Skip to main content

View Diary: Now nutcase 'killing people' guy says he's 'assembled an army' (525 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well I was an RKBAer and I'll denounce him. (18+ / 0-)

    He's nuts.

    First of all, no one is "taking anyone's guns". This is PURE fearmongering. It will never happen. It's not politically possible to forcible take 200 million+ guns away for gun owners in the US. So anything he says about  that is strictly for the purpose of ginning up fear and stoking the hysteria. (Funny that he has a business training people for "the coming insurrection" or whatever. I bet business is up. Funny, that).

    Look, I own guns. So what? He's nuts. The thing speaks for itself. You want a denunciation? Well, duh. No RKBAer here is going to be advocating armed insurrection or the overthrow of the US government. And let's stick to the facts as they ARE not as some raging lunatic imagines them to be.

    The facts are: there will be some gun control legislation. Sure, some of us won't agree with it or elements of it. So what? There's lots to agree or disagree about with any legislation and no group is monolithic. But it seems as of now, there's going to be a push for something. Hopefully it will be something effective and not symbolic. Nevertheless, one thing I;m not worried about is someone "taking my guns". That's not going to happen and I haven't heard anyone even suggest it. This guy is creating fantasies in an alternate reality.

    Let's not us do the same, eh?

    •  you seem reasonable but the list by the founder of (9+ / 0-)

      RBKA is not.

      He won't consider any new regulations.
      He immediately rules all of that out of bounds.

      His approach involves only addressing

      legalizing marijuana
      improving the safety net
      improving education
      more jobs

      That is his entire list of what he is willing to look at in order to address the problem of gun deaths and gun related crime.
      And he is the founder of RBKA.

      •  And as I said, we are not monolithic. He's entitle (14+ / 0-)

        to his opinions on it, of course. And frankly I agree that addressing those other issues would probably reap broader more substantial results.

        The reality is that most gun deaths are the result of domestic abuse. You know the kind. Guy beats the shit of of his wife for 10 years, has a string of restraining orders and assault charges and one day, he shoots her dead. That;s the majority of gun deaths in America. What are we doing to stop those? The mass murders are shocking, but as yo know the very next day after the shooting, another 24 or so people dies at the wrong end of a gun. And every day after that. These deaths aren't as visible. And they shock only those in the family and community. But they are still deaths at the hands of guns. What are we doing about that?

        These are hard questions that don't lend themselves to facile proclamations and hard ideology. And people have strong ideas and beliefs about these issues. I personally think we need to approach solutions on a number of levels, including regulations and social programs. I don't think just limiting magazine clip size will cause a visible dip in the number of annual gun deaths because so few of the annual number of gun deaths are these mass murders. But it may be good as a symbolic gesture. Symbolism can have an important role in society. So I'm ok with it. Limiting military style semi-automatic weapons is another symbolic measure that wont lower the actual number by much, if anything. Because again, most of these deaths are not happening with an assailant using an AR-15. That guy who shoots his girlfriend is using a regular old 9 mm glock or even a revolver with six bullets in it. Sigh. Same with the street gangs. they aren't walking around with AR-15s hanging off their backs. They have tin little guns tucked into their jackets. I do think a national background check even at gun shows is good. Other gun owners may disagree. But I think it'll make for some barriers to weapons access for people who can't legally own. I think that's good.

        The bottom line is we have to find ways to approach this issue that make sense. Caricaturing all gun owners is counter productive and just plain inaccurate. Please try not to do it. It really doesn't add anything to the discussion.

        •  here is my response to his list - it applies here (5+ / 0-)

          my comment to him

          What you have listed above are worthy goals. However, better laws regarding education, marijuana legalization and a better social safety net are not going to pass the GOP controlled House. Even if they were implemented, the relationship between these items and gun deaths is indirect. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that a significant reduction in gun deaths would result from legislation that could pass regarding these items.

          Creating more jobs is a laudable goal. The GOP House is not going to pass another stimulus. Absent another stimulus, job creation is going to continue to be anemic at best for another couple of years, especially given our debt ceiling / sequestration problem. Therefore, an approach that tries to significantly reduce gun deaths by creating more jobs is no likely to be successful.

