Skip to main content

Right to Keep and Bear Arms 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 or somewhere in between, 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.  If you're just here to disrupt or troll, expect to get a Do Not Respond (DNR) comment and then be ignored. Insults, lies, and willful ignorance will be dealt with by normal community moderation. Disagreement by itself is not considered trolling.

As always, if you're interested in joining RKBA, message KVoimakas.

So, in response to a comment I made in this diary, we were treated to these responses:

     

* [new] Also proves that people who use guns illegally (9+ / 0-)

      aren't stopped by gun laws all that well, eh?

      by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 02:44:23 PM EST

      [ Reply to This ]

          o
             * [new] Please stop. You're being sensible. (6+ / 0-)

             It defeats the narrative.

            by IndieGuy on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 02:48:43 PM EST

            [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                +
                    Sarcasm (3+ / 0-)

                  Last refuge of the desperate.

                  Let's carry that type of argument a step further,

                  "People can still obtain child porn, as has been shown by several recent trials. Therefore it is useless to prohibit child porn."

                  I don't agree, but you evidently do.

                  I dance to Tom Paine's bones.

                  by sagesource on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:09:26 PM EST

                  [ Parent | Reply to This ]
                      #
 AM EST

                        [ Parent | Reply to This ]
          o
              [new] This must be the stupidest post ever (4+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
                sagesource, ehrenfeucht games, gzodik, wilderness voice

            People who do illegal things don't respect laws.

            Like birds that can;t fly, never get off the ground.

            Or Speeding drivers don't respect speed limits

            Or junkies don't respect drug laws.

            Is there anything between those ears?

            by senilebiker on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 02:53:36 PM EST

            [ Parent | Reply to This ]
                +

          o
             * [new] So, should there be no laws (3+ / 0-)

            ...against murder, since they don't stop those who commit murder?

            GOP Agenda: Repeal 20th Century.

            by NormAl1792 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:08:08 PM EST

            [ Parent | Reply to This ]
                +

          o
             * [new] They only get around the gun laws (0+ / 0-)

            When there are countries that insist on being able to export their death machines where ever they please with minimal import controls.  

            by Slackermagee on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:16:16 PM EST

            [ Parent | Reply to This ]
          o
             * [new] Enabling mass murder by selling 30-clips (6+ / 0-)

                     is the flaw.

            That practice is what is illegal in Norway and anywhere-on-earth has no rational support that I can see.

            This monster/criminally-insane-whatever in Norway was enabled for carrying out this mass murder by the lax legal restrictions that such as this RKBA and the NRA have foisted on America.

            Shame on them, indeed.

            Angry White Males + Crooks + Personality Disorder psychos + KKKwannabes + "Unborn Child" church folk EQ The Republicans

            by vets74 on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 03:18:48 PM EST

   o
             * [new] you could make the same argument (0+ / 0-)

            for murderers.  In fact, you just did.

            Scientific Materialism debunked here

            by wilderness voice on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 04:32:07 PM EST

          o
            *  so...you want no laws? (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
               icemilkcoffee, jan4insight

(the above is my personal favorite)

            breaches of the system aren't reasons to abandon the system.

            by bevenro on Fri Jul 29, 2011 at 05:00:24 PM EST

  *****************

     Besides being a fine example of the "constructive, polite criticism" we RKBA'ers constantly overreact to (RKBA=NRA=GOP, it was RKBA'ers fault that the Norway massacre happened, etc), this thread of comments to my original show a complete lack (or purposeful ignorance of) of understanding about RKBA'ers philosophical position. I hope this short meta diary will shine some light for those not purposing to be willingly ignorant of other philosophies held by fellow Kossacks.

The RKBA group understands, as the SCOTUS has repeatedly held, that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people as individual citizens to keep and bear arms. We need not debate about what constitutes "arms" within this constitutional right, because 1. it's not terribly on-topic and 2. not all RKBA'ers agree on this topic (omg).

