Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:28 AM Sep 2012

Sen. Schumer says there should be ‘reasonable limits’ on the Second Amendment

Talking with the Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says that there should be ‘reasonable limits’ to the Second Ammendment and disagrees with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has said the state’s senators are not doing enough on Capitol HIll to address the nationa’s gun control laws.

Video: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-schumer-says-there-should-be-reasonable-limits-on-the-second-amendment/2012/09/04/325bc440-f6a7-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_video.html

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sen. Schumer says there should be ‘reasonable limits’ on the Second Amendment (Original Post) SecularMotion Sep 2012 OP
I wish the google dumpers and Missycim Sep 2012 #1
Is it okay to take guns away from spouses who beat up their husband or wife? rfranklin Sep 2012 #3
Ok I will ask you again Missycim Sep 2012 #4
I said what I think is reasonable...try not evading the question this time... rfranklin Sep 2012 #5
I have yet to hear what you think, Missycim Sep 2012 #6
Most gun prohibitionists here strive mightily to avoid saying what they *really* want,.... friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #17
it is already federal law gejohnston Sep 2012 #11
so, you favor taking the gun after the homicide? rfranklin Sep 2012 #12
don't believe in due process? gejohnston Sep 2012 #13
The Fifth's due process clause is everyone's door mat, whether right or left. nt Eleanors38 Sep 2012 #16
Typically yes we wait until a crime has occurred before the sentencing phase. 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #15
Do you activly support the Brady Campaign or the VPC? oneshooter Oct 2012 #28
Senator Schumer has never seen a restrictive gun-related bill that he didn't like slackmaster Sep 2012 #2
Freedom is not an object Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #7
we already have 100's or unreasonable limits....what more do they really want? ileus Sep 2012 #8
Hundreds more, of course Oneka Oct 2012 #19
Schumers idea of reasonable limits is the same as any and all limits. nt LARED Sep 2012 #9
Self-defense is an unalienable/inalienable right and government can never have the authority to take jody Sep 2012 #10
Everyone supports reasonable limits on gun ownership 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #14
His "reasonableness" is never-ending! Nt Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #23
I support reasonable limits on the 2A. Remmah2 Oct 2012 #18
But jbgood1977 Oct 2012 #20
Which ones would those be? nt hack89 Oct 2012 #22
Just a few off the top of my head jbgood1977 Oct 2012 #29
All excellent choices. nt hack89 Oct 2012 #30
What Sen. Schumer wants is not reasonable gun control, he wants incremental gun control trouble.smith Oct 2012 #21
And to think, there was virtually nothing like this culture war Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #24
Okay, then... krispos42 Oct 2012 #25
Chuck won't be... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #26
This was actually much tamer than I expected. Atypical Liberal Oct 2012 #27
 

Missycim

(950 posts)
1. I wish the google dumpers and
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:46 AM
Sep 2012

Schumer would define "reasonable" limits.


Someone in the comment section had a good point, the google dumpers and other anti-choicers need to reconcile "reasonable" and SHALL NOT INFRINGE"

 

rfranklin

(13,200 posts)
3. Is it okay to take guns away from spouses who beat up their husband or wife?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:58 AM
Sep 2012

That's seems reasonable to me.

Significant majorities of gun owners and NRA members also support granting concealed-carry permits only to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors and do not have prior arrests for domestic violence
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/gun-owners-nra-members-back-some-restrictions-20120724

 

Missycim

(950 posts)
4. Ok I will ask you again
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:01 AM
Sep 2012

what is your idea of Reasonable? I don't care what NRA members have to say, I want to know what controls think.

 

rfranklin

(13,200 posts)
5. I said what I think is reasonable...try not evading the question this time...
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:05 AM
Sep 2012

and try to do it without insulting labels. I know it is an emotional topic but we are all reasonable people here, aren't we?

 

Missycim

(950 posts)
6. I have yet to hear what you think,
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:07 AM
Sep 2012

i have heard you say what NRA members think. So if you are "reasonable" let me hear what you really think, at least more then one point.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
17. Most gun prohibitionists here strive mightily to avoid saying what they *really* want,....
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 04:03 PM
Sep 2012

....vide certain recent exchanges here in the Gungeon where the ducking, dodging and weaving reminded me of my cats avoiding their heartworm pills.

My (additional) question to them would be: Did you really think we wouldn't notice the evasiveness, or the calls for "reasonable" gun control (while carefully
not defining 'reasonable')?

We're never going to 'buy that used car from you', and hopefully we can persuade the undecided not to, as well.