          Guns are always involved in gun deaths. The social safety net is not always a primary factor in gun deaths. The job situation is not always a primary factor in gun deaths. The legality of marijuana is not always a primary factor in gund deaths. Guns are the means used to accomplish the ends of killing efficiently. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that guns are a primary factor in gun deaths. Hypothetical assumptions that the deaths would still occur involve (1) fatalism (2) unrealistic assumptions since guns are so much more efficient and (3) do not deal with what really happened.

          Since the relationship between guns and actual gun deaths is direct and the relationship between gun deaths and the other possible factors is indirect, it does not make sense to rule out regulation of firearms and only focus on the indirect factors.

          The only reason that one would do this is if one is not willing to rationalize try to solve the problem. The mental gymnastics required to justify this list and rule out gun regulations in order to reduce gun related crime and gun deaths are so extreme as to demonstrate you are not willing to be a "good faith" partner in this discussion.

          Gun regulation will take place. If you refuse to embrace common-sense approaches to gun regulation, then that will only leave gun opponents to draft the legislation.

          The worst part of this is that you are the founder of RKBA.
          This means to me that your group has nothing to contribute to the discussion regarding reducing gun related crime and gun deaths on Daily Kos.  In society as a whole, by refusing to modify your approach, you leave yourselves in a position with no influence in which gun regulations get passed.

          Your response is too clever by half.
          In essence, you want to address indirect potential causes.
          The rest of us want to address the means used since every gun death by definition involved a gun. Dismissing those of us who are logically actually directly addressing the problem as being "facile" is not helpful. It makes it seem like you kinda sorta, when push comes to shove, really believe all of the NRA talking points. That is no good.

          I am quite at a loss why we even need a miniversion of the NRA at Daily Kos whose sole purpose for existence is to parrot the talking points of the NRA and prevent any new gun regulations to reduce gun related crime and gun deaths.

          Your response further buttresses the thought that RBKA is actually fairly monolithic. Polling its members, its moderators, its most prolific posters, and those who wrote the posts for the group, might prove interesting.

          There is no good reason why a person needs to have more than 6 rounds at a time. Self defense ? Against whom ? Or do you think the guy featured in the diary is right ? Hunting ? Then, you are not doing it right.

          So, there is no need for it. And while a person is reloading, somebody can escape. preferably alive. You do not need it - and reloading time could have helped some people in some of the cases. These people are not merely symbols. So, the symbolism argument is a load of crap.

          You are not doing your side any good.

          Gun regulations are, indeed, coming. The simple reason is that it is the single most logical way to address the problem. That is true because a gun is necessarily logically involved in every single gun death.

          Guns are designed to kill. That is their primary purpose. They are much more efficient instruments of death and murder than knives, bats.... And their raison de etre is to kill. Cars have a use and it is not primarily destructive.  They are used as a method of transportation. Guns, when used correctly, kill. efficiently.

          •  No I don;t want to ignore gun regulation. Please (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jrooth, Reel Woman

            point to where I said that. I actually, if you read it, said I am in favor of regulation with limiting clip size although if we're honest it will not have much an effect on the numbers of gun deaths annually. In the case of mass murders, it will lower the carnage. This is a good thing. But lets understand that mass murders are not accounting for even 5% of annual gun deaths. So we won't see a major dip in that number even after we pass that legislation. Let's not delude ourselves. Just because thats happens to be the case, doesn't mean I'm opposed to it. Again I challenge you to find where in my comments I said that. I didn't. I also said I favor nationalized background checks including at gun shows and person-to-person sales. I realize other gun owners may disagree but I think that's pretty much reasonable.

            What I want to do is make sure the regulations we pass ACTUALLY WILL ADDRESS the gun deaths, Vote4Obama2012.

            Part of passing regulations that will actually DO something is understanding what the real situation is. So fine. We're going to see large clips banned or limited. We'll see a ban on new assault weapon sales. I get that. But I;m also sober enough to say that this won;t cause the dip in gun deaths that we're hoping it does. I hope you're prepared for that reality. It's not hard. The reason it won't can use a dip is because so few gun deaths are happening as a result of these high capacity clips and military style assault weapons.

            What are we going to do about the other 95% of people who will die from gun deaths this year? Usually as a result of suicide and domestic abuse. What are we doing about that? Most of those guns are legally owned. They're also not high capacity.