However, not only do we hold that we as United States citizens have this right, but we also hold that we have a NATURAL RIGHT to self-defense (including our families and homes), and therefore have a NATURAL RIGHT to have access to equal firepower as those who would threaten our selves, our families, our homes, and other innocents who cannot defend themselves. If we did not believe in this natural right, beyond acknowledging that the civil right existed in the Constitution, why would we bother to safely own and operate guns, and post in an RKBA diary series? Understanding this is critical to understanding our comments and stances.

So, when I comment:

 Also proves that people who use guns illegally (9+ / 0-)

      aren't stopped by gun laws all that well, eh?

      by GoGoGoEverton

I'm not saying "Oh we shouldn't have laws because we'll still have murders, thefts, etc!!!!!"

I'm saying, before you would endeavor to take my natural rights away (and my civil rights here in the USA), consider that doing so will not stop a criminal from obtaining a gun illegally and using it against my family or other innocents, but it will stop me, a law-abiding contributor to society, from stopping that criminal when the police cannot.

Originally posted to GoGoGoEverton's Blog on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 07:25 AM PDT.

Also republished by Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

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

  •  So....perhaps the conversation should be on how (13+ / 0-)

    to STRENGTHEN enforcement mechanisms so that people who illegally acquire arms and ammunition--be they felons, black market, what have you--do NOT have that access.

    And in this case, the NRA lobby has been woefully wrong to block such measures from even being discussed.

    "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 Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 07:31:33 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely. Unlike many others, I found their (10+ / 0-)

      reaction to the VaTech shootings to be woefully inadequate; instead of LOUDLY ADVOCATING for measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally-ill, they mostly sat back and said "hey, we never said we supported the mentally-ill having guns."

      "However, I don't think that critiquing one precludes praising the other" - The Troubador

      by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 07:38:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's the problem. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zenbassoon, senilebiker

      The whole "criminals don't obey laws anyway" argument is valid, but it sidesteps the central issue.  That gun that a criminal buys illegally, unless it's homemade, was legally sold at some point.  So, how can you stop the straw buyers from illegally selling their legally-purchased weapons?  
      Personally, I'd go with federal registration of all weapons, but I know that one's not going to fly.  What's the answer, then?

      •  Ya know, there used to be a full federal (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scientician, senilebiker, gerrilea, jayden

        registration law.

        The militia act of 1792 mandated that all firearms in the US be registered.

        "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 Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 07:52:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not quite - by a long shot. (11+ / 0-)

          Militia Act of 1792/1795

          I can't find any reference to "shall register his pistol, musket, rifle or firelock" anywhere in the document.

          I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

          "18th part of a pound" = 18 "gauge" or .637 inch bore diameter

          A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

          by 43north on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:38:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, it didn't require registration (12+ / 0-)

          according to my tired old eyes (I was wrong once or twice), members of the Militia were required by law to purchase, on their own, certain arms and ammunition. It was required of  the Officers to see that the individuals had obtained those specifics. In the actual Law, there was no registration of arms.It was required to own at least the minimums , however.

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

          Lather still finds it a nice thing to do... My Site

          by meagert on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:42:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Can you point to that provision? (8+ / 0-)

          I read the whole thing and didn't find it.

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

          by happy camper on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:49:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  So, if the guns are all registered, (9+ / 0-)

        How does that still prevent theft of guns from legal owners, or the straw buyer who then claims the gun was stolen? The next step is to require that we all keep our guns in a central, safe location, like our local gun club, isn't it? I believe that's what several other countries with "sensible" gun laws require.

        -5.12, -5.23

        We are men of action; lies do not become us.

        by ER Doc on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:29:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tipped & recc'd-even though I'm on the "other" (9+ / 0-)

    side.

    I loved this-

    We need not debate about what constitutes "arms" within this constitutional right, because 1. it's not terribly on-topic and 2. not all RKBA'ers agree on this topic (omg).

    Nice to see dissension allowed in any group (& with humor).

    Is it true, that even with all the guns floating around, it's safer in here than in I/P diaries?

