this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
109 points (85.2% liked)

politics

22105 readers
5121 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (19 children)

In order for such orders to be useful they need to be easy to get wothout evidence. However because they must be easy to get falsely the effect must be limited to the minimum needed and they cannot destory someones life.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (17 children)

In contrast people's rights and privileges shouldn't be allowed to be taken away with a one sided claim with no evidence. It's really tough to balance, and if it only happened to actual abusers, no one would really care.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (16 children)

The problem I have with this is the cost.

The cost of living in a world where someone can strip you of your right to currently possess a firearm by accusing you of violence, is that you get to not have access to a firearm, currently.

The cost of living in a world that doesn't restrict a person's right to access a firearm via a claim of violence, is that people die to firearms by those in possession of a firearm.

I haven't really seen a good argument as to why someone's right to have the ability to always, at all times, and forever be allowed access to a firearm that makes it more valuable than a human life.

I've seen a lot of fantastic arguments for ownership of firearms, lemme tell ya. And I support them. But if we are paying for those privileges with human lives, we need to quantify the value of a firearm, versus the value of a human life. I can't (I'm being serious, I really can't) figure out exactly how many human lives we should be willing to "pay" in order to continue to have those freedoms.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Theoretically what if it is A and B have fallen out and A is abusive and threating to B but gasligjts B and blames them....B finally gets courage to leave and find shelter, this annoys A and they are really manipulative and coerciaeve so they play victim and put order on B and then B has no protection

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I started typing up an answer to your hypothetical but then I realized you didn't at all address my question. I'd love an answer to the content of my comment instead of an answer designed to try change my mind without addressing the premise or in any way engaging what I said.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Things like this have happened.

My wife got hit with a TRO after her ex and his girlfriend attacked her. It would be a great way of ensuring a victim had no access to the means to protect themselves, wouldn't it?

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)