Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumSen. Schumer says there should be ‘reasonable limits’ on the Second Amendment
Talking with the Washington Posts Ed OKeefe 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 states senators are not doing enough on Capitol HIll to address the nationas 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
Missycim
(950 posts)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)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)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)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)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)....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)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.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)barn door meet closer.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)innocent until proven guilty?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)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?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)He's sponsored dozens of them, and has NEVER voted No or spoken out against ANY proposed restriction.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)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.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Oneka
(653 posts)up to and including total civilian disarmament.
LARED
(11,735 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)away my right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and everyone has a different definition for reasonable.
I'm curious what his is.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Nobody needs an RPG, howitzer, bazooka, atomic bomb or land mines.
See, reasonable limits already in place. What's the problem??
jbgood1977
(91 posts)What do we do about all the UNreasonable laws we currently have?
hack89
(39,171 posts)jbgood1977
(91 posts)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.
hack89
(39,171 posts)trouble.smith
(374 posts)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)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.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...amend the amendment, Chuck.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)...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)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.