Jump to content

Supreme Court rules against right to own guns for man with prior domestic violence charge.

Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP

By Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP
in General

Recommended Posts

Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP Newbie

Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP

Posted
Posted

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/gun-ownership-supreme-court-voisine/index.html

 

I don't know what to make of this.

 

On one hand, despite being pro-gun, I don't want domestic violence offenders to have guns, period. That is indeed a dangerous combination.

 

But on the other hand, in this particular case, it's not like he has a history of domestic violence.

 

Thoughts?

 

gcgqzKx.png

 

A knife works, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vla1ne Newbie

vla1ne

Posted
Posted

Hitting your wife when you find out she's been cheating on you for 20 years is domestic violence

if he hauled off for cheating after 20 years then yeah, he doesn't deserve to have his rights taken.

under just the context of the above article though, it doesn't sound like that. if there's another side to the story, link me and i'll apologize, but as it stands, yeah, he shouldn't have a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ryusei the Morning Star Community Regular

Ryusei the Morning Star

Posted
Posted

if he hauled off for cheating after 20 years then yeah, he doesn't deserve to have his rights taken.

under just the context of the above article though, it doesn't sound like that. if there's another side to the story, link me and i'll apologize, but as it stands, yeah, he shouldn't have a gun.

I was just making a hypothetical where this law can be problematic

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vla1ne Newbie

vla1ne

Posted
Posted

I was just making a hypothetical where this law can be problematic

oh. well then. it does depend on the context, but i assume that if it were any context close to that, the lawyer herself would be going full steam with that as one of her main defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Experienced

LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow

Posted
Posted

Ok? And one action should define the rest of your life and deprive you of a consitutional right?

Yes. Maybe a certain amount of time with no incidents after could give your right back but if you break the law and show that you respond to problems with violence I'd much rather you not be allowed a gun. Not sure how that's not common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aerion Brightflame Newbie

Aerion Brightflame

Posted
Posted

Ok? And one action should define the rest of your life and deprive you of a consitutional right?

 

Should something similar hold for the 1st ammendment? If I use a racial slur should I no longer have free speech...oh wait

Should one instance of child abuse land me on a list that deprives me of some of my liberties and force me to inform neighbours the rest of my life?

Should one murder deprive me of my freedom?

 

I know that this is terrible logic, and outrageous examples. But yes it should if the crime fits. It's simply the safer option for the rest of society than someone with a non-sanctioned violent past be deprived of access to firearms. 

 

It sucks because there are plenty of people with violent pasts who reform, but this is simply the safer option unless a completely objective metric to determine whether or not said person is now not violent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ryusei the Morning Star Community Regular

Ryusei the Morning Star

Posted
Posted

Should one instance of child abuse land me on a list that deprives me of some of my liberties and force me to inform neighbours the rest of my life?

Should one murder deprive me of my freedom?

 

I know that this is terrible logic, and outrageous examples. But yes it should if the crime fits. It's simply the safer option for the rest of society than someone with a non-sanctioned violent past be deprived of access to firearms.

 

It sucks because there are plenty of people with violent pasts who reform, but this is simply the safer option unless a completely objective metric to determine whether or not said person is now not violent.

It just reminds me a lot of people our age being ruined for life because they once smoked a joint, did a line, or had some wine

 

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but losing one's temper isn't inhuman

 

People can go to jail and be reformed after murder tom. I think the country should have something like that for rape too ...that aside, I just hope the jury on "abuse" isn't a simple yes/no deal and that a path for rememption exists

 

As for the case, More info on how bad his assult on his GF was might be needed. Him Slapping Her shouldn't be on par with him beating her daily is all I'm sayin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vla1ne Newbie

vla1ne

Posted
Posted

 Him Slapping Her shouldn't be on par with him beating her daily is all I'm sayin

while true, context, including the cause of whatever form of violence it was is also required. if it's cheating, then he is owed his rights, because cheating on somebody you're with is a form of DV in and of itself, if she burned the toast, he doesn't need his rights back, if it was one instance, then therapy to figure out the cause is in order, and completion of said course would be enough to earn him his rights back. if it was continuous, then he does not need his rights back. there's many caveats and conditions that need to go into cases like this, but again, i, for now, think that whatever the cause was, it wouldn't look good for him, if it did, i stand by my belief that his lawyer would put it forth everywhere, be it in court or in the news as one of her strongest arguments in his favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
a bad post Newbie

a bad post

Posted
Posted

It just reminds me a lot of people our age being ruined for life because they once smoked a joint, did a line, or had some wine

 

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but losing one's temper isn't inhuman

 

People can go to jail and be reformed after murder tom. I think the country should have something like that for rape too ...that aside, I just hope the jury on "abuse" isn't a simple yes/no deal and that a path for rememption exists

 

As for the case, More info on how bad his assult on his GF was might be needed. Him Slapping Her shouldn't be on par with him beating her daily is all I'm sayin

I get what you're saying, and yes in a court of law a one time incident shouldn't be held to the same level to repeated incidents. However if you show that you react to feeling upset by becoming violent (which is not a healthy response) then it's probably a good idea to if nothing else limit that person's right to commit deadlier violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vla1ne Newbie

vla1ne

Posted
Posted

on that same note, it's likely that even at the time of said violence, he would have already had a gun, since he was using one after said incident (which would be strange if he only purchased a gun after said incident) i would assume he at the very least understands the difference in strength and consequence between a bullet and a punch. again, this is assuming there's any understandable context to said violence to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forest Fire Newbie

Forest Fire

Posted
Posted

When somone betrays you after that much involvement on your part, being upset is human

It doesn't mean you're gonna go shoot up a bar

ok, but then going: "My SO cheated on me, let me just hurt then physically for that" is not ok in any definition of the word, and neither would be then be going "Let's give this not entirely mentally stable person access to weapons that can cause massive amounts of death". cause really, it doesn't take much to go, "I shouldn't hit my SO because they cheated on me".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...