Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: A point or two (900 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As I said in triple b's diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, murrayewv

    I think that guys kind are very few in number.  And of that number most would in fact give up their (assuming no banned) illegal weapons if faced with a legal order to do so. Most guys who talk like that are in fact full of shit. Tough talk is easy. Tough action is a lot harder... armed or not.

    However... those even fewer that would in fact shoot when faced with a legal order to give up illegal guns are most likely armed to the gills... guns sales have increased while the percentage of the population owning guns has decreased... and would in fact reenact Ruby Ridge and Waco.

    That's not good.

    And while I do not agree that they are the reason to further regulate weaponry, I do agree that they are a prime reason to outlaw assault weapons and high capacity magazines, etc.

    So... in answer to your numbers...

    1. I agree and I fully expect that 98% of reasonable, responsible gun owners agree... that's part of why you and they fall into the category of responsible gun owners.

    2. I showed how and why I disagree with you above

    2a. Yes, in fact I think a new assault weapons ban will pass... eventually. But... it won't happen overnight and it won't result in mass confiscations of existing weapons.

    2b. see above... and that is part of why I don't think new legislation will result in mass confiscations... too dangerous to law enforcement and innocent bystanders

    Not 2b. Agreed

    3. most of us have no desire to disarm most gun owners... and legislation to make that happen... won't happen. Not a chance. Won't be proposed. Won't be taken up. Won't be passed.

    4. No laughing matter... but nimwits like that guy are no reason to not do the right thing either. While, as I said above, they are not the prime reason for further regulation of weaponry they sure as shit can't be allowed, as they and the NRA have been for the last few decades, to stop us from passing reasonable, responsible regulation of weaponry.

    As for the blockquote points:

    Americans widely believe that there is a right to bear arms but many -- gun owners in particular -- do not believe Democrats share this belief.
    Propaganda is like that. Also not a good reason not to do the right thing. Just a good reason to be better at educating people and not allowing bullshit propaganda to rule the day.
    As gun owners represent almost four in ten Americans this perception impedes efforts to create a durable Democratic majority.
    The number of gun owners is decreasing and I do not believe has any correlation on the ability of Democrats to form a durable majority. The money and fear of the money of the NRA does and that needs defeating and now is our best time to defeat it not give in to it in any way or form.
    Silence is not the answer since Democrats who do not speak out on gun issues are presumed to oppose gun rights.
    Completely agreed. Hence now being exactly the right time for Democrats to speak up and speak out on what reasonable, responsible weapons regulation should look like.
    By becoming both pro safety and pro gun rights, Democrats can do right on both the politics and policy and make a realignment of a sizeable portion of gun owners possible.
    These gains can occur without losing either Democratic base voters and while gaining among swing voters who reject the traditional GOP-backed alternative positioning.
    Again, agreed... except in that by using the word "becoming" to open that paragraph it feeds into the right wing propaganda that wrongly implies Democrats are not already by and large pro safety and pro gun rights. People have a right under out constitution to own guns. The government has a right to regulate that ownership. That's just the way it is.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:21:08 AM PST

    •  This assertion is completely false (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher

      and I'm at a loss how that is not evident to you:

      The number of gun owners is decreasing and I do not believe has any correlation on the ability of Democrats to form a durable majority.
      Look at this recent senate vote on an amendment to allow concealed carry across state lines then do a quick count of how many democrats voted aye:

      http://votesmart.org/...

      By my count, there are at least 16 members of the Democratic caucus who represent states in which a vote for most gun control measures (and assuredly outright bans) would be political suicide.

      •  Correlation does not equal causation (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, coquiero

        nor does a vote for or against a particular bill equal the single cause why a particular party does or does not have a majority.

        Guns rights are an important issue. It's important that politicians be smart in how they handle it. But your assertion remains unproven and mine is actually based in a demonstrable fact important both to the issue (# of gun owners) and the position I've taken (that their decrease in number means a decrease in meaningfulness as part of the electorate).

        I stand by my statement.

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:56:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uhh ... oh really? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          Study up on the 1994 AWB, when it was enacted and signed into law, then tell me again what happened to our House Democratic majority and how this supports your case and not mine.

