Skip to main content

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, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.RKBA stands for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

So this is a personal diary about some recent experiences I have had around the right to keep and bear arms. I'd like to talk about some of my reasons why I believe in the RKBA and what I have done to secure those rights for myself.

As an introduction, let me tell you a little about me. I am a 33 year old woman who works in the IT industry as a software engineer. A spinster, an independent, which to me means the same the thing as progressive. I always thought progress means the best ideas are allowed to come forward, and most of the time, the best ideas have no political or ideological label attached to them. To date, I believe the Democratic party is our only hope to achieve true progress, but I will always listen to anyone who has a good idea - no matter how unpopular because that's progress.

After 11 months of unemployment and caring for an elderly mother sick with a rare cancer, I landed a job in Massachusetts, and found myself needing to move back there, because I am tired of the hero commutes which I did for years. IMO, they are a BIG waste. I understand why people do them, but my time and money have become more valuable and needed than ever, so I did move back. Luckily for me my mother was able to get some abilities back, and I am able to move on with my life, mostly.

After watching the economy implode since Dubya took office, I really began to worry about the state of the nation. I consider myself to be an 'educated' person. I know 20th century history. I know what happened in Germany, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Nigeria, Serbia, Lebanon, and many other countries that have gone through violent uprisings, brought on by religious hatred, embezzlement, financial mismanagement, resource depletion, and brutal military dictatorships. I also know the history of my own country. I know it was colonists, some enlisted, some not, 'Solder farmers' who won our freedom from an oppressive military regime. We used violence (as a last resort, I would like to think) to gain the freedom we have today.

I have also witnessed the rampant corruption and abdication of our voter appointed government. And largely speaking, I am not talking about the current president, or any other president for that matter. (The federal reserve deserves mentioning, but in another diary.) I am talking about what has happened to our Congress and Senate. Through the influence of lobbying and horse trading, they have allowed America to become hollowed out economically. The 'masters of the universe' on Wall Street who orchestrated the greatest transfer of wealth ever - well, we should not be surprised they wanted to do that. We should be BLOODY PISSED the people we sent to Washington allowed it. We are no longer a strong nation, and they have placed the entire future of the United States at severe risk. There are now over 40 million people on food stamps. Here in Massachusetts, last I was told, the waiting list for public housing is over 8 years. The US is the #1 jailer in the world. The national debt is over 13 trillion dollars. Many states are bankrupt or insolvent.

What is my point? The point is the US is getting more and more unstable. As people become more and more unable to provide for themselves, they become more and more desperate. Morality becomes very provisional if you have hungry kids who are cold. The Nazi's came to power in such a way, when Germany's money was worth nothing, and the Jews were a convenient scapegoat. If you look at 'high crime' areas of anywhere in the US, you always find concentrated levels of multi-generational poverty.

I don't want to be a victim of someone else's desperation or sociopathy. I want to be able to provide for myself as much as possible and still have community. That to me is an American attitude. We are not helpless people and we are not victims - if we can help it.

So I decided that I would exercise my right to keep and bear arms.

Each state has their own requirements for gun ownership and licensing. In New Hampshire, where I am originally from, the laws are not strict, in my opinion. In Massachusetts they are.

A few weeks ago, I took my basic firearm safety course from a qualified instructor here in Massachusetts. This is required by law, and I have to say, I am very glad that I did. While having fired several rifles in my time, I knew very little about handguns. The instructor was very experienced and treated everyone in the class with respect, and every question was answered with integrity. I never felt intimidated. It helped me think about the privilege and the great responsibilities that come with gun ownership and if I really wanted to take this all the way. The thought of a gun accident makes me sick to my stomach.

Afterward, the instructor even went with me to a local security company, so I could pick out a security safe for the handgun I want to purchase.

The second requirement in Massachusetts is a review by the licensing board. They don't just let anyone own a gun. Felons cannot own guns. People who have been hospitalized for mental illnesses cannot own guns. People with restraining orders....you get the point.

I was also finger printed, photographed, and my physical description taken. I would say it was almost like being arrested, but I have never been arrested before. I wasn't particularly keen on this step. I know those records are being sent to DHS. I don't like the idea that DHS can have this information about me when I have never been convicted or even arrested. But that's how it is. Mass requires finger prints, and law enforcement is required to share with the FBI, ATF, CIA, and NSA. I think it's the first step towards confiscation - which is completely unconstitutional, but it might happen in a 'national emergency', when the constitution doesn't seem to matter. Remember Hurricane Katrina right? The national guard confiscated guns. Blackwater / XE  rolled through the streets. Mercenaries working in America - and they didn't even have a contract to do so.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I think of guns in the same way I think about farming. They are both part of our enduring heritage as Americans. Guns are tools which we can use. A police officer uses his/hers always to defend life. The officers life or a civilian's life. We can and should do the same. We should not have to rely the government to protect us in all situations, because they can't. We should have police, we should have the courts of law to settle our disputes and prosecute offenders. We should have a military. But we also need to be prepared to do it for ourselves when it is needed. And as we enter a new economic reality, those government resources will become more and more strained as budgets shrink. Owning a firearm is about standing up for yourself.

You can also use them to feed your family with.

I am going to offer up a couple of plugs.

My firearm safety instructor is Michael Burchman, his website is http://www.homegunsafety.com/. I highly recommend him.

Eastern Security Safes are wonderful resource for anyone looking to buy a safe for the home or business, I was very satisfied with my purchase there.

This is the Captain, signing off.

Originally posted to Captain Janeway on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 04:47 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the diary! (15+ / 0-)

    I thoroughly enjoyed it.

    (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 04:50:20 AM PDT

  •  Licensing (5+ / 0-)

    I fail to see how strict licensing requirements, for carrying, transporting, or using a gun, in any way impinge on the so-called right to keep and bear arms, any more than strict licensing requirements for driving an 18 wheeler loaded with gasoline impinge on interstate commerce.

    •  Licensing/registration leads to restriction. (11+ / 0-)

      As pointed our in the diary itself.

      (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 05:05:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Appropriate restriction. Sane restriction. (4+ / 0-)

        As in, preventing convicted felons or those with a history of perpetrating domestic violence from owning lethal weapons.

        If we permit everyone, without regard to sanity, criminal record, or history of malicious violence to own lethal weapons, what do we get?

        Baghdad!

        •  since that is already the law I guess we don't (11+ / 0-)

          need any more regulation .......  sounds good to me.....

        •  Bad example you use (8+ / 0-)

          Baghdad was very peaceful until we invaded.  

          But I almost agree with your points, almost.  

          While I don't think it's sane to allow violent repeat offenders to have arms...As our Constitution is currently written...to deny arms to anyone goes directly against it.

          And here are some extreme examples I've read recently on how they are disarming Americans.

          If you are on the no fly list, can't own a gun.  It doesn't matter that you cannot defend or object to being placed on a list that some pencil pusher created.  You're not even allowed to know what actions, words or whatever got you placed on said list.  Clearly Unconstitutional.

          If you've ever seen a psychiatrist or been "deemed" unfit.  This clearly leaves any poor person from exercising said unalienable right.  How do they fight this without money?  There is no due process in this policy, some "doctor" has now become the arbiter...clearly unconstitutional, where's the jury of my peers?

          If you've been convicted and repaid your "debt" to society, how can this be a deciding factor.  If one has "paid their debt" yet still having their transgression used against them in the future, they they can never "repay" that debt.  False logic and clearly unconstitutional.

          But this is what I see wrong with the argument you made.  The only way one could be stripped of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights is to be stripped of their citizenship.  And this is what it appears is being done in our Country today.