    Meteor Blades seems to do an outstanding job of community moderation despite the abject failure to be perfect.

    by catilinus on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 07:48:02 AM PDT

  •  help me to understand better ... (6+ / 0-)

    "natural right to have access to equal firepower..." because i see this argument as parallel to mutually assured destruction, and this is why: at what level do you feel that you are equally/sufficiently armed? is it necessary that you have a 30 shot clip because someone else in the crowd might? what if that guy has 2 guns with 30 shot clips? what if he has a grenade? my concerns are the tendency to escalate and the qualifications necessary to return fire.
     i don't have a problem regarding how you protect your home, your family when they are in your home, your property when it is in your home, etc. but if that protection follows you down to the state park or the town hall meeting where i might be...whether an incident occurs or not and whether i even know you are there, you have become a factor in my life that i do not want.
     regarding the qualifications necessary to return fire i mention above let me state that i own a .357 and even with practice, i still miss. for this reason i want to live my life believing that it is much more likely that i'll never have need of protecting myself with a gun...but again, i have one. i also like to hunt, so i require particular types of equipment.

     

    •  The law-abiding citizen who carries a gun (14+ / 0-)

      is not a danger to you, as long as you don't threaten him with lethal force. One of our group was carrying a weapon all through the Netroots Nation 11 conference, and he didn't even shoot any of the assholes from the Right Online conference who were hassling us.

      -5.12, -5.23

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:24:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yet. That we know-of. (9+ / 0-)
        and he didn't even shoot any of the assholes from the Right Online conference who were hassling us

        A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

        by 43north on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:41:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  i'm a law abiding citizen, for the most part, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper, senilebiker

        who does not carry a gun...and i am absolutely no threat at all...to anyone. i don't want to get into an argument here because it serves no purpose...but just for argument's sake let me try to get my point across...
        replace gun with flu virus...i still abide by the law but if i come to work with the flu virus i put people at risk, even if i wear a mask and maintain distance...and those people i put at risk had no choice in the matter because i came to work with the flu.

        •  Come on, you're smarter than that. (5+ / 0-)

          Are you really comparing having a virus, which you did not voluntarily contract nor have complete control over whether you spread it or not (after you decided to come to work), to carrying a gun?

          Your "questions" are polite but the repeated drifts into drama and intellectual gray areas are starting to make me wonder...

          "However, I don't think that critiquing one precludes praising the other" - The Troubador

          by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:19:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  wonder what? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            happy camper, gzodik, oldpunk

            are you always so defensive? i'm not in any way trying to tell you you can't carry a gun so you feel safe...
            my point is that a gun changes the equation, regardless of who has it. i don't want to be anywhere in public where guns are a factor, unless i have made the choice to do so. i'm not being dramatic, i'm trying to present my opinion, while at the same time offering an opportunity to show me i'm completely wrong.

            •  You seem to write well so it's (5+ / 0-)

              difficult to understand why you think having the flu = carrying a gun.

              And it's also not true that "regardless of who has it" is not a factor on whether a gun is around, right? I mean you're implying that meth-head with gun = licensed concealed-carrier?

              "However, I don't think that critiquing one precludes praising the other" - The Troubador

              by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:40:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  no... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                happy camper, gzodik

                i'm saying that if there is no gun, it is not a part of the equation. if there is a gun, it is a part of the equation.
                no gun = no chance of any shots fired.
                gun = chance of shots fired.
                that's all i'm saying.

                •  You are correct... (3+ / 0-)

                  ...but you also should factor in the probability of such an occurrence.

                  As an example, you are more likely to be hit by lightning when it's raining than on a sunny day, but the absolute odds are very steep nonetheless.

                  Your chances of dying in a traffic accident are higher if you're driving through Chicago in rush hour traffic than on some deserted stretch of interstate in Wyoming, but still very low overall.

                  As I said in another comment, the experience in states with concealed carry has been that lawful permit holders are highly unlikely to have an adverse effect on anyone at all.

                  Life involves accepting many risks, some minor and some not. The risk posed by legal CCW holders has been proven to be trivial, in the larger scheme of things.

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

                  by happy camper on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:04:36 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Fine but CCW (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    happy camper, Joieau, oldpunk

                    is not constitutionally required.  Surely you concede that?  (I am an RBKAer, btw).

