General Discussion

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)

93. Sure:

Thu Dec 3, 2015, 10:27 PM

Dec 2015

Even taking complete bans/confiscation off the table (although a lot of people on DU have been calling for them this week), I'd consider broad bans on weapon types like "all semi-automatics" to be draconian. Requiring local law enforcement to actively approve gun purchases (as is the case in some countries) instead of the present system of simply passing a background check* would be draconian. Banning all handguns would be draconian.

There are also some proposals that I don't support, but which to call "draconian" would be hyperbole. And at least one which I do support that some pro-gun folk would call draconian (I disagree): legally mandating proper security methods like gun safes, etc.

* I want to add that I think the current background check system needs some improvements. Not just making the checks mandatory for all transfers of gun ownership (which we have now in Oregon...yay!), but an expansion of the data in the NICS database to include the ability to flag certain mental health diagnoses, restraining orders for domestic violence, ongoing indictments for violent offenses, diagnoses which indicate high suicide risk, etc. Some of these would require a process to be removed (such as a sign-off from a psychiatrist for someone previously at suicide risk), but I think the current system fails to include a lot of people who shouldn't be buying guns.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

118 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are you for or against the 2nd Amendment?? [View all] darkangel218 Dec 2015 OP

For reading it the way it is written then acting accordingly. randys1 Dec 2015 #1

We may not agree on who the nominee should be berni_mccoy Dec 2015 #13

Thanks.. randys1 Dec 2015 #15

Watch out! You will get in trouble for talking about the literal meaning! Rex Dec 2015 #25

I know...I have friends and family who are gun lovers, collectors, etc. randys1 Dec 2015 #27

Like McDonald v. City of Chicago? nt JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #29

...and if the technology advances past single-shot muskets... Electric Monk Dec 2015 #45

Excellent argument. hifiguy Dec 2015 #56

thanks! randys1 Dec 2015 #106

Some insight on the "way it is written", because etymology matters. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2015 #98

That's great. But the Constitution is pretty specific about "Militia" jmg257 Dec 2015 #110

The word "militia" is what it is. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2015 #113

True - it is. And so is the Constitution, which refers to very specific Militias. jmg257 Dec 2015 #114

This issue is how it is interpreted. potone Dec 2015 #2

i support them all, equally linuxman Dec 2015 #3

A dumb question I refuse to answer. Chan790 Dec 2015 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Dec 2015 #6

I sympathize with you for your experience... Chan790 Dec 2015 #9

SCOTUS begs to differ n/t SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2015 #37

SCOTUS is not infallible. Chan790 Dec 2015 #63

I agree, they aren't infalliable SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2015 #66

...and their word can change. Chan790 Dec 2015 #68

No amendment is needed. hifiguy Dec 2015 #76

We'll see n/t SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2015 #80

Well good, because the bill of rights doesn't confer *any* rights. X_Digger Dec 2015 #94

What is depressing about this is how some ignore facts and history to fit their Rex Dec 2015 #26

i am against the current interpretation etherealtruth Dec 2015 #5

I don't get why we have an amendment upaloopa Dec 2015 #7

+1000 nt restorefreedom Dec 2015 #50

That's my view on it also. RichVRichV Dec 2015 #105

Laws were so much better in the 1700's. yallerdawg Dec 2015 #8

I support the amendment, but madamesilverspurs Dec 2015 #10

I am for it, as interpreted by SCOTUS for years until recently steve2470 Dec 2015 #11

Yep, the people can have arms, and form a militia if needed. aikoaiko Dec 2015 #12

I'm against it in it's present form. American's have proved that they can't handle guns. BlueJazz Dec 2015 #14

+1 elias49 Dec 2015 #41

It's not that simple. Agschmid Dec 2015 #16

Voted that I'm against. NCTraveler Dec 2015 #17

Repeal and replace... sanatanadharma Dec 2015 #18

It was an idea that had some merit when passed at the time this country was founded... Humanist_Activist Dec 2015 #19

If the 2A were removed, Snobblevitch Dec 2015 #20

I couldn't call myself a progressive, and be just the opposite on the 2A. ileus Dec 2015 #21

If a state or city chooses, via its elected representatives, to restrict firearm ownership, Nye Bevan Dec 2015 #22

Let me ask this question in response TeddyR Dec 2015 #58

I see the right to an abortion as more important than the right to own a gun. Nye Bevan Dec 2015 #83

So your principles only apply to rights that you judge important? X_Digger Dec 2015 #95

Yet the Constitution TeddyR Dec 2015 #100

I am opposed to the way the NRA, the gungeoneers, and the Gun Industrial Complex madinmaryland Dec 2015 #23

What about the non NRA,law abiding gun owners? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #24

If, as you say, and they are not NRA members and do oppose the NRA and GIC, madinmaryland Dec 2015 #32