          •  I will never agree (7+ / 0-)

            Convicted felons don't get to own guns. Sorry.

            Somehow, in some weird, strange collision of circumstances and amid the vicissitudes of fate, I've managed to remain felony-free and so I get to be a gun owner with a CHL. I understand that if I choose to commit a felony, I will give up the the 2A rights I now enjoy.

            It's pretty simple: Felons don't get guns.

            See, a convicted felon doesn't "pay a debt" to anybody. He doesn't pay jack squat to me, and he doesn't pay diddly to you. The felon has, by his or her actions, demonstrated that he or she has poor self-control. Those aren't the people who get to own firearms.

            The standard argument here goes something like this:

            But... but everything's a felony! You commit felonies every day! If you tear the tag off a pillow it's a felony! And then you lose your God-given, enshrined, existential permanent and inalienable right to own guns!

            However, that argument has a subtext. The person making it has no desire to hand out big firepower to the newly paroled. Rather, the argument is made out of fear that the speaker may, himself, commit a felony and then be out of luck, with respect to ownership of firearms.

            Well boo-hoo-hoo. Don't commit serious crimes then. It's your choice. I really don't want some serial robber or rapist or aggravated assault convict going out and buying shotguns. If a felon really wants his 2A rights back, he can petition for them.

            Oh - but in a state like Alaska, there's no extant framework to do that? Then there's an activist project for you. Now, today, before you commit your felony, work your legislature and ensure that your state has a functional rights-restoration process.

            In my state, a felon can petition for the restoration of all relinquished rights. It requires the backing of law-abiding members of the community who will vouch for your good character, and a record of lawful and socially productive conduct. And that's fine with me. If Mr Felon can prove he is trustworthy, then he's clear to bear arms. But the burden is on him, not me.

            Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

            by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:14:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How can I not tip that? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shadan7, drewfromct, The Raven, Joieau

              Somehow, in some weird, strange collision of circumstances and amid the vicissitudes of fate, I've managed to remain felony-free

              The most impressive thing about man [...] is the fact that he has invented the concept of that which does not exist--Glenn Gould

              by Rich in PA on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:18:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Totally disagree. your sentence should be just (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, oldpunk, KVoimakas, theatre goon

              that with no add ons.  Restricting of Voting, Gun rights and anything else they can think up is directly traceable to Jim Crow .....

              Felons could purchase and own firearms until '68 GCA.

              Which traces directly to the Mulford act and fear of the scary armed black man (Black Panther Party and their Protection Patrols).

              With the justice system we have now, there's way too much injustice to warrant removing a basic human and constitutional right without due process on that subject.  There is none in our current system.

              All rights and privileges of a citizen should be reinstated as soon as the sentence is completed.....

              If there is a reason for any other outcome ie violence, that should be made in trial and be part of the sentence, not an add on that just happens......

              •  When I think of a felon armed with a handgun (0+ / 0-)

                I don't have any particular race in mind. I think of a person who has been found to be willing to commit major, serious crimes.

                Just because that person served time in a penitentiary is no evidence that he or she is now trustworthy enough to be given firearms.

                That burden remains with the felon.

                Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

                by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:22:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Reckless driving (7+ / 0-)

                  is a felony. There are any number of felonies that would appear to have little relationship to the sort of behavior one would presumably not want in a CCW licensee. In addition there are misdemeanors that involve violent behavior.

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

                  by happy camper on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:26:19 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Good example (0+ / 0-)

                    Reckless driving. A person unable to control themselves behind the wheel of several tons of metal hurtling along at high speed.

                    Nope, nothing to do with the good character and judgement we require from gun owners.

                    Also, the way the law tends to work is that people do not get convicted of felonies and do over a year in prison for trivial violations. Normally, when that happens, the charges are plea bargained down. A bona fide felony conviction will usually follow a pattern of criminal behavior and/or have extenuating circumstances.

                    The law should, to some people's way of thinking (and is often explicated in discussions of this subject), differentiate between the violent felon and the non-violent one. That we should contemplate restricting ownership rights for, say, serial rapists, but not for the fellow who embezzles from his employer.

                    So we then have a problem: how to determine exactly what sort of felon deserves to be given firearms, and which sort should not. It clarifies the matter to understand that a convicted felon has been found to be so dangerous as to require barring this person off, away from society, for the protection of law-abiding citizens.

                    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

                    by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:05:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually not all felons (4+ / 0-)

                      do jail time. And as I mentioned, there are misdemeanor convictions every day for violent behavior that result in no more than a slap on the wrist. So the guy who gets a better lawyer who manages to bargain to a lesser charge gets to keep his rights, while the guy with the overworked public defender is convicted...

                      I agree that there are violent, unstable people who should not possess firearms, or carry them around. The "every felon" brush is simply too broad for me.

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

                      by happy camper on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:15:26 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You grasp the situation correctly (0+ / 0-)

                        So the guy who gets a better lawyer who manages to bargain to a lesser charge gets to keep his rights, while the guy with the overworked public defender is convicted...

                        That's how our system operates. Arguing about that seems to be sort of like arguing about the weather.

                        The rate of recidivism is yet another thing to consider. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds that about 2/3 of offenders commit another serious offense after release.

                        Y'know, I worry about a lot of things. Climate change, loss of fresh water, the economy, it's a big list. But nowhere on my list of concerns is a driving desire to put guns into the hands of felons.

                        Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

                        by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:45:27 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  It's a civil and human right thus the burden (4+ / 0-)

                  rests on the state to prove the need to restrict a right.

                  I would have no problem with violent offenders being actually sentenced to a firearms restriction, even for life but to simply abrogate a right for an entire class of people no matter the crime is an overstep of authority imo....

                  I feel the same about voting rights and any other restrictions applied in a blanket fashion like restricting the residence of sex offenders.

                  If it's adjudicated in trial then I'd not have a problem.  

                  As the laws sit, I find them to be an extraordinary infringement on the rights of those who have served their time including any probation/parole.

                  •  Absolutely agreed. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Shadan7, buddabelly, KVoimakas

                    If a judge rules that someone guilty of a violent crime -- whether involving a firearm or not -- loses their right to Keep and Bear Arms, all right, I can see that.

                    But restricting someone's rights to vote or to own a gun because they've had too many traffic violations (which can become a felony?) -- no, I can't get behind that, and will always seek to overturn such a law.

                    You want to restrict someone's right to vote because they've broken voting regulations?  I'm with you.

                    You want to restrict someone's right to own a firearm if they've used a firearm in the commission of a crime?  I'm with that, too.

                    Beyond that -- not so much.

                    •  what state do you live in that turns a common (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas

                      traffic violation into a felony?  My state will suspend your license if you rack up too many tickets but they don't turn speeding tickets into misdemeanors (much less felonies) just because you've accumulated a lot of them.

                      The only criminal traffic citations that I'm aware of are DWI and reckless driving.

                      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                      by Crookshanks on Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 06:40:42 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Guns for convicts! Change you can believe in! (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Personally I believe anyone that lies should (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    lose their right to speak, and your post is a perfect example of it.

                    Where did I advocate "guns for convicts"?  What about the 100's of cases of innocent men on death row for crimes they never committed?
                    See Innocence Project's

                    "There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking the law. Create a nation of lawbreakers and then you can cash in on the guilt. Now that’s the system!"

                         Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

                    •  It's precisely a matter of which error you want. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      The Raven

                      Do you want to err on the side of safety and sanity, by forbidding convicts from owning lethal weapons, knowing that inevitably some unjustly convicted people will be unfairly disarmed?