          You seem to have some fanciful notion that ignoring the historical realities and merely asserting you are right and I am wrong somehow validates your point.

          So instead of serving up pendatic irrelevancies about causation and correlation, kindly respond to my fact-based argument that at least 16 members of the current Democratic caucus represent states and constituencies that will not allow them to support draconian firearms bans.  The price will be their defeat ... and that defeats your ridiculous suggestion that there would be no correlation to the ability of Democrats to form a durable majority. We have already seen otherwise historically and also I say with reference to the here and now as a resident of a red state with a Democratic Senator who I assure you would lose overwhelmingly if he pursued an anti gun rights agenda.

          •  Well... my reply was a bit snarky (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ancblu, coquiero, poco

            and I apologize for that. You of course have a good point that gun laws are a contentious issue and that several lawmakers were indeed thrown out of office by the NRA back in the '90's.

            I did not deny that in my original post nor do I deny it now.

            But I still stand by my comment and I do so for a few reasons.

            One is that this is now not then. Public opinion has changed.

            Two is what I stated above, gun ownership is down. It has been dropping consistently and that means that while the voters that do vote on this issue primarily do so loudly they are still fewer votes not more votes.

            Three... while I think that Democrats should approach the issue wisely and expect that some of them will be endagered by voting for weapons regulation that the exactly wrong approach is a scared one that treats it like third rail politics. It's not. Those of us who believe is reasonable, responsible gun regulation are going to win this issue and part of how that will happen will be based on the courage of convictions and not the fear of the NRA. We've learned from the 90's and 00's that letting the other side dictate the issues we dare and dare not talk about is a losing strategy and politicking in fear of the other side is a losing strategy.

            Lastly, and here is why I originally gave you a snap response, I stated an opinion as an opinion. You responded by telling me I was factly wrong and then pointed at something that could only back up an opinion. I think your opinion on the matter has merit. I think your assertion of your opinion as fact is overboard.

            "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

            by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:22:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well ... thank you for (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Andrew C White

              that effort at having a constructive discussion here.  I appreciate that.

              With respect to the "here and now' first point you mention -- I have made an effort to emphasize that as well and also acknowledge some indication of change in public opinon polling.  

              Two points here ... as the recent presidential election polling showed, national polling numbers don't necessarily reflect more meaningful "granular" analysis at the state and local level.  It may be that aggregate numbers show a "closer" race, or in this case movement toward the "some control" side of the debate.  However, the political reality remains that successful legislation requires votes of senators and representatives of states and districts that will not be tolerant of anti-gun restrictions.  

              The House is well-recognized to disproportionately represent rural interests -- and if we both agree on that point then the House is the harder nut to crack for your case.  In the Senate, and consistent with Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy which I firmly support, the Democratic majority includes states such as Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, Colorado, Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, etc.  All of these states fairly strongly favor gun rights over gun control and preserving the Democratic majority requires accomodation of that fact, which seems to me to be a rather unassailable reality.  If we disagree on that, so be it.

              Second, I do agree ... over the last decade and longer, US household gun ownership has certainly declined from over 50% to now below it.  The figures still reside in the 40% + range however and last year the number spiked back up to 47%.  Whatever the actual decline, household gun ownership is still a big number and this does have political implications and significance that would be ignored at our peril as liberals, progressives or Democrats.

              Third, neither I nor any RKBA member or 2nd Amendment supporter here on DK of whom I'm aware has taken the view that "reasonable regulation" is inappropriate or that the NRA is an organization to be followed or feared.   In fact, the opposite on both counts is the truer statement.  The better question then arises ... what is reasonable regulation?  And this answer involves a great many considerations -- whether of policy or politics -- and it is important that we make a serious effort to get it right on both metrics.

              Lastly, I don't really understand the argument.  You made a assertion that effectively dismissed adverse impact on the the Dems ability to hold onto its majority.  I disagree and offered both a contemporary and historical point of reference to support my point.  

              In any event, I respect that you might hold a different perspective on these various points of an important issue and appreciate the opportunity to exchange views.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (71)
  • Baltimore (68)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Elections (28)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Law (19)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Media (19)
  • Science (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Barack Obama (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site