                    While you may try to convince other people that CCW doesn't pose a risk to them or that the risk should be judged acceptable you can't reasonably say that someone is anti-RBKA just because they want to do away with CCW.

                    (For the record, I don't have a problem with permitted and trained CCW).

                    •  Well, it does say (4+ / 0-)

                      "keep and bear".

                      You have touched on something that is a topic of vigorous debate among gun rights advocates. Open carry with no permit, as in Vermont or Arizona, is often referred to as "constitutional carry".

                      The constitution does not grant rights, it assumes that they exist independent of government, and it restricts the government's ability to deny those rights.

                      That said, I personally believe the states--and the feds--have the right to regulate, but not to blanket prohibit, the carrying of weapons both concealed and openly.

                      I would say advocating complete prohibitition of CCW is, to an extent, an anti RKBA stance (pro keep, anti bear?). Different from those who'd like to see all guns eliminated, but anti nonetheless.  

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

                      by happy camper on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 11:06:37 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  We are not talking about open-carry (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        oldpunk

                        What basis do you have to suggest that prohibition of concealed carry is unconstitutional.  I don't think you have any.

                        RKBA stance (pro keep, anti bear?)

                        Supporting some specific restrictions on bearing (or keeping) isn't anti-RBKA as defined by this group.  

                        •  If you re-read (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          oldpunk

                          my response you will note that I agree that the government can regulate carrying weapons. No problem with that at all.

                          It does say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I and many others don't view training requirements and bans on criminals and those with mental illness as infringement. Many rights are subject to regulation.

                          But an absolute prohibition, is IMHO too much, and significantly infringes the right.

                          There's a middle ground that satisfies both the constitution and the goal of public safety.

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

                          by happy camper on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:18:07 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  But it ISN'T absolute prohibition (0+ / 0-)

                            It's just absolute prohibition on concealment.

                            Like, absolute prohibition on concealment without training is "absolute".

                            Like, absolute prohibition against mental illness.

                            Like, absolute prohibition against felons.

                            In all cases, a person can still carry.

                            There's a middle ground that satisfies both the constitution and the goal of public safety.

                            Yes. And you still haven't said anything to the effect of why prohibition against concealment is not "middle ground".  One merely needs to not conceal his/her weapon and can carry whereever they want.  Their right to carry is not being infringed.

                          •  To add.. (0+ / 0-)

                            There is a difference to what it is you support vs what it is that is constitutional.

                            I support CCW (with permitting and training).  I see no evidence, however, that a prohibition against CCW is unconstitutional.  

                          •  If I understand (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, Crookshanks

                            you correctly, you believe that concealed carry may be prohibited while open, "constitutional carry", may not be banned?

                            I'm not sure why there's a difference... but I have no issue with either being subject to such things as the existing NICS background check, as well as requirements for range practice, safety training, and education re: the law as it pertains to self defense. If someone is going to carry around people, they really should know what they're doing.

                            I think concealed carry is a better way to go, myself... it is less upsetting to opponents of gun rights, and for that matter to many who support gun rights. There are plenty of hunters, for example, who are not supportive at all of openly carrying a weapon in public. Plus, if the bad guys don't know who else might be armed, so much the better.

                            But, I have disposed of the dead skunk and washed both of my incredibly stupid dogs with peroxide and Dawn dish soap--they are still a bit aromatic, but not nearly as bad. The male, who is always the leader in these matters, got bit on the face, but is current on his shots.

                            This is not their first time playing with the black and white kitty, either. They never learn...

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

                            by happy camper on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 02:04:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My specific beliefs are (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            happy camper

                            First, I recognize a difference between what I think is good law versus what I think is constitutional law.

                            Preferred Law
                            1).  Open carry without permit except with usual restrictions.
                            2).  CCW with permit/training restrictions

                            Maximum constitutional restrictions (ie, these laws are not preferred but are constitutional)
                            1).  Open carry with permit
                            2).  concealed prohibited

                        •  OMFG (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          oldpunk

                          My idiot dog just killed a skunk in the front yard. Right outside the window. I gotta go. Shit.

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

                          by happy camper on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 12:24:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Current law is evolving, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Crookshanks

                      but here's where it (kinda) stands now, albeit not at the SCOTUS level.

