Skip to main content

View Diary: Ban the RKBA group? (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  RKBA'ers argue that gun control=Repub. victory at (9+ / 0-)

    ...the ballot box. By advocating for even the mildest and most sensible restrictions on ownership of, say, military-style semi-automatic assault rifles, they claim that we are handing electoral victory to the evil Republican hordes. Hence they feel they are helping elect more Democrats. (Not necessarily better Democrats, but still.)

    I happen to believe that's completely wrong, because gun control is a make or break issue in the former Confederacy where Democrats are not competitive anyway, while it's a major electoral winner in most blue states. Not to mention being simply insane and morally repellent in our age of horrific and repeated mass murder events.

    But that's their argument.

    •  Tom Perriello (VA-05) (11+ / 0-)

      was helped by the endorsement of the local NRA chapter in rural Virginia.

      I'm not saying candidates should seek out or embrace such endorsements, but it did take the issue off the table for many who'd normally vote for the odious Virgil Goode.

      The solution we seek is not going to be decided by the extreme left or right, and it is worrisome to see proposals for legislation that comes from factually incorrect appeals to emotion.  We, as progressives must hold on to our ideals of being right because we are correct in facts and truths, and not subject to knee-jerk reactionary calls to action.

      Have you hugged your Boeuf Bourguignon today?

      by wretchedhive on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 07:23:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you will find that in some Blue states, (7+ / 0-)

      such as Wisconsin & Michigan, that guns are also an issue.

      I saw plenty of signs out in Wisconsin when Gore was running for president that basically said vote for Gore, and you're voting to have your guns taken away.

      Hard to tell if this one issue will make a difference at the ballot box.  But the perception is certainly there in some voters eyes that Dems = taking guns away.  The question is - would any of these voters vote for Dems but for the gun issue.  Hard to tell.  

      But I do have ancedotal evidence that when the R's this summer went on their anti pill, it's not real rape, etc binge, some women who I know that pay no attention to politics, it caught their attention.  And they didn't much like what they were hearing.

      YMMV.

      Republicans: if they only had a heart.

      by leu2500 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 07:30:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But more than that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      demdoc, Ralphdog

      Yes you have articulated their position nicely, and I don't begrudge them their position. But they also coordinate their efforts to show up en masse to make this argument, and refuse all appeals to reason when counterpoints are made. Characteristically this is done with a dose of jeering and hectoring, from a standpoint that there expertise in gun minutiae makes them authorities. It's obnoxious, persistent, and predictable. There also should be action taken to prevent groups from coordinating in such a way to place group diaries on the rec list by recommending en masse in a short space of time. How hard would it be for the algorithm to recognize when many recs come in all from within the same group? That is by and large how they get their diaries on the list, where they typically do not stay for any length of time, after all the group members have shot their wads, so to speak.

    •  define 'military-style' (6+ / 0-)
      By advocating for even the mildest and most sensible restrictions on ownership of, say, military-style semi-automatic assault rifles, they claim that we are handing electoral victory to the evil Republican hordes.
      Under the old AWB legislation, a Ruger Mini-14 with the factory stock was perfectly acceptable, but add a pistol grip and it turned into an "assault weapon".

      "Assault weapons" under the old legislation were simply semi automatic firearms with a particular set of cosmetic features.  At its best, it was feel good legislation that accomplished nothing.  Unless you intend to make the leap to "semi-automatic equals assault weapon" there is no reason to revive this legislation.

      And, incidentally, if you do intend to make that leap, you'll bring all sorts of people, ranging from right-wing uber conservatives to left-wing progressives out of the woodwork to oppose you.

      I own one of these, primarily for it's historical value.  Would you deem it a "military style assault weapon"?  It can be reloaded as fast an AR-15 and fires a much more powerful round.

      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

      by Crookshanks on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 07:56:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know exactly what I mean. (0+ / 0-)

        This is precisely the kind of hair-splitting feigned ignorance  that throws your sincerity and integrity into doubt, and encourages me to reject your entire argument.

        I know my firearms, thanks. There is a textbook definition of assault rifle: a reduced caliber semi or fully automatic magazine (i.e. 'clip') fed weapon designed to inflict maximum casualties in minimum time. By reduced caliber I mean either the AK-47 type with a shorter cartridge but full bore round, or the AR-15/M-16 type with a reduced caliber but high velocity round. These, along with semiautomatic handguns, are hands-down the weapons of choice for mass murderers. They are virtually useless for hunting (as opposed to bolt-action 5.56 mm/.223 cal. rifles). I would absolutely limit access to these weapons, along with high-capacity magazines, for precisely these reasons. The ludicrous desire for home defense against the zombie apocalypse is not a compelling reason to permit private, unregulated, non-militia possession of these murderous weapons.

