Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhy do you care about the RKBA?
I have a question. Why do you care about the RKBA?
In general, I care deeply about all civil liberties. But gun rights have a special place in my heart. I guess I always liked guns growing up. I spent countless hours plinking with BB/pellet guns as a kid. As I got older I informally started shooting clays pretty regularly. I never really thought about gun politics or self defense. Most of my life, I didn't have a carry permit nor did I even own a handgun.
Over the course of many years both personal and national events helped shape my perspective. I now spend a lot of my free time involved with grassroots state level pro gun activism. I'm also an avid recreational shooter and collector.
Why do you care about the RKBA?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(70,172 posts)blast away whenever they feel like it
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)
Straw Man
(6,771 posts)blast away whenever they feel like it
Killing people is illegal. I don't think you'll find any "gunner" who thinks it shouldn't be.
beergood
(470 posts)if that's the purpose of the 2nd, than the 4th and 5th only exists to protect the guilty. it would be much easier to solve/prevent crime if we allowed law enforcement to invade your privacy, and got rid of due process.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)who seem to be all-in to fighting a destructive (to progressive causes) culture war-by-proxy.
This I believe is self-evident: The powerful, deep and widespread pro-2A activism WOULD NOT EXIST without this harsh, mean-spirited culture war effected by well-placed elites and the MSM.
I support the Second in an active way in the same manner I support the other BOR rights: when threatened. But with the other rights my activism was time-to-time; ordnances against peaceable assembly, restrictions on the right to choose, free speech restrictions, etc. With the Second, on the other hand, the threat is specific and constant; as if Infringement was now merely a policy concern, and an individual right has somehow become a kind of dead letter, or a "communal right" where such does not exist anywhere else in Constitutional theory.
I see the attacks on the Second as a bitter holdover from the days of very necessary and effective EXPANSION of civil rights for minorities, women, LGBTQ community, and now immigrants. It seems a small, well-placed elite has tried to hijack a genuine movement by grafting onto stereotypes of Americans the "gun issue" and thinking it can pull off some quick-change social reform. But it ain't that way. It's the same old orthodox prohibition whereby (this time) liberals become oddly ill-liberal, and think no one else will notice.
But there are millions of American who have noticed. And they are willing to grind out a scorched earth campaign. By any means necessary.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)You buy all of it, or you don't buy any of it.
metroins
(2,550 posts)The constitution can be amended.
tortoise1956
(671 posts)That is part of the beauty of this document. However, it is an all-or-nothing deal. We don't get to pick and choose the parts we like and ignore the other parts.
Big_Mike
(509 posts)No. 2, shooting well is a very frangible skill; it requires constant practice to stay good.
No. 3, I no longer hunt since my knees went bad, but I got my start with my dad at the NRA kids safe shooting program back in the day, and I taught my daughters enough for them to survive if they had to.
No. 4, I will always possess and maintain the skills required to protect my family from critters, whether the no-legged (Jake No-shoulders or snakes to the uninitiated), four-legged of whatever type, and the two-legged kind. I am equal opportunity: I will shoot whatever threatens my family.
beergood
(470 posts)could't agree more.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Really? So how is it that I can go two years or more without laying eyes on my guns and pick one up and make 3 inch groups at 100 yards? Am I just that much better than you?
No, if you can shoot it's because of muscle memory.
Admit it, you like the noise and the feeling of power it gives you which is all right. Just don't try to delude the rest of us.
sarisataka
(20,992 posts)to a one-time training session for people who wish to carry?
Do you think police should save money by canceling annual re-qualification?
Big_Mike
(509 posts)You assume a great deal with your final line of your post, one I find frankly insulting. Please refer to my avatar. That is the service ribbon for Desert Storm. It means I was in the service and saw combat at least there.
You are getting a 3" group at 100 yards with a rifle of unknown sight-type. I try to shoot 3" groups at 300 meters using iron sights. I'm a retired Combat Arms NCO from the Army. Shooting was a big part of my life for a very long time. You are by definition an amateur. I am a former soldier, where shooting well meant my life. Our sniper training was regularly over 850 meters (essentially 930 yards) with a scoped Remington 700 ADL type rifle.
Nowadays, I shoot almost more pistol than I do rifle. I try to maintain decent skills, by MY definition.
As for "noise and feeling of power," I was a Combat Engineer detonating charges of up to 2000 pounds of High Explosive (HE) at once. Small arms fire is nowhere near the same. I get and got one hell of a rush from detonating HE just about each and every time.
I don't believe I made any statement in my original post that should lead you to your comment:
Admit it, you like the noise and the feeling of power it gives you which is all right. Just don't try to delude the rest of us.