                      Basically, to be in compliance with the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms", the State must permit some lawful form of carry, and may not place an undue burden on the exercise of that right.

                      In practice, this has meant "shall-issue concealed carry, or open carry, or both, but not neither," with State Legislatures able to decide which mode they prefer. It's also true that, when faced with that choice, State Legislatures have tended to favor shall-issue CCW over open carry.

                      It is also significant that, to my knowledge, no State has ever enacted increased restrictions on gun ownership after going to a shall-issue CCW policy. Which is, I think, why the Brady Campaing and LCAV have been so adamantly opposed to any expansion of carry rights. Not because it increases violence, (although they say that in their rhetoric, I don't think they're uninformed enough to actually believe that it's true,) but because they know that having people who use their 2nd Amendment rights in their daily lives makes them unwilling to support further restrictions on their rights. Legal CCW is a fatal blow to their agenda, especially when it causes no problems.

                      --Shannon

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

                      by Leftie Gunner on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 06:29:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Weak comment, sad to say... (6+ / 0-)

                  No knives= no stabbings
                  No hammers= no boinking
                  No guitars= no El kabong
                  No car=no hit and runs
                  And the list goes on.
                  Just living is risky. I can't live worrying about what others fear, I have my own to worry about. Thankfully, I live in a Country that protects my Right to self defense.
                   Solve the violence in Society by removing the real root causes, like the Drug War, insufficient Mental Health treatment, lack of Employment, Racism, and republicanism.

                  Lather still finds it a nice thing to do... My Site

                  by meagert on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:05:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  That sounds simplistic. (0+ / 0-)

                Certainly, presence of a gun changes the equation.

                Bob is getting drunk and rowdy. And/or, Bob is acting like a bully toward me or someone else. Or Bob is trying to pick a fight.

                Are you going to stand up to Bob? Damn right.

                Oh, wait. Bob has a loaded pistol on his belt. You're telling me that makes no difference?

                GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

                by gzodik on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 03:15:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I do see your point (5+ / 0-)

          and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to boil down to uncertainty about the qualifications of the person with the weapon.

          In my state (MI) you must have training and range time, as well as a background check, to get a permit, which I view as a good thing. I'm not totally on board with states like Arizona that allow anyone with a pulse to carry openly.

          I feel that public safety can be adequately addressed through firearm safety training and properly performed background checks. It seems to work well where I live--we have had very few problems caused by CCW holders in the ten years since shall issue became the law.

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

          by happy camper on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:37:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A holstered gun is not a communicable disease... (6+ / 0-)

          You don't ever know that the law-abiding citizen is carrying a gun unless he chooses to take it out to use it. It cannot affect you unless he takes affirmative action to cause such an effect.

          -5.12, -5.23

          We are men of action; lies do not become us.

          by ER Doc on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:45:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You're ALWAYS at risk, everywhere. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, Crookshanks

          Those of us that realize and, within the law, prepare for that are no danger to those around us, unless they BECOME one to us.

          As long as we remain afraid, or believe that the formal mechanisms of power can bring us real reform, nothing will change - Chris Hedges

          by ocular sinister on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 04:01:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That's not necessarily true. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper, gzodik

        Part of the argument against hi-cap magazines, for example, is that the ability to shoot a high volume of ammunition may lead to people exercising less care even when they do have legitimate reasons to shoot. And I can understand that: if you have a 32-round magazine, and it actually takes you until that 32nd round to effectively defend yourself, what happened to those other 31 bullets?

        As a policy matter, I would prefer steps that encourage marksmanship and conservation of ammunition, especially among defensive carriers. And I completely agree with Bill Ruger about the needs of an honest man.

        ‎"Our greatest asset as advocates is a deep cognizance of our own ignorance, plus a willingness to do something about it." -Joseph Mitchell Kaye, 1966.

        by JR on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:19:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The shooter in Norway was law abiding ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc

        ... until he wasn't.