                      Or do you want to err the other way: default to arming convicted felons unless...what, unless their convictions are somehow "super-proven"? Arm everyone who's not actually in jail?

                      If you're such an absolute purist, insisting that everyone has access to lethal weapons, even if they've been convicted of a crime, then there's no point in us having a discussion. You're arguing on a level of pure, symbolic, and absolute ideology that will gladly accept rivers of blood in the streets in return for preservation of a lethal "right".

                      I will always support your right to your opinion, and your right to speak it, no matter how mistaken I believe you to be. Your apparent eagerness to silence the voices of those you disagree with, together with your embrace of lethal weaponry, is a disturbing combination.

                      •  So, you only support those parts of the (4+ / 0-)

                        constitution you agree with. Your post "Guns for Convicts" is not what I said.

                        And using your logic is how we came to "your apparent eagerness to silence the voices of those you disagree with".

                        If you can exaggerate your position, then I surely am allowed the same.

                        Ignoring the actual point I made was intentional misdirection.

                        Arm everyone who's not actually in jail?

                        And why not?  Check out the Militia Act of 1792.

                        http://www.constitution.org/...

                        This was the law of the law until 1903.  So, I guess the answer to your question is "yes, why of course we should arm everyone."

                        As for this:

                        Do you want to err on the side of safety and sanity, by forbidding convicts from owning lethal weapons, knowing that inevitably some unjustly convicted people will be unfairly disarmed?

                        When it happens to you, get back to me, will ya?

                        I'd rather let 1000 guilty men free than put to death 1 innocent man.  

                        •  Even if I didn't agree... (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gerrilea, buddabelly, KVoimakas

                          ...with the totality of your post, I would rec for:

                          I'd rather let 1000 guilty men free than put to death 1 innocent man.

                          I know, the whole idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is rather passe in some circles, but it's still a concept I agree with.

                        •  Two wildly different things. (0+ / 0-)

                          But you knew that.

                          To conflate preventing some unjustly convicted persons from possessing lethal weapons with executing innocents is obviously absurd on its face.

                          Unless you're so unhinged that you equate owning an arsenal with breathing. If you're living in a survivalist alternate universe where being heavily armed equates with survival....

                          Well, I'm glad I don't live where you do. In every sense of the phrase.

                          •  Actually its all part of the same system we (0+ / 0-)

                            have, and until we design or implement a better system with genuine checks, balances and integrity, I think I'll keep "conflating" the issues.

                            The execution of an innocent man, just one innocent man is, by my standards, one too many.  And how many times have we done so in the name of or for protecting society?  When there is actual accountability for dishonest prosecutors, lawyers, police and judges then I'll stop "conflating". Okay?

                            It's absurd that one can be stripped of his/her unalienable rights because they are on a "no fly list" or "deemed unfit" by some State paid psychiatrist. Or that poor Americans can't own guns because they can't afford the "licensing fees, required training, etc."  It's effective disarmament of the citizens by "conditions" our government has set.  

                            The exact power/authority our Founders did not grant to the newly created central government.

                            It's not about a growing "fringe" of Americans that fear our system is going to collapse and denigrate into anarchy or civil war or worse a police state.  Who, out of pure necessity, believe they must protect themselves and their families from unknown dangers and doing so as per our Constitutionally guaranteed unalienable rights.

                            And your diatribe on "survivalist" crap is only stated to impune, denigrate or demonize those of us that exercise those rights or are "purists" with regards to the interpretation of our Constitution and the limits it has placed upon our created government.

                            And as I see this issue, if they can do it with guns, going above and beyond the Constitutional restraints listed, they can do it with any unalienable right.  Like free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press.

                            Oh wait, they have haven't they? "Free speech zones", building "permits", jailing reporters for "contempt of court" because they will not divulge sources.

            •  I'm missing something here, really (4+ / 0-)

              a convicted felon doesn't "pay a debt" to anybody. He doesn't pay jack squat to me, and he doesn't pay diddly to you.

              If this is your position then why does the State claim victimhood i.e. growing marijuana? Or medical use of said? Or any host of other victimless crimes?

              Or this:

              A 72-year-old Port Orchard man was arrested on investigation of manslaughter on Saturday after he apparently shot and killed a fleeing intruder.

              Where is our Constitution in your argument?  I guess the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments can be just whited out and forgotten then.

              If we use your same logic, then it should apply to the 1st Amendment as well, what about someone who uses their right to free speech to incite a riot or advocate killing abortion doctors, i.e. Fox News and Bill O'Reilly?  They should forever lose their right to speak, correct? Or anyone who writes a book on the subject itself, right?

              Wait, we are going after those that exercise their religious freedoms and to assemble.

              See this:
              Donald Crosby, pastor of Kingdom Builders Church of Christ, was charged with disorderly conduct and picketing without a permit, both misdemeanors, after he refused to comply with officers' requests to leave, said Tabitha Pugh, public information officer for Warner Robins police.

              Sorry, I do not agree with your position here and never will, until the Constitution is changed, actions/policies/laws such as "three strikes", or victimless drug "violations" or even child molesters being forced to relinquish their unalienable rights after they have paid their debt to society is simply unconstitutional.  And this last one is very personal to me...see my previous diaries...

              I do believe in our Constitution and if you want to take away someones rights, do it as per the instructions outlined there.  

              •  Ah, and there you've hit on it... (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shadan7, gerrilea, KVoimakas, PavePusher

                ...too many anti-rights activists fully realize they don't have the needed support to actually amend the Constitution, so they'd prefer to legislate around the parts they don't like.

                And, all too often, those on the Progressive end of the spectrum are happy to do so with what they personally don't believe is "Progressive," at least to their own, very narrow, definition of the word.

                If you tried to legislate out of existence one of the Rights they do approve of, however, they'd be jumping up and down and turning blue in their opposition.

              •  You may need to re-cast your argument (0+ / 0-)

                Because I can't make heads or tails out of what you're saying.

                why does the State claim victimhood i.e. growing marijuana?

                That is a question, because I can see there's a question mark, but the "id est" makes no sense. What are you getting at?

                Where is our Constitution in your argument?

                The law today is somewhat more complex than only the words in the Constitution. If you want to have a discussion in which the only law we have is the exact language of the Constitution and any law not contained in the Constitution is invalid, then we won't have a discussion.

                If we use your same logic, then it should apply to the 1st Amendment as well

                What is "my logic" in this regard? The law currently prohibits felons from owning firearms, or voting (on a state-by-state basis), unless or until they petition for restoration of those rights.

                There are no "inalienable rights" in the Constitution. All such rights are qualified, in the text of the Constitution, as being in effect unless removed by due process of law. Look it up, if you have forgotten.

                Once Constitutional rights have been abridged by a court of law, it is the prerogative of the state to determine the extent to which they are restored. You only enjoy Constitutional rights to the extent that you abide by the rule of law. Once you commit serious offenses to the body politic, your rights to continue abusing the public trust are conditional.

                I really like the comment that follows from theatre goon, who coins the phrase "anti-rights activist."

                That suggests that anybody who is uncomfortable with the idea of handing semi-automatic, high capacity Glocks, shotguns, and carbines to convicted serial rapists and armed robbers and home invaders is, by definition, an "activist."

                Really? I think it's just common sense. Commit a felony and get incarcerated for it, no guns for you until you prove we can trust you. People do petition for their rights to be restored and they get them restored, so I don't see any problem here.

                Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

                by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 04:04:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the state may reinstate rights but the feds don't (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea, KVoimakas, theatre goon

                  even though there is a provision in the law for it, the Congress refuses to fund the office and the process so in reality, there is no way to reinstate your rights once lost.

