Normally, we have a diary on Tuesdays in the morning, but we were missing out on all the west coast commentary.
So we decided to try something different and go with a multi-authored diary under a subject specific diarist.
Each person's contribution is copy/pasted with no editing and is clearly shown as that person's.
I hope you enjoy this new experiment!
RKBA is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you. RKBA stands for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Today, we have a small blurb from the founder himself (from an open thread.) link
RKBA question (2+ / 0-)
Markos,
There is a small but growing group here on DailyKos that believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Like Howard Dean -- and apparently Obama -- we are tired of surrendering this issue to the Republicans and losing elections to the (hated) NRA.
Do you have an opinion on this, or do you (perhaps wisely) prefer to remain silent?
"She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon
by Tom Seaview on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:26:25 PM PST
* [new] Who the heck (7+ / 0-)
is talking about gun control anymore? That issue is dead.
In fact, the only people that seem to talk about this are the wingnuts who claim Obama is taking their guns away.
by kos on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 02:31:49 PM PST
* [new] We hope it's dead... (1+ / 0-)
...but the NRA is screaming to their members, and to every gun owner, that the issue is NOT dead.
You should have seen "Obama's Ten Point Plan to Confiscate Your Guns" in the summer of 2008. Several wallet-sized copies of the entirely fictional plan were bound into every NRA magazine, and they were all over the place at the shooting range.
So far, Obama has followed Howard Dean's example... and we're hoping he continues.
"She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon
by Tom Seaview on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 04:03:58 PM PST
From Merry Light, we have the Castle Doctrine in Colorado:
Although the guns in my house are more effective as clubs in case of an intruder (they're not loaded, and the bullets reside far away from them), I still support the "make my day" law. This law is one that is on the books in many states which, in short, says that one can use deadly force in protecting one’s home. It’s also known as the castle doctrine.
Makes sense, really. If a bad person enters my home and tries to hurt me or mine, I’ve got the right to defend myself. I don’t think my spouse and I would go down without a fight, anyway. Spousal unit keeps a golf club near the bed, which is just as deadly.
This law, which in Colorado is Revised Statute Section 18-1-704 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of A Person. reads, in part, "1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
- Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate..."
Guns and golf clubs – each can be deadly and we as citizens are justified in using them to protect ourselves and our loved ones. It would be great if we didn’t have to worry about it. Hopefully, 99.9% of us never will. But I think it’s a great idea to be prepared for the unthinkable, and have it never happen.
From KVoimakas, we have Michigan statistics.
In the Detroit Free Press, there was a recent article (a couple weeks back) that showed that gun permits in Michigan doubled last year.
Applications and approvals for concealed weapons permits in Michigan doubled last year, as more than 73,000 people sought to obtain or renew licenses in the 12 months ending June 30, and 66,446 were approved, according to a recently released state police report.
That compared to 33,411 applications and 26,578 approvals in the preceding 12-month period.
I have yet to see a bloodbath sweep the state. To be fair, the civilian population of the state that can carry is miniscule compared to the actual number of people in the state. 220,422 with permits (according to the MSP) out of an estimated population of just over 10 million (10,003,422) is roughly 2%.
On a side note, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which makes up almost 33% of the state, only holds about 3% (estimated) of the population.
Thus endeth the statistics.
To wrap up the body part of this diary, we have Tom Seaview and some interesting discussion about Amtrack.
Before September 11th, firearms were handled on Amtrak as they are carried to this day on airlines: they were transported in a locked container inside checked baggage. No violence has ever resulted from firearms in checked baggage on a plane or train.
In the post-9/11 hysteria, Amtrak banned firearms in checked baggage after the Madrid bombings, despite the complete lack of evidence that this would increase security (and the fact that neither attack involved firearms). The airlines did not. People who travel with firearms, now barred from Amtrak, were forced to fly or drive to their destinations despite the increased environmental and financial cost. Criminals who illegally carry concealed weapons continued to take Amtrak trains with impunity, as there was (and still is) only random screening of passengers and their belongings before they board a train.
Last year, the Senate took up a bill to restore the right to transport unloaded, locked firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. From some reactions on the Left, one would have thought they were proposing shooting competitions in the dining car. While most news articles (and diarists here on DKos) correctly reported the true scope of the law, many commenters went absolutely apeshit. A few reactions:
HuffPo, September 19:
"Are you seriously kidding me? You can't take toothpaste on a plane but a gun on a train is A-Ok? What about the Americans who have a right to travel safely? How about Americans who don't want guns on a train? Who are these people and why on this green earth are we letting them get away with this crap????"
"Oh great! Let's make sure they get in "good" with the NRA and to hell with the people riding Amtrak who want a safe haven from violence! As long as the corporation can get their wants fulfilled, and these Senators can fill their coffers with NRA contributions, we will never be the country our founding fathers envisioned.
Our country is headed for absolute disaster!"
"So now I won't be going to Arizona, Texas or Florida anymore because one can carry firearms in public and go to bars with guns. I won't be going to National Parks because some crazy might accidentally shoot me and now I won't be taking a Amtrak train because some crazy can carry a gun on them. These gun laws are insane and out of control. Ironically I'm more afraid of the gun nuts in the US than the terrorists from the Middle East. (which I have never been afraid of)"
One DKos diarist completely missed the point:
"This is a joke. No one would allow guns on airplanes but you can bring a gun on a train? You would have to allow cross boundary allowances for conceal carry wouldn't you? Didn't that just fail? South Dakota Senator John Thune had a major failure with that?"
Some commenters tried to correct the diarist, but others piled on with hyperbolic speculation on the effects they imagined from the bill that was never proposed. One commenter concluded that "carrying a gun everywhere you go does fulfill a psychological need." Another chose agoraphobia over reason:
"So you’ll be able to bring guns on trains and into federal parks and, in some states, churches and bars? I'm staying home."
A reply assured the commenter that fear was "the intended purpose:"
"Intimidating people who don't carry guns is the goal of the gun nuts. Bullies want you to feel frightened as it helps them feel powerful. As an added bonus, it might help kill Amtrak right before the national focus becomes climate-change reforms. Convenient.
We're all supposed to pretend that this is ok and poses no risk to public safety."
These reactions, like some of the comments we get in our RKBA diaries, most resemble the Republican reactions to Democratic legislation: angry, illogical, dishonest, and unrelated to the actual facts involved.