        Your M-1 Garand firing a full caliber 7.62 mm or .30 caliber round is indeed nominally more powerful. Its type was replaced by essentially every modern army with reduced caliber assault rifles because they deliver more casualties per pound of carried ammunition, and are far easier to aim and control in combat.

        •  again, why? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound
          I would absolutely limit access to these weapons, along with high-capacity magazines, for precisely these reasons.
          Aside from a few high profile incidents, these firearms are not the go-to choice for criminals.  The overwhelming majority are owned by law abiding citizens.  You may declare that they have no value for hunting, which is disputable, but they are effective choices for self defense, and I'm curious why you would take them away from millions of people because of the actions of a single/double digit group of bad apples?

          Here's the rub for those of us on the other side of the fence.  Historically, gun control has been a game of incrementalism.  Today you'll say that we don't need so-called assault weapons.  A generation from now somebody else will say that we don't need semi automatic firearms.  A generation after that somebody will say that we don't need handguns.  This is exactly what has happened in other countries, and the reason why the pro-RKBA crowd fights tooth and nail on the AWB, even though the vast majority of us (including me) don't own any of the firearms you seek to prohibit.

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:12:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well, Ralphdog, the NRA does (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishbone

      a (IMO despicably) good job of propagandizing -- and funding -- the opposition to "even the mildest and most sensible restrictions on ownership of, say, military-style semi-automatic assault rifles".

      But here's my question, and I'll ask you specifically: What arms DOES the 2nd Amendment protect?

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 10:57:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Muzzle loading muskets were what founders had... (0+ / 0-)

        in mind when the 2nd Amendment was written. And no lunatic was going to take out the entire population of a tavern with one when it was written. That's why the 2nd Amendment has become a murderously lethal anachronism in our day.

        Just like the garbled and partly plagiarized recorded oral tradition of a bunch of iron age tribal Semitic nomads (i.e. the Bible) is, let's just say, an extremely unreliable guide to modern living.

        •  Excuse me. The Constitution arose in 1787 (0+ / 0-)

          and the bill of rights followed on afterwards, ensuring ratification when some statesmen agreed to press for the entire document's passage rather than the version in which specific rights of American citizens had not been enumerated and thereby guaranteed.

          The former Confederation's members agreed to put this new system into practice beginning in 1790.

          On September 17, 1787, after three months of debate moderated by convention president George Washington, the new U.S. constitution, which created a strong federal government with an intricate system of checks and balances, was signed by 38 of the 41 delegates present at the conclusion of the convention. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states.

          Beginning on December 7, five states--Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut--ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789.In June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July.

          Two years later the Congress enumerated the arms it expected every able-bodied white male to provide for himself, including quantities of ammunition as minimum requirements. This provision may be the first iteration of the Selective Service, as it created a uniform militia(note this does not indicate the wearing of identical or even similar clothing or regalia, with the exception of the possession of the mandated weapons, accoutrements thereunto necessary, and knapsack). The legislation also mandated that within a stated number of years all weapons would be upgraded to accommodate "balls of the eighteenth part of a pound" -- in excess of 3/4 ounce of lead per round. Musket-bearers must have two dozen; rifle-bearers, a minimum of 20, along with two flints and sufficient patches and powder to enable the firing of same. Further, those arms were to be kept in the hands of those citizens regardless of lawsuit, distress, execution or sale, for debt or the payment of taxes.

          This very well may have been the first property Congress deliberately and specifically declared off-limits to debt collectors.
          Provisions of acts of this Congress have been cited as the basis for Constitutionality of the ACA. We can't have it both ways: either mandatory health care provision (and funds for the relief of!) for sailors, which is nowadays seen as mandatory health care, AND the possession, maintenance, bearing and provision of firearms, are both Constitutional, or neither is.

          Rifles are specifically mentioned. Rifles were the state-of-the-art arms of the day; the requirements also enumerate officers' bladed weapons and accoutrements, as well as provisions for infantry and cavalry forces.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 02:55:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You ignore my point. Intentionally, I presume. (0+ / 0-)

            Do you really think the founding fathers would have been cool with widespread ownership of mass murder devices like an AR-15?

            Yes, muzzle loading weapons were state of the art in 1780s. And it took something like a full half-minute to reload one. Hence no matter how malevolent an individual, he could only do so much harm with one before being stopped.

            It's like applying 1930s international rules to thermonuclear weapons. And equally foolish.

            •  You're deliberately ignoring my point (0+ / 0-)

              purpose of the acts including Amendment 2 was not to limit how much harm a malevolent individual could do (on an individual scale). Purpose was to enable the US personnel, who were specifically NOT a standing army or police force, to withstand / hold off attacks.

              But anytime I'm talking about a state-of-the-art weapon and you're talking about "mass murder devices like an AR-15" we are not communicating.

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:18:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site