                  If there was a fair and reasonable method of rights restoration, I might agree with you.

                  As there isn't, I think that it's about equivalent to the civil confiscation laws that allow your property to be taken away on mere suspicion but then require you to prove it's not drug money that bought that car or whatever.....

                •  I'll clarify for you (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  Your claim was that no convicted criminal "pays you or me".

                  And for your argument to be valid, then there is no victim, hence "no repayment to society".  And that's the disconnect between our government and it's people today.

                  The State claims victim-hood and prosecutes thousands for crimes where thee are no victims.  The State cannot be a victim when a law, policy or statute is violated.  

                  This is the first steps in Authoritarian controls, today, indictments will state, The US vs.________(fill in the blank) or New York vs. _______(fill in the blank).

                  Whereas, we once prosecuted violators in the name of the people, now its in the name of the State or Federal Government.  Making them the victim, not the people and hence your flawed argument that no convict can "repay you or I".  They are now bound to the State, not the people.  Big difference.

                  As for this:

                  There are no "inalienable rights" in the Constitution. All such rights are qualified, in the text of the Constitution, as being in effect unless removed by due process of law. Look it up, if you have forgotten.

                  First it's not "inalienable", it's unalienable.

                  Secondly, the constitution grants nothing but is meant to insure our unalienable rights are not infringed upon by the "body politic".  This is another flaw in your argument.  

                  And this:

                  The law today is somewhat more complex than only the words in the Constitution. If you want to have a discussion in which the only law we have is the exact language of the Constitution and any law not contained in the Constitution is invalid, then we won't have a discussion.

                  Of course we aren't having a discussion.  The whole point of the Constitution is to limit and direct our government on how it must act.  And any laws must conform to said document, that IS the problem.  Our government does not follow the rules we gave it to follow.

                  This is the crux of our disagreement here:

                  Once Constitutional rights have been abridged by a court of law, it is the prerogative of the state to determine the extent to which they are restored. You only enjoy Constitutional rights to the extent that you abide by the rule of law. Once you commit serious offenses to the body politic, your rights to continue abusing the public trust are conditional.

                  I have no duty or obligation to the "body politic" or "public trust".  It is my government that has the obligations to me.  And you ignored my actual point and then belittled and obfuscated it.

                  When a convicted felon or violator has repaid his debt to society and is released from public custody, how can the public continue to vilify and prosecute him? Constitutionally, either they've paid that debt or they haven't, and it's clear in your view, any lawbreaker can never repay any transgressions.  

                  The fact that felons cannot own guns is separate from the actual crime, whatever it may have been.  Where is the constitution in this?  Where's the due process by a jury of my peers?  I am not aware of any trials that are held that strip convicted felons of those unalienable rights.  They are just taken away upon conviction, clearly unconstitutional.

                  And I did state in my original post that I don't think is sane to allow violent felons access to arms.  

                  As for this:

                  to convicted serial rapists and armed robbers and home invaders is, by definition, an "activist."

                  Yes you are an activist, as your emotional argument reveals and might I say say, an activist against said Constitution.  How about petitioning and changing the Constitution to met your "common sense" standards?

                  When there are trials specifically held for those convicted felons that strip them of their unalienable rights, then we are on the path of actual Constitutional law. Let a jury decide the constitutionality of those laws.  Let's have an honest public debate on the subject, not emotional branding and labeling to obfuscate these issues.

                  But again, unalienable rights cannot be infringed by policy, edict or statute...unless the Constitution itself is changed.  Maybe this is why there aren't any such trials, it's just done.

                  •  Right (0+ / 0-)

                    Your claim was that no convicted criminal "pays you or me".

                    So you tell me, how does a convicted criminal "pay you"?

                    The rest of your previous post is confused and not worth fisking. Just consider this: The Constitution says you have a "unalienable" right to life. The court can take that away. Same with liberty. Same with pursuit of happiness.

                    Once those rights are removed, their restoration is at the discretion of the court.

                    That's the Constitution. If you don't like it, too bad. You're living in this country, so those are the rules.

                    As for types of felons, like I said, it's not a simple calculus. Let's say that Bernie Madoff gets paroled. Do you think he should be able to own a firearm?

                    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

                    by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 05:41:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  By relinquishing their freedom (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher

                      and being held for a period of time or as in many cases today, fined and probation.

                      The court can take that away. Same with liberty. Same with pursuit of happiness.

                      That's the problem here, the Court is not taking anyone's right to bear arms away, the Congress did through the 1968 Gun Control Act.

                      As for types of felons, like I said, it's not a simple calculus. Let's say that Bernie Madoff gets paroled. Do you think he should be able to own a firearm?

                      Again, the Constitution is pretty clear here. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

                      How much more clear can this be? It doesn't say "Upon the approval/consent/conditions set forth of or by Congress, the President or the Supreme Court".

                      "That's the Constitution. If you don't like it, too bad. You're living in this country, so those are the rules."

                      At least we can agree on this point.  

                      But our Founding Fathers gave us the tools to change said document, how about you do that?  Because we all know you'd fail at the endeavor.  So, as all good authoritarians and their doublespeak, you ignore that actual constitutional avenue and make laws/policies and statutes that attempt a "run around" of said document.

                      Hey if it was brought to a vote or referendum, let's see how many of "We The People" would actually support your definitions and controls?  

                      I'm game, if you are!

                    •  I missed a point. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher

                      So if I'm put to death for whatever crime, how do I petition any Court for restoration of the loss of my life?

                      Even the highest crime, as defined by our Founding Fathers, i.e, that of treason, had no specific punishment attached.  In fact, it's the only transgression defined in our Constitution and left to the privy of the Congress.

                      Article III Section 3 - Treason

                      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

                      The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

                      Funny thing here, it's clear "Corruption of Blood" is even mentioned.  Seems those forfeiture drug laws would be unconstitutional.

                      But again, how about our government follow the directions they were given, as per said Constitution?

                      Too much for you to swallow?  

                      •  No problem (0+ / 0-)

                        So if I'm put to death for whatever crime, how do I petition any Court for restoration of the loss of my life?

                        You're a smarty, so act like it.

                        If the court sentences you to death, say, for Murder One, your "right to life" has been removed by the court. Legal, and Constitutional.

                        Before you are executed, you can appeal, etc. That is your "petition" that you reference above.

                        Please don't waste my time further with fol-de-rol.

                        Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

                        by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:09:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Imagine drivers' licenses with the same mindset. (0+ / 0-)

            Does it seem reasonable to you to insist that Americans have a right to drive a 4,000 lb. hunk of steel down the road because they're citizens? Even if their eyesight is terrible, their reaction time measured with an hourglass, and they've had two accidents this month? You'd insist they have their citizenship revoked prior to being restricted from driving?

            I know you're thinking "but...but...but the right to own lethal weapons is enshrined right there in the Constitution, and cars aren't". But the analogy is solid. The only difference is that firearms are very portable and devastatingly lethal by design. Cars are lethal only by coincidence. Society has a right, and a responsibility, to demand a certain level of competence and civic responsibility before a citizen is entrusted with lethal firepower. To insist otherwise is simply bizarre; your notional 'right' of every American, no matter how deranged, no matter what history of mayhem, trumps society's right keep guns out of the hands of murderers and lunatics?

            Making the argument that a government by the people never has any right to restrict the ownership of lethal weapons by citizens suggests a lack of perspective. At the very least.

            •  Sorry... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shadan7, gerrilea, buddabelly, KVoimakas

              ...your "but...but...but..." attempt to ignore the Bill of Rights isn't a very good argument.