            And as for the NRA being the only seat at the table, I realize that. I actually tried to start a group off site to organize as a counter to the NRA. Real gun owners, not just manufacturer's lobbyists.  I agree that part of the problem is that one side of this debate there's a contingent of people who want to ban all guns pretty much - these people generally know nothing about guns. On the other you have the NRA who would love to see it be required that every american own a gun or 12. There's no one representing real gun owners anymore. But the NRA is sadly the only organization that exists that even remotely stands up for gun rights. This is sad because they really aren't interested in gun owners and what's good for us. They're only interested in gun sales. But who else is there to speak up for those who own guns? This is the problem we have as gun owners who are not NRA-batshit (ie most of us).

            I've said before on this site that it's liberal gun owners who HAVE to step up because we're the only people who can make a sane and CREDIBLE argument on this issue. I'm happy to see people like Cuomo and Clinton and other democrats speaking out on this issue. While opinions vary (we're not monolithic) I'm just saying that caricaturing us in all one tent - and worse, calling us NRA tools, is not only inaccurate but counterproductive.

            We are going to have to find some solutions. Opinion about those solutions will vary from those you agree with 100% to those you disagree with 100%. So what? You disagree with KV. Ok. So?

            •  You don't understand what a losing argument (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mdmslle, Deward Hastings, KVoimakas

              this is. See, you admit having been in the same room as a gun; even admit to owning them--

              --that means you are an inbred child-molesting baby-killing cannibal with no regard for human life, see? There is absolutely no way around it. Own a gun? You are beast, a savage, a brainless automaton of the NRA that thrives on the blood of infants. If you try to argue otherwise, that only "proves" how irrational and violent you are.

              Some of these folks here believe that "talking rationally about guns" means "gun owners admit that they are the source of all evil in the world, and that they have no redeeming features at all-- and then we can negotiate!"

              Forget about them. They're not debaters, they're a lynch mob. Everyone, no matter how progressive, liberal, or open-minded they can generally be, has a witch they will gladly hunt if conditions are right.

        •  I will assume you're not misleading on purpose (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DefendOurConstitution, mdmslle
          The reality is that most gun deaths are the result of domestic abuse.
          I will assume that the reason that you overlook gun-related suicides is because you don't consider them important, or are of the (incredibly mistaken, but all-too-common) opinion that if people don't kill themselves with guns they'll just find another way, or some other equally honest, if misled, argument.

          But just so people know, the reality is that most gun deaths are the result of suicide. And a very large fraction of these people, if they did not have guns, would still be alive.

          •  no I wasn't ignoring suicides.Domestic and suicide (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Canis Aureus, jrooth, Catesby

            are the #1and #2 leading causes.

            And you may be right about this:

            And a very large fraction of these people, if they did not have guns, would still be alive
            I don't have any reason to doubt that. It may be true. But the question is: what is the solution? Let's be logical.

            Most of the suicide guns are legally owned.

            Most of the suicide guns are not AR-15s or high capacity weapons.

            So what's the solution given that 1) we're not going to see a ban on all guns in america ever and 2) there are currently 250 million+ gun already in circulation and there will be no confiscations.

            What is the solution?

            See, this is  the thing i'm trying to drive home. I am not opposed to regulation. But I want whatever regulations we enact to actually have an impact on gun deaths.

            So how can we prevent a gun suicide with a legally owned firearm without violating the right to own guns (as long as you're not a felon or been adjudicated mentally ill) or the medical privacy rights of people?

            Now, we ARE talking social services and the availability of mental health help and counseling. What else is there? We are not Norway or Japan. And I don;t think we're going to become them, certainly any time soon.

            So what do we do?

      •  Oh and here's something I wrote that you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annieli, wasatch

        might find interesting. Granted it was written in 2010 but I'm still in favor of these things to reduce gun violence and death (and in fact all unnecessary violence and deaths).

        I realize we'll end up with some new gun regulations. And individual gun owners will disagree. But I have to say that just restricting guns alone is not going to get us the results we want. That's not to say we can't do anything. I think we must. the question is what can we do in the area of regulation that 1) respects the rights of gun ownership in America; 2) makes it less likely that those guns are used to commit crimes and 3) what's possible politically. (and 4 - being a partisan that I am - how do we do this without giving the right wing one of their favorite electoral planks. remember guns, god and gays? well, they've lost the gays argument, hands down. the god argument is in full swing but they're losing ground very quickly there too. americans are fast becoming less religious. All that's left is guns. let's be smart about this issue politically.  that may sound cynical, but we can't enact anything if we don't win. nationally it may not make a difference, but on a house district level it might. let's not go fucking ourselves unnecessarily). If I had MY way I'd be forcing the RIGHT to start advocating social programs just so we don't "talk about their guns". But I;m a bitch, so.

