for people that have restraining orders that alert police when a person is getting too close to the person / people they should be staying away from? To protect their privacy, perhaps have it only active if they get within a "yellow" zone of the person they are supposed to stay away from?

True story: my ex-stepfather was an abusive asshole, and despite having a restraining order he would stalk my mother, following her in his car, parking outside the house, etc., but would always speed away when he knew he had been noticed. When she complained to the police, they told her there was nothing they could do unless the caught him within the range of the restraining order. So, she lived in fear until she moved away from the he lived in. If he ever had had the inclination to do more than simply terrorize her, it would have been too late. What good is a restraining order unless it is enforced?

Another true story: a co-worker had a restraining order against her estranged husband. He didn't own a gun, he simply walked up to her when she was getting into her car to go to work one morning and smashed her head with a hammer. It took her a couple YEARS to recover, and I'm not sure if she was ever the same.

Just throwing the idea out there...I think the gun idea doesn't address the problem in the same way tracking folks with restraining orders would... What do you guys think? For the purposes of discussion, let's say a fitbit type wrist device equipped with GPS for both the person with the restraining order, and the person they need to stay away from. The units activate only when they enter a "yellow zone", to alert both people that they are in close proximity, so that they can avoid each other, and know that the police are now aware of their proximity. Too big brother? Seems a better, more effective, less intrusive solution than the gun seizure....
 
"Bill would take guns from stalkers, abusive dating partners" is a wonderfully correct OP. Why should people who can't control their emotions have access to guns?
 
JamesBY said:
"Bill would take guns from stalkers, abusive dating partners" is a wonderfully correct OP. Why should people who can't control their emotions have access to guns?
Click to expand...

if those don't amount to felonies, the "crimes" are insufficient to abrogate a constitutional right
 
JamesBY said:
That's your opinion, but apparently it will have to hold up to judicial review.
Click to expand...

its really stupid this act of yours=-parroting what you think the court will do without ever making a sound argument for anything. Its the typical passive-aggressive tactic left-wingers use to attack posters and posts they don't like due to the politics of the poster without supporting a position that could be attacked.
 
jaeger19 said:
Same arguments either I have refuted with facts and data or points I disagree with and already stated why.
Click to expand...

It's just the same argument over and over. Followed by a red herring or straw man for good measure. Ever single statement is nothing but nonsensical rhetoric for the most part. All you have to do is read my initial replys for exactly the same answers.

Man.
 

I don't think it will be used against people convicted of those crimes. I think it will be used against people accused of those crimes. which accused and convicted are not the same thing. I think those who can't be trusted with all their constitutional rights should not be let out of prison. Because Murder and assault are already illegal and it doesn't stop those people from doining those things. So I do not think a law telling them they can't own a gun is going to stop them from assaulting or killing someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…