              The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, in fact, protected by the Constitution, whether you try to minimize that with silly word use or not.

              I could as easily say, "but...but...but... you right to Freedom of Speech doesn't go so far as to protect your right to express your opinion in public" with as much "logic" as your argument -- none whatsoever.

            •  Actually, cars ARE lethal by design. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, KVoimakas, theatre goon

              They are designed to convert (chemical) potential energy into kintec energy.  If that's not the purest definition of a potential weapon, I don't know what is.

              The difference, of course lies in the gulf between potential and intent.

              •  Oh, no, no, no...! (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                buddabelly, KVoimakas, PavePusher

                You're trying to say that the potential to cause harm is somehow different from actually causing harm, and that's just crazy talk!

                Why, if the potential to cause harm isn't identical with the actual cause of harm, then guns wouldn't be teh evil, and there'd be no reason to oppose their very existence!!!  I mean, baseball bats can also potentially cause harm, but we restrict the ownership of baseball bats so stringently that only the police and military can own them...

                Oh, wait...

                Okay, I'll stop being sarcastic now and go eat dinner.

                :-)

                •  Me thinks thou dost protest... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  buddabelly, KVoimakas, theatre goon

                  too much...

                  Sorry, in Shakespeare frame of mind today.  8>)

                  Dinner, mmmmm.  

                  •  Hey... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    buddabelly, KVoimakas, PavePusher

                    ...if Sarah Palin can compare herself to the Bard for coining words that aren't actually words, who am I to complain if you use his words to describe my comment?

                    Don't get me started on old Bill -- personally, I think he'd be very much at home writing sit-coms, were he alive today.  The Big Bang Theory, for instance, or How I Met Your Mother, would be right in line with his comedic works.

                    Much Ado About Nothing is my personal, single favorite play -- and that bit of information may give away more about me than I may be comfortable with.

                    :-)

                    •  Weren't his works... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      buddabelly, KVoimakas, theatre goon

                      (at least the "comedies") the sit-coms of the day?

                      It would be fun to do some Bard on stage now that I understand him better, as opposed to back in high-school when I only understood him better than my classmates.

                      Heck, even MacBeth is funny as hell if you do it right... And that may be to much of an exposition about me... ;>)

                      Cheers!

                      •  Absolutely. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        buddabelly, KVoimakas, PavePusher

                        The comedies were largely for the masses, rather than the gentry.  We often don't give the "great unwashed masses" enough credit, because even though there was plenty of cheap humor involved, a lot of the comedies required some smarts to keep up with.

                        Forget the double entendres, there was, as often as not, triple or even quadruple entendres going on.  I had a college professor who taught me more about Shakespeare than I had ever realized there was to know.

                        If they would teach high-school students what Shakespeare was actually saying, instead of just making them memorize the words, I think we'd be dealing with much smarter high-school students all around -- whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is still open to debate.

                        And, with that, I will stop hijacking the thread.

            •  I don't believe you'll see many people arguing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon

              for no restriction whatsoever. I can think of only one (maybe two) in the RKBA group who advocate for such.

              (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:52:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  But there are states (14+ / 0-)

          with little or no restrictions, and there are others with all sorts of barriers and hurdles. As far as I can tell, those with little or no restrictions are no less--or more--safe than those with tight requirements for CCW, or open carry. Vermont, for example, allows open carry without permit, and is still one of the safest states in the nation.

          When Florida became the first state to loosen restrictions on CCW, I, like many others, figured it would lead to a rash of accidental discharges in public places, weapons being drawn over road rage incidents, and a general increase in gun violence.

          Boy was I wrong.

          None of these things has come to pass. Most people who are eligible to carry do not, and those who do have caused little trouble. At the same time, legal defensive use of firearms has increased, and saved many people from being robbed or worse.

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

          by happy camper on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 06:32:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Registration of newly purchased (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shadan7, theatre goon

          guns is a paperwork formality and costs nothing (in my state). If it did cost money, then I'd think it was a violation of the constitutional right. Concealed carry is a whole other ball of wax, and is regulated more stringently.

          i.e., there is a difference between registration of weapons and licensing to carry in public.

          Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

          by Joieau on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:34:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  money (15+ / 0-)
      The stricter the licensing requirement, the more it costs to get a license. Poll taxes were banned long ago, but there is a real RKBA tax in many states.
      Here in Delaware, it costs about $700 to get a concealed carry permit. This denies the poor their right to keep and bear arms.

      If that's OK with you, then maybe we should bring back poll taxes as well.

      "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

      by Tom Seaview on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 05:11:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Licensing involces cost and time (10+ / 0-)

      and has inherent in the concept that denial can occur.  Would you like to obtain a license for speech, for practicing your religion?  I'll also note that driving on property one does not own is not a right, and is not one expressly defended by our highest law - the right to keep and bear arms however is.

    •  When your premise hinges on... (9+ / 0-)

      ...empty premises like "the so-called right to keep and bear arms," emphasis added, your argument has already failed.

      Basing an argument on false premises only leads to false conclusions.

  •  I see training as a good idea, (16+ / 0-)

    just as driver education is a good idea for new drivers. However, no amount of training can remove the stupid from some people.

    What I do have a problem with is causing the simple act of obtaining and keeping a firearm so expensive and time-consuming.  I can get a driver's license for less than thirty dollars in most states.  Driving is not a Constitutional right, so why should it cost close to a thousand dollars to own a firearm, which IS a Constitutionally protected right?

    It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment. - Ansel Adams

    by Otteray Scribe on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 05:22:11 AM PDT

  •  good Diary, welcome to the ranks of the reviled (10+ / 0-)

    Though some days are better than others.

    How've y'all been?  Finally got a box again yesterday. Hopefully this one though old and slow will last a while.

    Anything life shaking happen in the last month or so?

    Too many emails for this old machine to deal with at least quickly.

    I see we have a few new members since I last was here............

  •  Thomas Jefferson said it all: (11+ / 0-)

    What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

    We cannot win a war crime - Dancewater, July 27, 2008

    by unclejohn on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 06:06:26 AM PDT

    •  Does the "spirit of resistance" require violence? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drewfromct, senilebiker, xgy2

      Is it not possible to preserve the spirit of resistance without violence?

      What ever happened to nonviolent resistance?

      The destruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
      They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

      by banach tarski paradox on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 06:16:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sometimes you can resist without violence, (12+ / 0-)

        but in cases like, for example, the Ludlow Massacre and many other similar situations where workers have tried to improve their lot, they would have been better off being in a position to give the State pause for thought before it attacked.

        We cannot win a war crime - Dancewater, July 27, 2008

        by unclejohn on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 06:25:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, but the means to does (8+ / 0-)

        and motivation without means is no threat at all to the political establishment.

        •  Motivation without means? (0+ / 0-)

          I don't even understand what you are saying here.

          Are you saying that violence is the only "means" for resistance, and that nonviolence is not such a "means"?

          The destruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
          They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

          by banach tarski paradox on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 06:41:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Resistance that accomplishes anything at least (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buddabelly, KVoimakas, theatre goon

            and I assume that is the point we are talking about.  People mistakenly assign Ghandi a lot more influence on the government than he had and use that to make themselves feel better than their political exercise without threat means anything.  Even then he made a calculated decision which he openly admits he considered violence but he explains there were already groups in India operating on that front so he opened another one.

