Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: Liberal Alternative to the NRA (354 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And that misplaced fear means "be more like NRA". (15+ / 0-)

    One of the problems with the RKBA group here is that there really isn't much "alternative" in what they want and what the NRA wants, in terms of guns.  Same guff, different label.

    That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

    by Inland on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 07:06:03 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, it is a "Gun Club" and thus is pro-gun (12+ / 0-)

      This might be a reach, but even liberals who own guns cannot be expected to be against private gun ownership. This does not put them in lockstep with the NRA.

      With regard to compatibility with the NRA, from what I gather what most LGC members seem to find distasteful is all the ultra-right-wing baggage. The NRA is wrapped up in family values nonsense and anti-science causes. Few of us want to give money to an organization in support of gun rights to have that organization spend it on climate change denial. Additionally, the NRA's leadership does much to harm the cause of supporting RKBA--such as every time Wayne LaPierre opens his mouth.

      Many posting here seem disappointed that members of the LGC do not appear to stand firmly for banning guns and magazines that other Democratic-types might find frightening looking or for supporting proposals championed by the Vice President even though he has publicly stated that they will not be effective.

      Just as there are plenty of LGC members who are for an AWB and mag bans, there are some who believe the focus of curbing violence should be on mental health and the root causes of violence instead of on hardware.

      The idea that LGC members should have to pass some sort of Democratic party line litmus test on gun control is ludicrous.

      •  Your comment is in lockstep with the NRA. (5+ / 0-)
        This might be a reach, but even liberals who own guns cannot be expected to be against private gun ownership. This does not put them in lockstep with the NRA.
        The raising of the strawman of "being against private gun ownership" is exactly the sort of bullshit that the NRA keeps pretending exists.

        You want to know where there are liberals who don't agree with ending private ownership of guns?  Everywhere.  If this club is premised on the idea that there has to be a push back against none existent gun grabbers, then it might as well be the NRA.

        The idea that LGC members should have to pass some sort of Democratic party line litmus test on gun control is ludicrous.
        I'd settle for you not making up the "democratic party line" in order to join forces with the NRA on the only issues the NRA cares about.

        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

        by Inland on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:33:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Strawman? (7+ / 0-)

          "And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal."
          Pete Shields, quoted in The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58

          Chairman of HCI, 78-89.

          I'm open to arguing his position and that of today's advocates on their merits, but it's more than annoying to hear something I've seen for myself described as "bullshit", "pretending", and "non existent".

          Isn't it consistent with liberalism to legalize people having hobbies others don't understand, subject to minimizing the harm to others?

          Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:19:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, you aren't open to arguing on the merits. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, Miss Blue

            Going back to 1976 to a nobody who wasn't even trying to ban private ownership.  He was going for licenses.  That's the best you can do in trying to defend a post where it's implied that there's a litmus test of banning private ownership?  A nobody from 40 years ago?

            I don't know if you're trying to be funny or what.

            I'm open to arguing his position and that of today's advocates on their merits, but it's more than annoying to hear something I've seen for myself described as "bullshit", "pretending", and "non existent".
            No, you aren't willing to argue today's proposals on the merits, because you're to busy fighting strawmen.  Jesus.  Can't you guys take "yes" for an answer?  I say nobody is trying to ban private gun ownership, and instead of saying "Glad to hear it", and looking at the actual proposals, you're picking a fight between yourself and a strawman.

            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

            by Inland on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:45:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Handgun Control Inc. (5+ / 0-)

              Is now the Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence.

              I doubt they've changed their goals. And if the total elimination of private firearms ownership were proposed, do you really think they'd oppose it? Since they've never opposed any gun control law, no matter how drcoian, and have said that the strictest laws in the country don't go far enough, I don't think there's anywhere short of a total ban that they'd say, "OK, that's far enough, we can stop now."

              The steps they propose are incremental by design. But they have no end point short of a total ban. That has always been the goal.

              --Shannon

              "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
              "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

              by Leftie Gunner on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:10:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  "straw man" can be looked up online (9+ / 0-)

          Also, a litmus test was posted earlier in this hopeless thread. It was not mine.

          Anyone who insists on believing that a liberal-minded gun club must be in lockstep with the NRA simply by virtue of the fact that the club does not overtly support limits on 2A that meet with some nebulous standards of liberalism is free to do so. LGC membership is, after all, voluntary.

          •  Sure, you don't HAVE to be lockstep w/NRA. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tytalus, Miss Blue, coquiero

            But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and differing with the NRA on climate change isn't what we are talking about.

            You know what would best prove you aren't in lockstep with the NRA? Advocating different policies instead of wallowing in quibbles and straw man talking points that echo its propaganda.  Any time you're ready.

            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

            by Inland on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:24:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site