        •  You are absolutely correct! (4+ / 0-)

               Obviously, we should all be in preventive detention. We are all potentially criminals, and there's no way to know when any of us might snap. Preventive detention is allowed under the Constitution, isn't it?
                I'm pretty sure prior restraint is allowed under the First Amendment, just in case that novel I've been working on contains pornography. That wouldn't violate my rights, would it?

          -5.12, -5.23

          We are men of action; lies do not become us.

          by ER Doc on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 03:43:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We could do all of that. (0+ / 0-)
            Obviously, we should all be in preventive detention. We are all potentially criminals, and there's no way to know when any of us might snap. Preventive detention is allowed under the Constitution, isn't it?

            Or we could just not have guns.

            •  Actually, with or without guns, (0+ / 0-)

              we are still all potential criminals. I could easily "snap" during the night and smother my s.o. with my pillow. Or, lose control during an argument and pound the hell out of her. You never know; it could happen. So, by this logic, preventative detention. Because we're not worried about people's Constitutional rights, we're worried about preventing the potential for crime.
                    Obviously, what I'm talking about is the fact that we don't violate people's Constitutional rights based on the possibilty that they might abuse those rights; that's why we call them "rights." People are guaranteed their rights under the Constitution until they are convicted of a violation that allows the government to infringe the right by law. Prior restraint is not allowed, and the SCOTUS has affirmed that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right.

              -5.12, -5.23

              We are men of action; lies do not become us.

              by ER Doc on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 07:49:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  My father in law was recently killed (0+ / 0-)

              ...by a guy with an SUV.  I'm not trying to make this personal so I'm just bringing this up as an example, but cars kill far more people than guns, they are much more destructive to wildlife, the environment, etc.  Cars have caused cities to spread into suburbs and create urban sprawl.  At least in my mind, I would argue that cars are a much greater problem in our society and much more dangerous.  This may be just because of what has happened to myself and people I know, but I would ban cars before I ban guns.

              However, I admit that this is a purely emotional idea of mine, since in both cases the machines have their purposes and can be abused.  The real problems in both cases are the people.  I think driving licenses need to be stricter and less people should be on the roads.  Driving drunk should come with a life sentence in my opinion.  Likewise, while I support gun ownership by private individuals, I think gun users should be registered rather than guns.  If you want to shoot a gun, there should be a mandatory safety class, background check, and test to get a license.  Beyond that, I don't think we should have restrictions on types of clips, automatics, etc.  There should be very strict laws against things like accidental gun discharge within city limits.

    •  This sort of gets into the "arms" thing I mention (7+ / 0-)

      as perhaps a convo for another day.

      Still, in the context of this diary (in other conversations YMMV ), I would think that most places in the US aren't broke enough yet that RPG's can be smuggled in and used.

      I disagree that it's "mutually assured destruction" and that sounds intentionally dramatic , because one party gets the shooting done first...the bullets don't pass each other on the way like nukes fired across the ocean.

      All RKBA'ers advocate extensive training and best-practices knowledge for anyone utilizing firearms.

      "However, I don't think that critiquing one precludes praising the other" - The Troubador

      by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:29:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "parallel to mad"...is what i said, and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper

        perhaps it was dramatic, but not intentionally. but you haven't responded to my request to understand your remarks better regarding equal firepower..

        •  I thought I covered it (3+ / 0-)

          but by "equal firepower", I mean equal end result expectation.

          So, if you bring an RPG into my house, I don't think that gives me the right to own/shoot you with an RPG, because while your firing would turn me into burnt mush, you'll be just as dead if I shoot you in the chest with a .357.

          "However, I don't think that critiquing one precludes praising the other" - The Troubador

          by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:12:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i'm good with whatever you have at home. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

            and i'll never deny you that. i just hope you understand that my concerns are what happens outside of your home in the event that we are ever at the same party, that's all. and knowing that someone had a gun during the nn11 and nobody got shot...i can't agree with that being ok.

            •  Can't resist this bit of snark, sorry... (3+ / 0-)

              You're not happy that no one was shaot at NN11?

              Lather still finds it a nice thing to do... My Site

              by meagert on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:49:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  So your philosophical stance is that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, Crookshanks

              any right to defend yourself outside of your personal private property should be trumped by your...fear? Not being snide, feel free to replace "fear" with "right to something" that exists.