            Peaceful demonstrations are only useful against one specific group - those elected in areas where the elected officials actually matter.  The US is not one of those areas.  Our elected officials change but overall policy of the goverment changes very little even with massive shifts.  GWB war and bailout, Obama and all Dem control war and bailouts.  Changing the face only serves as a release of a bit of the popular resentment, it has no real effect.  If voting had any real impact on government policy it would be illegal.

      •  Resistance (7+ / 0-)

        Non-violence works when the oppressor is reletively  benevolent.  India vs. Britain is a classic. However non-violence didn't work for the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.

        •  Ah...the benevolence of civilized Britian. (0+ / 0-)

          However non-violence didn't work for the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.

          I certainly never claimed that nonviolence will work in every situation, but is this really a case where violence worked effectively in resisting state power?

          Or is it possibly a case where nonviolent resistance and violent resistance were ultimately both doomed to failure?

          Folks seem to look at violence as if it is some sort of panacea for all of the difficulties and dangers involved in struggle and resistance.

          It isn't.

          The destruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
          They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

          by banach tarski paradox on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:14:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  if you are doing to die anyway might as well (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shadan7, oldpunk, KVoimakas, theatre goon

            take some of the murdering racist bastards out with you.  

            I certainly never claimed that nonviolence will work in every situation, but is this really a case where violence worked effectively in resisting state power?

            Or is it possibly a case where nonviolent resistance and violent resistance were ultimately both doomed to failure?

            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

            by Crookshanks on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:48:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The post that I was replying to... (0+ / 0-)

              ...was addressing the question of effectiveness of violence vs nonviolence, and doing so by reference to a situation where violence failed by asserting that nonviolence would have also failed in the same situation (a point that I am not disputing here).

              I've noticed one thing that commonly happens in discussions reguarding violence vs nonviolence.

              When people die in a nonviolent struggle, folks are quick to point to the casualties as evidence that nonviolence doesn't work.

              However, it is less common to see violence decried as inneffective when people die in violent struggle.

              This inballance (holding the existance of casualties against the method in one case but not in the other) results in a distorted appraisal of the relative effectiveness of the two approaches.

              I can't prove this, but I strongly suspect that violence often appears more effective than nonviolence simply because we are willing to accept greater losses when using violence than when using nonviolence, and we are less likely to attribute the existance of those casualties and other side effects of violence to a fundamental failure of the method itself, as we are so quick to do in the case of nonviolence.

              The destruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
              They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

              by banach tarski paradox on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:23:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Panaceas (6+ / 0-)

            I certainly don't think violence is a panacea, and I'm pretty insulted you suggest I do. Please read my diary http://www.dailykos.com/... about what I believe to be a human right, and at the bottom ther's a link to a real 911 call. What happened there was a tragedy for all involved, but violence did end it, and the outcome was terrible but also the person successfully defended her life.

            I'm also well aware of what bastards the Brit's were, which is why I qualified 'benevolent' with 'relatively'. The Brits of course were unwilling to commit genocide.  Hitler was.

            However violence has and will happened, and resistance is possible.  Look at Afganistan's history.  What would have happened differently if Tibet wasn't inhabited by peaceful people, but by armed people ready to use those arms? Most of the survivors of the Warsaw ghetto were those who resisted with violence.

            I am an advocate of gun ownership, not because I go looking for violence, but because violence could come looking for me.  I do support requirements like safety and legal training for gun owners and requirements for responsible gun handling and storage.

          •  Good thing, then... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas

            ...that no one is arguing anything even remotely close to:

            Folks seem to look at violence as if it is some sort of panacea for all of the difficulties and dangers involved in struggle and resistance.

            I guess it's easier for you to create other people's arguments for them, though -- otherwise, you'd have to deal with what they are actually arguing.

      •  Of course not. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shadan7, oldpunk

        Of course it is.

        Silly question, it still exists and is still more respectable by far than violence.

      •  Sometimes. nt (0+ / 0-)

        (RKBA) Right to Keep and Bear Arms: interested in a DKos RKBA group? Email in profile. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:57:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sorta related... (6+ / 0-)

    ...got news of this happening about a quarter mile from my house yesterday:
    Police identify victim of fatal shooting

    Sheesh.

    Read or *listen to* my SF novel for free. (-7.13/-7.33)

    by Shadan7 on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 06:08:25 AM PDT

  •  There's a diary (9+ / 0-)

    on the rec list right now that points out why liberals need to support the Second Amendment. The right has become so radicalized that some people feel free to threaten others over a bumper sticker.

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

    by happy camper on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 06:13:57 AM PDT

  •  IMHO (18+ / 0-)

    A real Liberal supports ALL the amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    T.

    History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. ~ John W. Campbell

    by troutwaxer on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 06:43:31 AM PDT

  •  I'm not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Raven

    fundamentally against the RKBA, I grew up with a lot of guns in the house, and I'm not a bad shot.  Credentials established, I'll say something I've said in these diaries many times before:  If you are going to get a gun for self defense you'd better think long and hard about what it means to kill someone.  Once the bullet leaves the barrel there's not a damn thing you can do to put it back.  

    All the idiotic virtual gun waving I see in these diaries scares the hell out of me.  There are probably a few people here who could handle making life and death decisions in a high stress situation, but I would suspect that tmost could not - and that is how tragedies are made, that is why guns are a very bad idea if you do not know exactly what you are doing.

    And don't go telling me about Katrina, I was once in a very similar situation, walking the street I grew up on  with a Beretta 92S at my side - wondering what the hell I would do if I actually had to use the thing on a fellow human.  

    Die energie der Welt ist constant; die Entropie der welt strebt einem Maximum zu. - Rudolf Clausius, 1865

    by xgy2 on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 06:52:35 AM PDT

    •  Can you actually show... (11+ / 0-)

      ...any "...idiotic virtual gun waving I see in these diaries...?"

      I haven't seen a bit of it, myself.  

      If you're scared by anything in this diary or the commentary I've seen to the point of making this comment, then you're frightened of shadows.  What you describe is simply not there.

    •  Interesting. (8+ / 0-)

      There are probably a few people here who could handle making life and death decisions in a high stress situation, but I would suspect that tmost could not...

      Interesting. So you're saying that there are only a very few people who should be allowed to drive?

      Because that is what every driver must do, almost every time they get behind the wheel and join the other millions of cars on the road: they make life and death decisions in a high stress situation.

      We were shaped by evolution to be able to cope with stress, and life & death situations. And all in all, we do a remarkably good job of it. Sure, the more training and experience we have with a given tool, the better we will use that tool when required, but still the vast majority of people are able to make the kinds of judgments you talk about on a very regular basis. And now I'm not just talking about cars. I'm talking about operating machinery. Rafting on a fast river. Playing sports. Or using a firearm for self defense.

      Read or *listen to* my SF novel for free. (-7.13/-7.33)

      by Shadan7 on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:19:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent diary! (7+ / 0-)

    Thanks for sharing it.

    Bad weather today means dodgy internet connection, so I probably won't get to join in on the commentary games, but I did want to at least try to say thanks!

    •  Getting good rain? monsoon here has been great (4+ / 0-)

      so far.  Hope you don't get too much at once you need the water just not 10 inches in a day.......

      How've you been.  Good to see all us old fucks and new peeps too....Growth is good.....

      •  Only an inch so far today... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shadan7, buddabelly, KVoimakas

        ...but we're under warnings for 6-8 additionally inches over the next day or so.

        We'll be happy for every single drop.

        •  Good to hear, I even had a shower today but (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shadan7, KVoimakas, theatre goon

          it's about the monsoon's last gasp here.

          I caught my egg thief in the act this morning...I tossed the scratch in one of the pens and a 20" Gila Monster came trotting out at me.....