Your snide final line simply illustrates how little you comprehend serious shooting as well as your execrable attitude.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)and you're an dead-eye marksman for the remainder of your life. Sigh, to think all that time I spent on the various ranges while in the USMC was wasted, not to mention the countless rounds fired before and since.
Response to Big_Mike (Reply #40)
CompanyFirstSergeant This message was self-deleted by its author.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Muscle memory helps...but that memory is vague if you don't practice.
Lucky Luciano
(11,424 posts)It is completely irrelevant to me as shooting isn't a hobby for me. I am not fighting to eliminate it per se, but if the rkba were repealed, I wouldn't care one bit.
theatre goon
(87 posts)The reason I am particularly vocal about the RKBA is that I am a Democrat, but too many other Democrats are all too willing to dismiss this one.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)theatre goon
(87 posts)I would like my party to support Civil Rights, rather than dismissing some of them - dismissing Civil Rights is a much more Republican stance.
Much like your childish attempts at insults being more commonly seen from Republicans than Democrats...
Those of us who lean leftward in our political stances tend to use actual arguments in discussions. Perhaps you should try it sometime, as well. Adult, substantive discussions are so much more rewarding than juvenile taunts.
Edited to react to the fact that I can't type well on my phone.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...isn't a discussion. Too bad a Democrat has more interest in bashing than in having a discussion.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)We are free to bash and dismiss radical RW gun views here.
If you feel RW views are worthy of discussion, perhaps you should seek out other venues.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...about you.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...if all it takes to freely bash a view is the assertion (with neither proof nor argument) that a view is right wing, you have a free-for-all.
What else can be said about an argument against the freedom to argue, reason and discuss and to merely bash by assertion?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Notice how on DEMOCRATIC Underground, gun control related discussions are generally prohibited in the site's main forum. Further, you'll notice that GC&RKBA is more active than GCRA. All on Democratic Underground. What does this tell you? It tells me that gun control lacks both traction and focus, even amongst Democrats.
Thoughts?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I know lots and lots of my fellow far-leftists that are pro-gun. It's simply false that defense of gun rights is "right wing."
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #17)
CompanyFirstSergeant This message was self-deleted by its author.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #50)
CompanyFirstSergeant This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #50)
CompanyFirstSergeant This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #50)
CompanyFirstSergeant This message was self-deleted by its author.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Are there other rights protected from government interference by the Bill of Rights that you'd like to take away? I'd say that since your position on gun confiscation directly conflicts with the party's official platform that you are on the wrong website.
theatre goon
(87 posts)...but I can certainly see why you try to falsely portray it that way - you can't come up with a coherent argument to support your stance.
hack89
(39,179 posts)Didn't know that. What kind of rights does the BOR contain?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...certain rights are wrong. 
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 17, 2016, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)
Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights
Calling gun rights a civil right is dishonest and a right wing/NRA talking point.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)which no government should infringe on. Those politicians who say otherwise, like former DC public safety director Paul Quander who believes it is better to be scared and injured, are complete hypocrites. They say to YOU, but HE had his gun, people with guns took HIS kids to school every day, and people with guns drove HIS wife wherever she wanted to go.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)are wise to provide protection for themselves and their family members.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I thought it was the gang violence in DC. Or maybe Bloomberg's MAIG mayors, who lost more members to the criminal justice system than elections, an average of five to eleven a year. Most of them for garden variety corruption, but some for violent, including gun, crimes and a few liking them REALLY young.
sarisataka
(20,992 posts)Guns for protection? We constantly hear how guns "go off." Having a bunch of armed guards around is really taking a risk; any one of their guns could "go off" and hurt the person they are protecting.
What about a "Bad Day"? We've been told people just have a "Bad Day" and snap when they have a gun in their possession and start shooting people. What do they do to prevent one of their bodyguards from having a "Bad Day"?
It seems that if politicians who speak out against the NRA / gun lobby need protection they should choose this from the same options they say the single mother who has to take the bus home at 2 in the morning from her second job also should choose from.
Response to sarisataka (Reply #28)
CompanyFirstSergeant This message was self-deleted by its author.
sarisataka
(20,992 posts)20 years I watched thousands of guns fire millions of rounds. In that time the number of them I saw just "go off" could be counted on one hand.
With a single exception, the reason the gun "went off" was because some knucklehead put his finger on the trigger when he was not supposed to.
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #24)
CompanyFirstSergeant This message was self-deleted by its author.
beergood
(470 posts)all who are threatened are wise to provide protection for themselves and their family members.
it just so happens that firearms are the best tools to offer that protection. why else would all those Politicians who speak out against the NRA/Gun Lobby own one?
beardown
(363 posts)From the Civil rights paragraph "Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety
Not that you wrote the wikipedia, but I don't get how ensuring "life and safety" is so separate and distinct from "self-defense" that it falls into your 'right wing/NRA' talking point outrage.
