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.
Today's going to be a little different. We've been asked a couple of the same questions recently, so I figured I'd write up some of our basic responses as I see them.
This is KV, posting under the group user by the way. Normally this user is used for Open Threads, which will take place after a few questions are answered.
Here's a paragraph from a comment in a diary from yesterday:
Anyway, here is my basic problem....can any of you RKBA'ers point to any realistic threats to your rights to keep and bear arms that are on the horizon? Any proposed legislation that has a realistic chance of becoming law? Anything? If not, I really do not see the point of these RKBA diaries.
I guess it would depend on your definition of realistic. Part of the reason why we don't see a passing change for most useless (but feel good!) gun control legislation is due to the fact that we work at promoting real fixes (better social safety nets, drug legalization, better enforcement of NICS) to the underlying disease and not just treating a small symptom (8% of violent crime.)
What is the point of our RKBA diaries? To elect more and better Democrats. I think this jives nicely with the stated goal of Daily Kos. When Democrats have proposed (and passed) gun control on a national level in the recent past, our fellow citizens have reacted in a manner that stated "We don't want this!" GOP takeover of the House back in '94 was attributed to the NRA.
Bill Clinton said in his autobio:
The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.
I think he's in a position to know.
Yes, we lost the House this last election. Did we really need it to be any worse? The Senate is currently 53/47 (if you include the two independents in with the Dems.) That's not exactly a great majority...
So, to recap: We want to see more Democrats elected. Most gun control laws proposed (like a renew of the assault weapons ban of '94) would have no major impact on violent crime, would actually give teeth to the GOP "Democrats take your guns!" theme, and would cost us seats with nothing to show for our trouble but a piece of feel good, useless legislation.
Moving on to the next item I'd like to see discussed:
What is it with Glock? Yesterday there were comments made about "carrying you Glock" in a weird tone. Is it the fact that Ms. Giffords was shot with a Glock (the same model of which she also happened to own) or is it the rumour that they can pass through airport security? (Which they can't.) Personally, I can't stand Glock, but whatever floats your boat.
Before we open up the open thread, there's one last comment I'd like to answer (and get fellow RKBAers to weigh in on.)
What is it that you want?
Surely you know what you want?
How many guns, and what kind of guns would be enough?
And if you can't even say what it is that you want, what is all this RKBA business about?
More Dems in power so we can enact better social safety nets, single payer, marijuana legalization, repeal of DOMA (DADT's gone! yay!), ensure that women retain the right to choose when it comes to abortion...I could keep going.
I do know what I want.
However many I can buy. I currently own 20 (recently purchased #20 pictured below) and don't see why I wouldn't want to buy more. I collect firearms. What kind of guns are enough? Well, I'd like to see the Hughes amendment repealed but don't have an issue with the NFA of 1934.
I clearly stated what I want, both in policy and with regards to firearms.
Open thread discussion below. Anything new with anyone?
This is new with me:
A never fired PSL.