          He let me get within a couple feet without any sign of agression and he was huge fat and happy on my eggs and chicks....grrrrr....

          It's too cool though having resident Gilas so I'll raise up the nest boxes and then let him try....they don't climb well at least....

          •  Holy cow! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shadan7, buddabelly, KVoimakas

            So to speak, of course.

            :-)

            We've had a new round of snakes, but never a Gila Monster.  Don't guess I'd shoot one either, if it came around, if I could help it.

            Snakes, on the other hand, are taking their lives into their own hands when it comes to the eggs.  In fact, we've just bought three new -- okay, new to us -- .410's for snakes, one for each household on the property.  We don't like snakes getting our eggses.  Or, on our trotlines, for that matter.

            •  Here not many egg eating snakes, a bull will (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, theatre goon

              but they prefer the packrats and they do too good a job on them to bother them.

              I've had to kill a couple rattlers that just wouldn't stay away from the house but otherwise, I leave them be. Otherwise the freakin packrats would take over and literally eat my house and cars......

              Gilas are a federally protected endangered species too,  it's illegal to harass one let alone kill one.

              Plus they are just cool as hell, completely unafraid of anything and generally cantankerous, just my kind of critter.

              Beautiful creatures too, black and orange and big compared to any other lizards here. His belly was a good 6" across with a good store of tail fat.  s/he was a big pretty beast.....

              Probably a big part of my crappy chick production this year though so my bad, no more nesting where they want, next year they'll have all elevated nest boxes with 1' chicken wire around the bottom of the pens. Now they're chain link as my main problem was 'yotes and all my nesting hens were loose in the inner yard and ground nested.............my bad but having him here is worth it.  I've even found a baby in the past so there's breeders close as they have small ranges....

  •  Another person in MA (8+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the great diary Captain. I wrote a diary on life in MA as well. I think this was before you joined the RKBA folks here. I'm curious about how you feel about some of the other MA-specific regulations.

    Faced with a decision? Ask yourself, WWWDD?

    by wackydoug on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:03:26 AM PDT

  •  I think this advocacy has gone off the rails (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy, xgy2

    Earlier RKBA diaries were was based on (1) it's in the Constitution, and (2) guns are fine if properly handled.  These are vaguely contestable but generally strong points, and they're enough for me.  Those points are a fine basis for progressive RKBA, but for some reason enough isn't good enough: recently these diaries have embraced some obnoxious conservative tropes.  A week or two ago it was self-defense--the notion that every foray into the world is potentially dangerous and you'd better be ready with a gun--and now it's the Jefferson-meets-Strangeglove notion that we need to be ready for civil war.  I'm guessing that RKBA progressives are jealous of the centrality of gun rights to conservative ideology and they'd like progressives to award gun rights the same pride of place.  It's not going to happen.

    Ideally people with guns should be the most restrained, and being restrained in action starts with being restrained in thought.  

    The most impressive thing about man [...] is the fact that he has invented the concept of that which does not exist--Glenn Gould

    by Rich in PA on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:14:47 AM PDT

  •  The fear that the government will take your guns (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drewfromct

    ..really should be in the triple digits of a list of anyone's concerns about our nation right now.

    "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

    by Wayward Son on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:38:18 AM PDT

    •  you are wrong to dismiss that fear (6+ / 0-)

      Come live in MA, NY, NJ, IL or CA and you'll quickly find that it's not paranoia to assume that the Government wants to make it as difficult as possible to exercise your 2nd amendment rights.

      The fact that the Federal Legislative branch is currently pro-gun means little when the states and their political subdivisions infringe on the 2nd amendment.  It means little when the Executive Branch makes bad decisions regarding guns.

      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

      by Crookshanks on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:59:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't dismiss it. (0+ / 0-)

        I placed it on the list, in order of importance.

        My personal opinion is that 'making it difficult' to own a gun does not conflict with the 2nd Amendment.  It is a source of constant amazement to me how many people instinctively understand the concept of 'shall not be infringed', but can't quite get their heads around the concept of 'well-regulated'.

        "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

        by Wayward Son on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:04:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the amazement is with the people that insist on (8+ / 0-)

          using modern definitions of "well-regulated" instead of looking at the accepted usage of the phrase when the document was drafted.  Well-regulated meant well trained and drilled.  It never meant that the ownership of arms was to be regulated.  Such regulations are a product of the 20th century and have more to do with racism and corruption than anything else.

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:16:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It is a source of constant amazement... (6+ / 0-)

          to me, that anyone can be O.K. with "making it difficult" to exercise any Civil Right.  

          I really just can not wrap my head around the concept.

          •  Regulations aren't fun.. (0+ / 0-)

            In order to peaceably assemble, sometimes you have to have a permit.  Assembling peaceably is a fundamental right of our system, and yet.. it has regulations.

            Let's stop there, in case this takes you some time to get up to speed.

            "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

            by Wayward Son on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:09:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Very few compared to firearms. (4+ / 0-)

              There is no federal tax on assembly.  No waiting period.  No criminal background check.  The government can't dictate who you may assemble with, or what they have to look like.  You don't have to take a class.  You can assemble quietly if you want without extra fees or legal intrusions.  The government doesn't care how quickly you assemble, or what tools you use to do so or if you use a black hand-grip in the process.  There are no one-assembly-per-month laws.  The right to assemble is not frequently attacked as being only a right of militia, or obsolete, or something uncivilized or rude.  

              Shall I continue?    

              •  Hilarious, and a bit on the whiny side. (0+ / 0-)

                I think a little education about the American 20th century might have some education for you on how difficult it sometimes was to express a right to peaceably assemble.  

                But surely you already knew that.

                "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

                by Wayward Son on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:28:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Most frequently, those "difficulties"... (4+ / 0-)

                  were the result of armed men under the orders of bigotted thugs.  Often, when opposed by good people with guns, their resolution flowed away like water.

                  See, I've read some history.

                  I'm not sure where you see the "whiny", but eye of the beholder and all...

                  •  That's a funny way to admit you were dead wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                    Sudden agreement with my premise... you know, the one that completely invalidates your argument.. with a vague, unspecific, and unsupported assertion?

                    But I accept your surrender on the first point.  It is certainly true that the right to peaceably assemble has historically been in much greater danger of suppression than the right to bear arms.

                    Thanks!

                    "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

                    by Wayward Son on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 04:40:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not even close to what was actually said... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      buddabelly, KVoimakas, PavePusher

                      ...but a nice try to change the story on your part, nonetheless.

                      •  Actually, I've been the only constant. (0+ / 0-)

                        The commenter claimed that the right to bear arms has seen more persecution than the right to peaceably assemble.  This is laughable, thoroughly false, and for a follower of the Civil Rights movement, approaches the level of a Holocaust denier.

                        The fact that so few of this group scolded him, as any decent Kossack should.. is truly sad.

                        "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

                        by Wayward Son on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 07:31:18 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh, now I get it. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          oldpunk, KVoimakas

                          The fact that his comment was completely accurate and factual is... um... what was it you were saying again?

                          I guess you've been consistent in that you have not yet responded to what was actually said, instead of what you want to have been said.

                          That you've been consistent about, yes.

                          •  So you think supporters of the right to bear arms (0+ / 0-)

                            ..have seen more persecution than those seeking to peaceably assemble, too?

                            I had no idea there was more than one of you.

                            Ok.. find any resource.  Any.  Wikipedia will do.  Look up Civil Rights.  Be sure to watch all the videos, especially the ones with water cannons and German Shepherds.

                            Then we'll talk anti-war protesters.  