              "However, I don't think that critiquing one precludes praising the other" - The Troubador

              by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:49:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  last try... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Recall

                for starters, i don't feel the need to carry a gun to feel safe, so no fear there.
                cannot you understand that i'm merely expressing my right to not want to be around someone with a gun, unless it was previously agreed to or if we're going hunting? i'm not saying you can't carry a gun. i just don't want to be there.

                •  That was the best try (2+ / 0-)

                  I asked, and you answered, whether you think you have a right to be around someone with a gun. You say yes, and I assume you believe that trumps my right for personal defense outside of my home. We understand each other.

                  "However, I don't think that critiquing one precludes praising the other" - The Troubador

                  by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:33:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Where you go wrong (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Crookshanks

                  is in assuming that your right to not want to be around someone with a gun, which nobody denies that you have, (you can want anything, and nobody can stop you,) means that you also have a right to get what you want.

                  You don't.

                  You can advocate for what you want, although in this context, you've got a fairly hard road to get there. (It's only been done 27 times in over 200 years.)

                  But you don't get to win merely by wanting to.

                  --Shannon

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

                  by Leftie Gunner on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 06:36:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Carrying a gun at Netroots Nation (0+ / 0-)

                  While I wasn't there, I can understand someone being a little afraid at any gathering of liberal/progressive/Democratic folks.  I've been at volunteer events when phone calls come in with death threats simply for canvassing for a Democratic candidate.  We've seen extremists on the right murder abortion doctors, ambush police, shoot up non-right wing churches, and attempt to assassinate a Congresswoman.  We've seen some right-wing idiot on TV create a conspiracy theory that has resulted in non-partisan or left-leaning charities being destroyed or having their workers be threatened.

                  There is a sizable number of folks on the right that are not content to argue folks like you or I, or even work against us politically.  They want us dead.  I have a family, and while I no longer wear my politics on my sleeve out in public, I am aware that there is a potential threat to my life if I were to be in any public political event.  As a result, I prefer to avoid being in a place where I am at risk, but at the same time I can understand someone who feels strongly enough to be there wanting to be able to defend themselves.  We live in an increasingly dangerous time for those of us on the left.  For some, it may provide more comfort to defend ourselves rather than to simply avoid being involved anymore.

                •  You have the right to "not want" as much as you (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Crookshanks

                  wish.

                  What you do not have is the right to make demands of others while in the same public area or private area you do not own.  In that case you have the right to express your displeasure and the right to leave.

                  This will not make you happy.  Others do not exist to make you happy.

                  You were not put on this world to "get it" Mr. Burton.

    •  A modern sidearm (8+ / 0-)

      is sufficient. A thirty shot mag is a foot long--not too many people want to carry something that unwieldy. They're nice for the range if you don't want to reload as often, I guess, but they really aren't practical for concealed carry purposes.

      If the guy has a grenade, I'd say run like hell ;-)

      Available data show a vanishingly small chance of a random individual, or even a criminal, being shot by someone defending themselves. Most defensive uses do not involve shots fired.

      You're in more danger on the freeway during rush hour than from CCW holders in public.

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

      by happy camper on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:40:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another thing I would (13+ / 0-)

    bring up in the context of the right to defend oneself...

    Before the invention and general availability of firearms, the strong ruled the weak. Every other weapon previously available--sword, knife, spear, club--required that the person wielding the weapon be physically fit and/or well practiced in it's use. Even then, a very proficient person could still be easily overwhelmed by multiple  attackers.

    Firearms changed that forever. With a gun, anyone can defend themselves. It is simply the most efficient means of leveling the playing field.

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

    by happy camper on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 08:15:13 AM PDT

    •  The Equalizer (6+ / 0-)

      Isn't that what they called Colt's weapon? It has some truth to it, certainly. But it doesn't say if it lowered or raised everyone to the same level. And that's the source of a lot of contention on the issue. If you believe it raises the level then you're likely pro-gun. If you believe it lowers the level then you're likely anti-gun. Do guns actually make society safer or not? The statistics give a firm "Meh" on that. Some things are better some are worse. Frankly I think that means people make too much of an issue out of it. I'd rather spend energy on, well, energy policy than gun policy.