Their determination in avoid being pinned down would be comic, were it not for the consequences for the Democratic Party and the nation at large.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
11. it is already federal law
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:00 AM
Sep 2012

has been for almost 20 years. If you have a domestic violence conviction, it is a federal crime to possess a gun.
Oh wait, is says arrests. So much for due process.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
15. Typically yes we wait until a crime has occurred before the sentencing phase.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:52 PM
Sep 2012

I suppose it would be quicker to send someone to jail without a trial and without waiting for a crime to occur. However who would be left to run the prisons?

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
2. Senator Schumer has never seen a restrictive gun-related bill that he didn't like
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:54 AM
Sep 2012

He's sponsored dozens of them, and has NEVER voted No or spoken out against ANY proposed restriction.

 
7. Freedom is not an object
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:11 AM
Sep 2012

It's not something that can be chained or bartered. It's an idea that lives in a man's mind. The only way it is lost is if people willing surrender it.

 

jody

(26,624 posts)
10. Self-defense is an unalienable/inalienable right and government can never have the authority to take
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 09:29 AM
Sep 2012

away my right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

 

4th law of robotics

(6,801 posts)
14. Everyone supports reasonable limits on gun ownership
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:50 PM
Sep 2012

and everyone has a different definition for reasonable.

I'm curious what his is.

 

Remmah2

(3,291 posts)
18. I support reasonable limits on the 2A.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 08:10 PM
Oct 2012

Nobody needs an RPG, howitzer, bazooka, atomic bomb or land mines.

See, reasonable limits already in place. What's the problem??

 

jbgood1977

(91 posts)
29. Just a few off the top of my head
Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:15 AM
Oct 2012

Hughes Amendment to the 86 Firearm Owners Protection Act (it failed to pass with enough votes but was "deemed" to have passed)

Any and all "sporting purpose" verbage.

Import bans on non "sporting" arms or parts.

The ability of the ATF to "regulate" new laws that Congress did not vote on or authorize.


That's about it off the top of my head.

 

trouble.smith

(374 posts)
21. What Sen. Schumer wants is not reasonable gun control, he wants incremental gun control
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 02:10 AM
Oct 2012

Last edited Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:45 AM - Edit history (1)

which eventually and inevitably leads to complete abolition of second amendment rights. it's a football game and they're just moving the ball down the field trying to score the game winning touchdown. similarly, it's our job to stop their momentum, seize the ball, and run it into our end zone for the ganme winning TD. There's no compromising in this game, there's only the game.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
24. And to think, there was virtually nothing like this culture war
Thu Oct 4, 2012, 10:50 AM
Oct 2012

Before The Kinks had charted. I think "gun control" is a heatsink for the understandable frustrations and failures of progressive politics over the last 30 years.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
26. Chuck won't be...
Thu Oct 4, 2012, 11:48 AM
Oct 2012

...making any real changes. There are a number of folks on both sides (Chuck is one) that posture as if this issue is a struggle between the good guys and the bad guys. Both sides characterize their fellows as the good guys and their opposition as the bad guys. This is all a sham. Many of the politicians and public figures use the RKBA issue for the attention they gain from it. They are all just media whores.

Chuck and Nancy, Wayne and Ted; four folks looking for donations to their causes for the actual purpose of staying employed. When was last time you saw any of these folks work toward a bipartisan goal resolving anything? They are the very antithesis of progress.

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
27. This was actually much tamer than I expected.
Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:46 PM
Oct 2012

Most of what Schumer said is already law.

He said there should be reasonable restrictions such as felons, the mentally infirm, and spouse abusers should not be able to own guns.

This is generally already true.

I was heartened to hear him admit that 75% of convicted felons had previous felonies. This supports the fact reported elsewhere that most people who commit homicide have extensive prior criminal records. Most homicides are not some lawful gun owner who just snaps.

I was pleased to hear of his acceptance of the second amendment and the recent Supreme Court cases that upheld it.

I was pleased to hear his denouncing those who seek broad protections from the other amendments but narrow ones for the second.

Most of what he said was[/] reasonable.

But I was annoyed (though not surprised) to see the usual mantra that, "Democrats are not out to get your guns, we aren't after the hunting rifle that Uncle Tommy gave you when you were 13 years old."

This goes to the point that many anti-gunners have this myopic idea that the second amendment is about hunting.

It is not.

The second amendment is about keeping military-grade small arms appropriate for military use in the hands of the people. The modern civilian weapon most appropriate to this goal is not the hunting rifle you got from Uncle Tommy when you were 13, but an AR15 or AK-47 variant.



Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Sen. Schumer says there s...