                            We'll have plenty of time for many other examples after that.

                            "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

                            by Wayward Son on Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 05:10:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  What is this... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      buddabelly, KVoimakas, theatre goon

                      friggen' mirror-world day?

                      Your density is beyond my merely mortal powers.  Apparently neutronium does exist, and it's here on planet Earth to suck out our damn brains.

                      •  Let me try to help you understand.. (0+ / 0-)

                        ..you first claimed the right to bear arms had been heavily persecuted.  When I pointed out that it doesn't even make the scale when compared to what happened to people supporting other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.. you belittled the struggles some have had peaceably assembling.

                        When I accurately contradicted your inexcusable behavior, you then acknowledged the struggles of those defending the Bill of Rights, but tossed in a gun reference to link it back to what might have been your argument, in a mirror world.

                        A thoughtful individual would immediately be able to tell that you gave up defending your previous position, accepted the terms of my argument, and therefore ended the discussion.

                        Since you continued on, with insults, and no arguments.. flailing around wildly like a fish caught in a net beyond its understanding.. there may indeed be a brain density issue, but it is abundantly clear whose skull needs thinning.

                        "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

                        by Wayward Son on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 07:37:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Yes and there should be no permit (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, oldpunk

              required to either assemble or undertake one's speech.

              A right is not a thing that can be permited.  A right means that the individual who posses it is final arbiter over it, a permit is stating that an outside entity does.  Thus nothing can be a right in practice if there exists a permit for it.  (Unless of course one amuses themselves by writing permits to themself.)

          •  It's only the ones... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shadan7, buddabelly, KVoimakas, PavePusher

            ...they don't approve of.

            If you were to advocate restricting one of our Constitutionally-protected rights that they do approve of, they'd be hollering bloody murder.

      •  That link is ridiculous, the CMP sells surplus (6+ / 0-)

        `Garands and Carbines every day.

        All this would do is allow us po folk to have a chance at owning a piece of history.

        I have everything for a Garand but the actual rifle and want one to go with my M1917 American Enfield and my future 03A3.......

        And the reason, the guns might be dangerous?  Arsenal stored military weapons don't go bad in storage and the CMP who would probably be the retailers actually checks every rifle sold for headspace and basic mechanical function...

        In other words, crappy excuse.

        I really hope that decision gets reversed......

  •  Not-very-hypothetical question: (7+ / 0-)

    I have been hospitalized for depression, related to being transgendered. Does this disqualify me from owning a firearm in MA?  I do strongly agree with firearm safety classes being mandatory.  The licensing board step seems rather a bit too strict, in my opinion.

    Full disclosure: I made a personal decision many years ago to not own firearms, since I was depressed at the time. I've not felt the need to change my mind yet, even though I'm no longer depressed.

    •  Depends (7+ / 0-)

      Were you **ordered by a judge** to go into the hospital for depression, or to get a psych eval?

      It's being ordered to get mental health treatment **by a judge** that typically prohibits one from owning a firearm.

    •  Not sure on Mass law, Federally, it shouldn't (6+ / 0-)

      unless you were involuntarily committed.

      The Gun Control Act of 1968 is actually Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the US Code which defines a prohibited possessor as follows:

      (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
         (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
         (2) is a fugitive from justice;
         (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
         (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
         (5) who, being an alien—
            (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
            (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa
         (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
         (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
         (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
            (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
            (B)
               (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
               (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
         (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

    •  Not necessarily (7+ / 0-)

      Whether you get a license or not depends exclusively on the licensing officer in the town where you live. (In MA, firearms ownership is not really a "right" but more of a "privilege". Eventually someone will challenge this in court, I suspect.)

      The question on the MA LTC form is:

      Have you ever been confined to any hospital or institution for mental illness?

      If you answer yes, you'll have to explain why you spent time in a hospital, and the Licensing Officer will have to then decide whether you're a "suitable person". The typical recommendation is to come with a note from your doctor saying that you are cured from your depression.

      Whether you're required to answer yes on this question is a matter for a firearms attorney, I think.

      Are you actually in MA? I'm a MA licensed instructor and would welcome you in one of my classes.

      Faced with a decision? Ask yourself, WWWDD?

      by wackydoug on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:40:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One more point (6+ / 0-)

        There are two steps in MA, in case it's not clear.

        Step 1. Get a License to Carry (LTC) or FID (Firearms ID) card.

        Step 2. Purchase a firearm.

        These are different, but they have overlapping requirements. My response above was for Step 1. The other responses to your question were for Step 2.

        Faced with a decision? Ask yourself, WWWDD?

        by wackydoug on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:06:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, MN (7+ / 0-)

        It's rather an academic question since I don't live there and probably won't seek to own firearms.  As an openly queer person, I have often considered whether it might be a good idea to be proactive about personal defense. I have yet to convince myself that its the right idea for me.

        Thanks for the offer.  It's been many a year since my (mandatory in IA) Hunter Safety class, and a refresher will be wise should I choose to own them again.

      •  couldn't he still answer 'no' to that question (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buddabelly, KVoimakas

        in good faith?  The question asks if you have ever been confined to a hospital for mental health treatment.  It doesn't ask if you've been admitted for the same.

        Confinement implies that you were held there against your will, i.e: a court compelled you to receive treatment.  If you check yourself in for treatment you are presumably free to leave at any time, no?

        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

        by Crookshanks on Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 06:53:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  imo the wording definately means (0+ / 0-)

          involuntary commitment, not checking yourself in for treatment for depression.

          Plus with HIPPA they have no right to your medical records without your consent so the only records available to the NICS system would be court ordered confinements or treatments...

          imo of course ymmv and ianal

          •  NYS won't consider you for a pistol license (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buddabelly, KVoimakas

            unless you sign a waiver giving them permission to open your OMH (Office of Mental Health) files.

            I've never been able to get a straight answer as to whether those files contain information on voluntary treatments (i.e: I call the Mental Hygiene Office and ask to speak with someone regarding depression or some such) or just involuntary commitments.

            If they contain records on voluntary treatments then that's another way for the system to discriminate against the poor and downtrodden.  I have money and health insurance -- if I need mental health treatment I can go to any private provider of my choosing.  The records of that treatment will not wind up in the state OMH databbase.  If I was poor and lacked said insurance I would have to seek that treatment out from the public mental hygiene office and records of my treatment would presumably wind up in the state OMH database.

            Hardly seems fair, does it?

            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

            by Crookshanks on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 07:38:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I've said it before: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rockhound, KVoimakas, wackydoug

    We've all seen those rallies on the Right where all those people bring their guns.  What would be the reaction if WE started bringing OUR guns to rallies and exercising OUR Second Amendment Rights? The media would be screaming "terrorist" faster than you can say "Second Amendment".

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:00:12 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for this diary (6+ / 0-)

    I have been wrestling with this issue for a while now. I grew up at a certain age when guns were fun to shoot, but in an environment where they weren't part of my daily life. I've witnessed the death of animals from a bullet, and know the terrible responsibility that is implicit in gun ownership. But I now truly fear for the future of our Country, and the violent, hateful rhetoric and actions demonstrated by the right.

    I will not go gently into that good night.

    I refuse to stand by while the advocates of racism, religious intolerance, sexual repression, sexism, and anti-scientific thought arm themselves to the teeth. I want all Progressives to train and equip. I will be taking permit courses myself in the next few weeks, and will purchase a firearm as soon as I am licensed.

    I hope this is just a passing phase, and that my feverish imaginings prove to be foolish. But just in case they don't, I will be able to defend MY Country against those who wish to destroy it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site