I think many RKBA folks are well aware, actually, much more aware than anti-gunners, of how gun laws and regulations have been used to restrict and remove civil rights from targeted groups.
hack89
(39,179 posts)Correct? At least in America.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Correct? At least in America.
This basic human and civil right denigrated here in this group, even to the point of being compared with mere hobbies, simply because it isn't mentioned in Holy Scripture.
hack89
(39,179 posts)there are several amendments protecting the right to vote.
You were saying?
stone space
(6,498 posts)there are several amendments protecting the right to vote.
You were saying?
If the Right to Vote is protected by the US Constitution as a basic and fundamental civil and human right, as you claim, then why was Eugene Debs not allowed to vote for himself when he ran for President from his Prison Cell, gaining a million votes, but not his own vote, due to felony disenfranchisement?
Eugene Debs was stripped of his basic and fundamental Right to Vote under the specific constitution that you cite as protecting those rights.
snip--------------------
SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.
SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.
https://pocan.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/pocan-and-ellison-to-introduce-right-to-vote-constitutional-amendment
hack89
(39,179 posts)My only point.
stone space
(6,498 posts)My only point.
hack89
(39,179 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)For me, that would be like trying to read the world's great religious texts in their original languages.
You sound very certain.
Are you sure that you haven't missed some?
Are you absolutely sure that the world's constitutions are even consistent on these matters, if you are going to rely on them to do your thinking for you?
Consistency will be especially important if you are going to rely on them for Arguments From Authority.
hack89
(39,179 posts)the Constitution stands at the pinnacle of our legal system. There is nothing above it.
stone space
(6,498 posts)We don't all get our opinions from a Right Wing Court in a cherry picked country.
Some of us can actually think for ourselves.
For us, Arguments From Authority are simply not convincing.
hack89
(39,179 posts)What is an "actual right" and how does it relate to the Constitution?
beevul
(12,194 posts)And thats supposed to speak in your favor? You sit here and argue with and demean people who CAN read our constitution in its original language. One might conclude that you really don't have any interest in doing so, and simply want it to mesh with your own personal belief system, no matter what it says.
The constitutions of other nations are almost exclusively irrelevant to any discussion of our constitution.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Perhaps you are more widely read than me.
I wasn't discussing any particular constitution or any specific religious text.
I was talking about basic and fundamental human and civil rights.
Then some folks started their Arguments From Authority, citing specific Authorities as backup.
That folks started making Arguments From Authority regarding the original question does not mean that the discussion is about any of those specific Authorities.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Asked like it matters to this discussion. It doesn't. All that matters to THIS discussion, is whether one can read the US constitution accurately or not.
That doesn't seem to give you any pause.
That's nice, everyone else is, but you keep trying to steer away from it.
In America, "civil rights" is a legal term, with a legal definition. The rights protected by amendment 2 meet that definition.
Again, everyone else is talking on that topic, but you keep trying to steer away from it.
And?
Staying on topic: In America (the nation being discussed), constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms (the subject being discussed) is a civil right (the term in question).
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)From the US State Department:
.....
Conversely, the influence of the U.S. Constitution has been carried abroad by Americans who have been called upon to serve as advisers in the writing of other constitutions. Americans have helped draft the Liberian, Mexican, German, Japanese, and Zimbabwean constitutions. American scholars also provided ideas for constitutional reform in the Philippines [and more recently in Eastern Europe and the middle East].
The principal reason for the influence of the Philadelphia Constitution abroad, however, can be summed up in one word—success. America is the richest, freest, and most powerful country in the world, with the longest-lived constitution. The second oldest is Belgium's, from 1831, followed by Norway's, from 1841. There are only four other countries that have constitutions written before the twentieth century: Argentina in 1853, Luxembourg in 1868, Switzerland in 1878, and Columbia in 1886. Seven other constitutions were created before World War II.
The U.S. Constitution has withstood the test of time. U.S. constitutional research is a major project in at least a dozen countries, as its value is being analyzed with a view to the writing of new constitutions.
Albert P. Blaustein was professor of law at Rutgers (The State University of New Jersey) School of Law. He authored numerous scholarly works on the subject of constitutionalism including a six-volume work on the U.S. Constitution entitled Constitution of Dependencies and Special Sovereignties. Blaustein helped draft more than 40 constitutions worldwide and visited many of those countries. In 1991, he helped to write the constitution for the Russian Republic. Professor Blaustein died in 1994.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2004/04/20040402110801maduobba0.7845575.html#axzz46fhHmKLT
sarisataka
(20,992 posts)What then are the basic human and fundamental rights? And how are they determined?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)What the hell is a 'higher right'?
