"So then... in cases where "he yells are me and threatens me" is actually what's going on.... the abused needs to leave.  Seek shelter elsewhere.  A family member, a friend, a co-worker.  If it can't be proven and the person feels threatened, they can make a decision to remove themselves from the environment.  Yeah, that's puts a burden on them.  No one said life was always fair."

 

Wasn't there a gent on here a bit back who was told to find another profession when he wanted to protect himself with "justifiable need" being he was threatened?

 

I do personally think the potential victims of abuse, like any American citizen, should be able to purchase protection in the form of firearms if that's their preference.

 

I think that's a different situation.  If you're being abused in more of a psychological sense, the response isn't going to be fill the verbal abuser full of holes.  You move on.  If you want a firearm, then yes, I agree you should get one and if the situation requires it, use it.  But we're talking about a non-violent, abusive relationship.  Which is different than a threat to your life as a matter of the doing your job.

And ours is believing that the Constitution covers every circumstance. Not to beat a dead horse but the terror watch lists contain 1.5 million names. How many are for real? Probably a lot less than 1.5 million, but also a lot more than we could reasonably process in a manner that does not trample on liberty "without due process." The question of due process is itself vague -- the constitution leaves it up to us to figure out the details; it's not a set, constitutionally mandated set of procedures as some believe.

 

This is a conundrum of our own creation. I don't know the answer. 

 

It may contain that many. I recall hearing someone says it's around 2000 names right now.  No idea if that was correct.  But even that list would likely have people on it that didn't belong on it.

 

I don't think the Constitution covers every circumstance.  And I'm not a Constitution expert, so I may get this wrong, but I believe it defines rights that are ours because they are unalienable... not gov't provided... and it provides limits for what the Federal government can do.   It also describes the Congress... etc etc... but primarily I think it's about our rights and the limits of Government.  It's not a prescription for how government should handle issues.  It's a prescription that limits government.