Skip to main content

View Diary: The RKBA From the Left - A Matter of Trust (375 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  asdf (11+ / 0-)
    "Responsible" and "law abiding" people take all laws personally; why would you care if a law prevents you from doing something that you were never going to do anyway?
    Because I have and will continue to own items that are covered by DiFi's AWB. It would prevent me from owning a couple pieces of history, including my grandpa's deer rifle, a Garand that fought the Nazis and others. It isn't ownership that is the problem. It's use of firearms in an illegal. 300+ million firearms in the country. Closing the barn door after the cows escape isn't helpful.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:30:59 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  but leaving it wide open will solve everything? (6+ / 0-)
      Closing the barn door after the cows escape isn't helpful.
      Obviously laws aren't retroactive, so there will always be someone who gets away with something that they should never have been able to do in the first place.  But taking that fact and arguing what ... that there's no point in regulating behavior at all?  I don't buy that.  If the legislative and law enforcement apparatus is going its job, then the first guy who tries something might get away with it, but no-one else will.  Bad people will constantly be testing our society - like weeds growing in the cracks of a sidewalk - probing our weaknesses and outright inventing new ways to get rich and hurt people.  But the point is to do something about it, not shrug our shoulders because "Freedom!"  What does it mean when freedom benefits the bad guys more than it does us?

      Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

      by Visceral on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:49:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have no problem regulating behaviour. (8+ / 0-)

        I'm not saying don't do anything. And I'm curious as to see how freedom benefits the bad guys more so than me. The lack of freedom benefits them more than me since they know I won't be armed.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:03:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let me continue: (8+ / 0-)

          in the sense the what I'm doing does direct harm to someone.

          Regulating my behaviour with regards to what I do on my own property that endangers nobody is a problem I have.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:19:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, now I see the disconnect (5+ / 0-)

            You're arguing a very specific case in the name of a personal interest.  I'm arguing a very general principle in the name of public interest.

            My dad is in a classic car club: its older (and invariably conservative Republican) members are often worried about "environmentalists" plotting to take away their classic cars with old and/or powerful engines in them, or at least prevent them from actually being driven.  This belief leads them to oppose all regulations concerning fuel efficiency and emissions, even for new cars or clunkers with no historical or aesthetic interest.

            The obvious solution is to carve out a particular exemption (antique guns, classic cars, etc.) from a broad law, not oppose the broad law (gun control, tight emissions standards, etc.) in order to protect a particular case.  Even older cars than theirs that simply can't go fast enough to drive on major roads and/or are flimsily built and offer little in the way of occupant protection can get special license plates that allow them to be driven on some roads (with low speed limits) but not on others.  Brand spanking new Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (think glorified golf cars) are subject to similar restrictions.

            Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

            by Visceral on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:42:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually I'm arguing for millions of firearm (7+ / 0-)

              owners, not just me. Though you might've meant in the personal sense for those million.

              The problem is, I don't see restriction on rifles (which is what an 'assault weapon' is) doing much of ANYTHING to cut back on firearm related crime. So you're infringing for little to no effect.

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:46:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  an AW ban is itself a particular law (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oldpunk, PsychoSavannah, poco

                You're right in the sense that banning "assault weapons" won't do much of anything to cut down on gun crime perpetrated with handguns, single-shot rifles/shotguns ... not least because the criminals can simply switch.  Of course, since all gun crime is bad, not only does that say to me that an AW ban can stand on its own as good, it also suggests to me that a much broader law (all firearms) would be justifiable ... at least as a strong point from which to begin negotiations, from which exemptions can then be made to suit particular interests.

                And that doesn't even address the issue of background checks, mental health evaluations, gun registration, closing the gun show loophole, cutting down on people amassing arsenals, etc.  You don't have to ban anything in order to push for those restrictions, but a lot of gun owners fight them anyway.

                Intent is meaningless without ability.  Deprive criminals of the means to massacre large numbers of people, and their intent to do so becomes less of an issue.  That's why people like me insist on addressing the guns themselves.  We should still work hard on violent people (mental health services, drug rehab, economic development, and the rest of the liberal/progressive program) but I would prefer to wage this war on two fronts.

                Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

                by Visceral on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:05:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I will push back just as hard, if not harder (7+ / 0-)

                  against onerous firearm restrictions.

                  Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:10:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What are onerous firearm restrictions? (0+ / 0-)

                    Let's say  I own a .40 caliber S&W handgun, a sport shooting rifle, and a hunting rifle. Just like my car and my CPA business license, I have to register it every year, confirm my ownership, and pay a registration fee.  Just like the city ordinances determine how many people can legally drive in my car or live in my house, I am permitted just the 3 guns, as they serve each purpose to which a gun is needed, but are restricted beyond that as additional guns, just like overcrowded cars and houses, create a dangerous situation.

                    For my CPA public accountant license, when I update my registration for the year, the state licensing authority will do a background check and ensure I haven't been convicted of any crime, and may, on a random basis, require me to submit my professional education certifications.  So, for my guns, the same is done - a background check every year, checking on my criminal and medical records to see that I can still legally/responsibly still own a gun.

                    Just like my relatives can report to the DMV if I'm driving drunk, or if my eyesight is failing / health problems that prevent me from being a good driver, the same process can exist with the gun registration agency - I can report my idiot nephew who gets high and walks around with his gun, my poor niece who suffered a mental breakdown and shouldn't have a gun, my elderly father who is no longer competent to use a gun.

                    How are these onerous restrictions? Now, I get it, I don't have a constitutional right to own a car or have a CPA license, but if these are reasonable restrictions on my livelihood and my primary means of transportation and living conditions, why should a gun not be subject to the same type reasonable restrictions?

                    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

                    by absdoggy on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:07:52 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Responses: (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon, PavePusher, ancblu
                      Let's say  I own a .40 caliber S&W handgun, a sport shooting rifle, and a hunting rifle. Just like my car and my CPA business license, I have to register it every year, confirm my ownership, and pay a registration fee.  Just like the city ordinances determine how many people can legally drive in my car or live in my house, I am permitted just the 3 guns, as they serve each purpose to which a gun is needed, but are restricted beyond that as additional guns, just like overcrowded cars and houses, create a dangerous situation.
                      No registration. It leads to confiscation. See New York. See DiFi's proposed AWB. See the SKS in Cali.

                      No fees to own a firearm. Poll tax. Firearm ownership is a civil right enshrined in the Constitution.

                      Rights aren't based on need. Owning firearms and keeping them on your property isn't something the government should stick it's nose in (I'll make an exception for laws saying you're liable if your kid [or someone else's] gets their hands on your gun).  

                      So, for my guns, the same is done - a background check every year, checking on my criminal and medical records to see that I can still legally/responsibly still own a gun.
                      Nope. No registration. See above.
                      Just like my relatives can report to the DMV if I'm driving drunk, or if my eyesight is failing / health problems that prevent me from being a good driver, the same process can exist with the gun registration agency - I can report my idiot nephew who gets high and walks around with his gun, my poor niece who suffered a mental breakdown and shouldn't have a gun, my elderly father who is no longer competent to use a gun.
                      Do that now, but report the person to local police. Again, no registration.
                      why should a gun not be subject to the same type reasonable restrictions?
                      Because they're not reasonable. Not when it comes to civil rights. Would you like to register each year for your freedom of speech rights? Make sure you haven't become mentally incompetent or a criminal in the meantime?

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:29:02 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  An AWB won't do (4+ / 0-)

                  much of anything, considering that they are used in less than 1% of all murders.

                  "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                  by happy camper on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 10:47:46 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  then you were too glib for me to see your point (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too, a2nite, PsychoSavannah

          If you support regulation then why were you complaining in reply to my original comment?

          Freedom benefits bad people because good people are already imposing internal controls on themselves, while bad people do not.  Therefore, absent external controls, bad people (i.e. people with few or no internal controls) will run amok with negative consequences for everyone around them.  If the legal limits of freedom correspond to the boundaries of your own personal code, why would you care if the limits to freedom exist?

          Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

          by Visceral on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:24:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (122)
  • Community (57)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (37)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Culture (28)
  • Media (27)
  • Climate Change (26)
  • Spam (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Texas (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site