Now that we're on the subject, maybe you can list them in order of 'highest' to 'lowest'.
That would be handy information.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I just used the word "higher" because it appeared in the post I was responding to.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)
beevul
(12,194 posts)Get over it.
Or don't.
Fortunately, your approval isn't necessary.
stone space
(6,498 posts)When folks talk about actual civil and human rights, we are generally talking about REAL civil and human rights, not just presumed constitutional legal protections for individual hobbies, and industries supporting those hobbies.
You know, like the Right to Vote. That is a civil and human right, despite it not yet appearing in Holy Scripture.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...that the rest of the world doesn't consider this topic a hobby speaks volumes.
beevul
(12,194 posts)How YOU define it is not relevant.
The narrowly defined definitions that you and so many gun haters use is not relevant. Lets see what the definition is from say...cornell law school:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwis0M_zkaXMAhVC7mMKHQJQDHUQFggnMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fwex%2Fcivil_rights&usg=AFQjCNEdBStWOnoi4X2NoiyNOwbsOpHnrQ
See above, mister calculolz teacher. If speech and press protected by amendment 1 are civil rights, than so are the rights protected by amendment 2.
You can disagree until you're blue in the face, but you'll just be wrong.
stone space
(6,498 posts)You cherry pick a single constitution from a single cherry picked country with a right wing Supreme Court doing the interpretation for you, and then try to use argument from authority to dismiss anybody who might disagree with you as "wrong".
Because you say so?
beevul
(12,194 posts)We aren't talking about the rest of the world here stoney.
Like it or not, reality is reality.
Argument from authority? Words have meanings, mister calculolz teacher. "Civil right" is a legal term, with a legal definition.
What YOU call an appeal to authority, is little more than an appeal to a legal dictionary. You just don't like it because it shows how wrong you are.
No, because you insist on being so.
stone space
(6,498 posts)In which countries do you feel that the basic and fundamental human and civil rights of people shouldn't be respected?
beevul
(12,194 posts)What part of "We aren't talking about the rest of the world here stoney" do you not understand?
Is there a particular word that's giving you trouble?
In America, like it or not, the rights protected by amendment 2 are civil rights.
You can define the term "civil right" in the conversations you have with yourself in your own head, any way you like.
You don't, however, get to define that term for the rest of us, who continue to use it in the proper legal sense.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And may have missed something, but why do we care what the constitution of some other country says? As a US citizen, the US Constitution is the one that matters, and the Second Amendment to that Constitution prevents the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms (which of course existed before the Constitution or Bill of Rights were enacted). I really don't care what any other country's constitution states.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Appeared in the original Bill of Rights, and is a "REAL" civil right, according to the people who drafted the Bill of Rights. Are there other constitutionally protected rights you dislike?
tortoise1956
(671 posts)And Wikipedia's editors are not the most unbiased people in the world.
Elsewhere, in the real world, it is a natural or human right, one that exists independently of any political system.
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #12)
CompanyFirstSergeant This message was self-deleted by its author.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Ya gotta love the classics, I suppose.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I mean, here's a link to a poll from last October in which 72% of respondents opposed a ban on private possession of handguns. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx. That tells me a lot of Dems polled think that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)The 2nd is the only right that has a significant number of people actively campaigning to rid us of it, for now anyway.
In the end, the right to self defense is just that. A right. I don't believe for one second that the baby fascists who'd try to rid us of it would be content to stop with the second. After all, religion, speech, gathering, being out on bail, defending one's self in court, voting, and other various right are just as scary to those sort of people. It's not about guns, it's about contro the person who can stand thd idea of you having a gun today wont be happy with you speaking out against them tomorrow. Never forget that.
Response to Kang Colby (Original post)
CompanyFirstSergeant This message was self-deleted by its author.
ileus
(15,396 posts)If I'm willing to roll over on the 2A, why not all the others? Why not just let the 1%ers choose a king for us?
How can we even claim to be progressive democrats if we're willing to give up rights for the fun of it.
I'll fight to keep the ability to protect myself and family, it's the moral thing to do.
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)this. It's what the Taibo government did to some of my relatives in South Dakota a century ago.
beergood
(470 posts)what/who is the Taibo government?
= white man.
beergood
(470 posts)from the white man is a good reason to keep and bear arms.
i say this as a white man. there's a lot of racist assholes out there.
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)...when they rounded us up for the rez was disarm us. Not happening again.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)Robbers, rapists and carjackers deserve immediate and fatal consequences, period. Someone who would violate my person or property does not register, to me, as a human being, merely vermin to be extinguished.
if every asshole breaking into a house, mugging someone or carjacking a vehicle knew they had a very high probability of dying from a gaping chest wound this vastly overpopulated world would be a much better place.