      Modern Conservatism isn't simply about them owning as much as possible; it's also about breaking anything they can't own.

      by ontheleftcoast on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:11:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or, as Chris Rock put it: (3+ / 0-)

      "I like guns. You have a gun, you don't have to work out. 'You got pecs? I got Tecs!'"

      ‎"Our greatest asset as advocates is a deep cognizance of our own ignorance, plus a willingness to do something about it." -Joseph Mitchell Kaye, 1966.

      by JR on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 09:21:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So what's the point of gun training and practice? (0+ / 0-)
      Before the invention and general availability of firearms, the strong ruled the weak. Every other weapon previously available--sword, knife, spear, club--required that the person wielding the weapon be physically fit and/or well practiced in it's use. Even then, a very proficient person could still be easily overwhelmed by multiple  attackers.

      Firearms changed that forever. With a gun, anyone can defend themselves. It is simply the most efficient means of leveling the playing field.

      If it doesn't help, why do you guys make such a big deal out of it?

      •  The point is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Crookshanks, PavePusher

        that with a gun, even someone who is relatively weak, or small, or elderly, can defend themselves against a larger, stronger attacker, whereas with for example a sword, no amount of training or practice will make up for youth and strength, or make it possible to overcome multiple attackers.

        That does not mean that proper training, practice, and safety instruction is not necessary, it means that with proper training almost anyone can master the use of a firearm and use it effectively to defend themselves.

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

        by happy camper on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 04:51:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Every day when I go biking I see senior citizens (0+ / 0-)

          training themselves in what is by far the most effective defense technique against swordsmen.

          It doesn't work nearly as well against gunmen.

          •  you can run away from a gun.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            ... what, do you have this Hollywood notion in your head that guns are magical talismans that equal death to all who come up against them?  Nothing could be further from the truth.

            Two points to ponder:

            1) The NYPD had a study that concluded their officers only hit what they aim at 15% of the time when firing to defend themselves.  That's a trained police officer, not a criminal.

            2) 80% of people shot with handguns survive.

            I'd take my chances running away from someone with a gun before I'd meekly surrender to them.

            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 Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 07:00:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  and a third point for you to ponder: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            3) Guns are the original ranged weapon.  Humans were trying to kill each other at a distance for thousands of years before firearms were invented.

            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 Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 07:02:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  This is why I enjoy shooting sports. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

          I've been chronically ill with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis since I was 18.  I went from being an athlete for much of my life up until then, to struggling to get out of bed in the morning, and dealing with substantial pain in doing so.  With my zillion medications (including the Enbrel injections), I can live a relatively normal day-to-day life within what I consider my normal daily pain threshold.

          I love clay target shooting because it is something I can do, and very much enjoy, that falls in the range of my physical capabilities.  (Granted, I can be a little sore sometimes after going 2-3 skeet rounds in an evening).

  •  Correction (0+ / 0-)
    The RKBA group understands, as the SCOTUS has repeatedly held, that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people as individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

    Should read:

    The RKBA group understands, as the SCOTUS has once held, that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people as individual citizens to keep and bear arms in their homes provided that local, state and federal laws regarding ownership and licensing have been met.

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 10:58:01 PM PDT

    •  Except that the Constitution and the courts... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

      and history, say no such thing.

      Unless you can show me your licence for your books and papers, your voting permit card, with all fees up-to-date, and your Thirteenth Amendment training certificate....

      •  Try reading Heller vs DC... (0+ / 0-)

        which is the currently operative interpretation of the Second Amendment by the US Supreme Court, and says exactly what I said it did, instead of posting nonsense strawman arguments and pretending that they represent the law.

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 08:59:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Feel free to cite the part that restricts... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

          "keep and bear" to inside the home.

          I will advise you in advance that you are headed for grammar fail.

          •  Here's my fail: (0+ / 0-)
            In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
            District of Columbia et al v. Heller, at p.64

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 09:08:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site