You do realize that many Democrats, non NRA people support the second amendment, right? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #33

I think many here support the 2nd amendment, just not the madinmaryland Dec 2015 #36

I never said anything about pro NRA. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #40

Read my posts. madinmaryland Dec 2015 #49

I have read all your posts. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #52

As I tried to say above, but I had to type it a couple of times... madinmaryland Dec 2015 #54

I guess I'm curious about your views TeddyR Dec 2015 #64

Interesting points... madinmaryland Dec 2015 #72

I frankly don't think we are that far apart TeddyR Dec 2015 #104

I like to think I fall into that category. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #78

I am curious as to what you define as draconian gun control measures... madinmaryland Dec 2015 #86

Sure: Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #93

To answer.... madinmaryland Dec 2015 #97

Against. It's obsolete in the 21st century. backscatter712 Dec 2015 #28

Just wait until we have civilian laser guns... Shit is going to get real. Agschmid Dec 2015 #30

How are you going to take the weapons from the illegal owners , to start with? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #31

They did it in Australia. backscatter712 Dec 2015 #34

Australia is an island. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #35

Its a continent. milestogo Dec 2015 #43

It is still an island. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #46

Australia only removed 1/3 of the guns with the buyback. NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #39

You seem to imply that this was a bad thing. hifiguy Dec 2015 #77

I point out the difference from what people think happened NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #81

It is time to update it. milestogo Dec 2015 #38

Where do you quantify the firearms in the possession of the criminals? darkangel218 Dec 2015 #42

Might as well repeal speeding laws since they're so hard to enforce... backscatter712 Dec 2015 #48

Yes. KamaAina Dec 2015 #44

Pretty sure CA banned standard 20 and 30 round magazines Chuuku Davis Dec 2015 #47

I think the way SCOTUS has interpreted the amendment is wrong. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2015 #51

Yep, but if it disappeared from the Constitution hifiguy Dec 2015 #57

I see it as archaic concept intended to support a national defense via citizen militia. Agnosticsherbet Dec 2015 #69

Exactly. There were no standing armies at the time hifiguy Dec 2015 #75

I believe this country would be better off without it. Crunchy Frog Dec 2015 #53

Without the illegal firearms too, you mean. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #55

I mean without the amendment. Crunchy Frog Dec 2015 #60

I'm saying "against" for two reasons. MH1 Dec 2015 #59

Regarding point one. white_wolf Dec 2015 #89

There isn't much we can do about the second A but we can do little things Jim Beard Dec 2015 #61

Ammo tracking was useless, per the Treasury X_Digger Dec 2015 #101

I'm out. darkangel218 Dec 2015 #62

If an invading force takes over our country Jim Beard Dec 2015 #71

Wait, does the right to arms depend upon an Amendment? AngryAmish Dec 2015 #65

Other, I'm for it AS WRITTEN, against it AS PRACTICED. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Dec 2015 #67

As long as I feel life is worth protecting and have people I want to keep safe ileus Dec 2015 #70

Please give me examples of how you would keep them safe Jim Beard Dec 2015 #79

you say potatoe I say potato. ileus Dec 2015 #82

Maybe you should change neighborhoods. Jim Beard Dec 2015 #88

It's obsolete. baldguy Dec 2015 #73

For (nt) bigwillq Dec 2015 #74

Repeal it. RandySF Dec 2015 #84

A right to arms but no rights to food and shelter?? Stargleamer Dec 2015 #85

To me that is defined in, yet often ignored right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Glassunion Dec 2015 #90

Which are not Constitutionally guaranteed. Recursion Dec 2015 #96

Only the Sith deal in absolutes. Glassunion Dec 2015 #87

Amend it to the 21st century. n/t RKP5637 Dec 2015 #91

for the whole 2nd amendment and not just an out of context clause rurallib Dec 2015 #92

I'm against the insane, baseless interpretation of the 2nd ammendment that prevails today. /nt Marr Dec 2015 #99

Whatever...I would pay to see what the founders think of what it led to BeyondGeography Dec 2015 #102

For it. Jester Messiah Dec 2015 #103

As long as they actually abide by the "well regulated militia" part. Initech Dec 2015 #107

i do not believe it applies to individual unrestricted gun ownership. nt La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2015 #108

Nor do I. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #109

I think that the Second Amendment should be repealed; it's an archaic anachronism... Spider Jerusalem Dec 2015 #111

I'm for the 2nd. The militia purpose is fairly obsolete, but the founders jmg257 Dec 2015 #112

I am for the 2nd Amendment! GOLGO 13 Dec 2015 #115

+1 darkangel218 Dec 2015 #116

It's appears a semi-effective method of maintain an efficient militia. LanternWaste Dec 2015 #117

There is no reason why a civilian should own a semi-automatic weapon. Doc_Technical Dec 2015 #118