        Here's the piece I think you'll like.

    •  Those are not facts (0+ / 0-)
      And let's stick to the facts as they ARE not as some raging lunatic imagines them to be.

      The facts are: there will be some gun control legislation.

      That's a prediction, not a fact.
      This guy is creating fantasies in an alternate reality.

      Let's not us do the same, eh?

      Please demonstrate how my post did that. Thanks.

      Self-described political "centrists" believe the best policy is halfway between right and wrong. — @RBReich via web

      by BentLiberal on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:08:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure I was responding to you so I;m not (0+ / 0-)

        sure what I;m supposed to address.

        y original comment was a response to someone who said no RKBAewr would denounce this crazy "army of insurrectionists" guy.

        I found that ridiculous. No RKBAer would advocate what this guy said. And to actually say so is ridiculous.

        People here may disagree with some RKBAers positions on gun control but to conflate that with disagreement with somehow advocating or endorsing or at the least not being willing to denounce this moron who is actively calling for armed insurrection is just ridiculous. Shocking, really. And that's why I said "I was an RKBAer and I denounce it". After that, the thread got into other related policy topics.

        Is that what you're talking about? Because other than the original comment, I'm not sure what you want to address.

        •  Yes, you hit reply to my comment (0+ / 0-)

          That's how I came to read it.

          I'm not sure I was responding to you so I;m not (0+ / 0-)

          sure what I;m supposed to address.

          But since you're not even sure who you were responding to, I guess that explains the lack of context to mine (which you replied to)


          Thanks for this at least:

          You're right. maybe there'll legislation, maybe not

          Self-described political "centrists" believe the best policy is halfway between right and wrong. — @RBReich via web

          by BentLiberal on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 02:19:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  And as for the prediction: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You're right. maybe there'll legislation, maybe not.

        what's being proposed right now is a ban or restriction on high capacity magazines and military style assault weapons as well as reinstitution the 1984 assault weapon ban. It looks also some form on universal background checking even at gun shows is being proposed.

        maybe these will happen. maybe not. I'm prepared to go apoplectic either way. and I say this as a gun owner. others will feel more strongly, i'm sure. I'm not opposed to any of these proposed changes.

        my only point was that these regulations may have a place in reforms but if we really want to reduce gun deaths we have to look at the leading causes of them. Suicides and domestic disturbance deaths by guns far outnumber the mass murders. And while an assault rifle ban and the magazine restrictions will (or may) reduce carnage at mass shootings (however rare). But what of the other 95% of gun deaths? the suicides that are happening with legally owned guns that are not AR-15s or 30 rounds of ammo. Just simple six shooter revolvers or such? what can we do to prevent that abusive spouse who  the police know on a first name basis but who legally owns weapons from finally killing the wife he;s been beating to a pulp for 20 years?

        Those are the bulk of your gun deaths, there. Not as shocking as the CT shootings, sure. But they happen everyday. Another 26 or so will be dead today by midnight.

        What are we doing about those and are these regulations actually doing anything about them or are they just helping us prevent the SHOCK of the mass murders?

        If we're serious about lower actual gun deaths, we have to deal with these issues as well. Again, I'm not opposed to the proposals being offered. I just want people to realize that these will cause a significant drop in annual gun deaths. They can't because the majority of gun deaths have nothing to do with 30 round clips, AR-15s or illegal weapons.

        Short of banning all guns and literally making owning one illegal, AND confiscating the 250 million+ guns already in circulation, I'm not sure how we stop a suicidal kid from using it to kill himself. But I have some ideas. Like, mental health care. And serious penalties for parents who's kids access these gun in the home. And possibly even some type of insurance availability. Or something. But no one is talking about this. We're all talking about AR-15s. And 30 round clips. Meanwhile there's a kid right now THIS SECOND who's thinking of blowing his brains out.

        What are are going to do about that?

      •  edit: I'm *NOT* prepared to go apoplectic either (0+ / 0-)


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site