Skip to main content

View Diary: Shut Down the NRA group. (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'll answer you: (11+ / 0-)
    shut down the NRA?
    No, even though I dislike them quite a bit, even though I'm one of the most "radical" members of the DKos RKBA group, which I've been a part of from the beginning. (I menton this not to turn this into a replica of the "Shut Down RKBA TODAY" clusterfuck, but only for context.)

    To vote implies the use of government power. Government power is force... force that can be used for good or ill, but using it for good doesnt change the fact that it is force. I do not favor the use of force to silence anyone. This is not a slippery slope... it's a cliff. Any government using its power to silence its citizens is tyrannical by defintion, no matter how much good it does. If the People do not have the unfettered power to tell the State "No!," that's tyranny.

    Would you vote to reverse Citizens United?
    No, see above. To grant the State the power to silence your enemies, or even to turn their volume knob down, is to grant it he power to do the same to you. The only safe course of action is never to give government that power in the first place... once you do, it's much, much harder to take it back if they start misusing it. (It usually ends up with lots of people dying.)
    Would you vote to keep the Chamber of Commerce on a short political leash?
    Same question, same argument.
    Would vote for a national policy furthering the aims and interests of workers?
    So vague as to be meaningless as written, but I'll answer the question I think you're asking. If I'm wrong in my interpretation, let me know and I'll resubmit:

    Yes, but. Yes, I think that, since most people work for thier living, a functioning democratic republic should put their interests up front when considering what it's going to do. They're most of the population, so subject to the limitations on government power embedded in the Constitutions (State and Federal, as applicable in each case) they should usually get what they want. But, just because those proposing a particular policy say that it will "further the aims and interests of workers" doesn't mean I'd vote for it. If I think it will, and that the improvement is worth the cost, (TANSTAAFL always applies... everything has a cost,) then yes. If not, no.

    And you know what? As crazy as our system is in many ways, that's usally what happens. And yes, I know all about "What's the Matter With Kansas", and "Overton windows", and all the polls that show that majorities of people say they want the stuff we want . I simply contend that all that stuff is secondary. What people really want, they vote for... talk is cheap, only actions and results matter. All the stuff that we talk about is really about ways to get people to want what we want bad enough that they'll actually vote for people who say they're going to do it. Right now, they don't, from which the only logical conclusion that respects them as my equals is that they don't want those things as much as they say they do.

    Would you vote to end the national drug war on ourselves?
    Absolutely, instantly, and without hesitation. No only does it have human, social and monetary costs far greater than the harm it is trying (and mostly failing) to prevent, but the attempt has done more to harm the liberty and sovereignty of the People than any other policy in the history of the Republic, excepting only slavery. (Slavery in this context includes Jim Crow, because after losing the Civil War, that's as close as the Confederate States could get without starting another one, which they were never going to do... General Sherman taught them well.)
    Would you vote, for instance, for getting at least some medical care to everyone everywhere on the planet?
    No, although I think they should have it. But I am a fan of nation-states. Global government is unworkable for humans. So, while I believe that every human should have access to some level of medical care, I do not want the power to give it to them. (And I hope I would not use it if I had it.) I wil support them in thier efforts to compel their governments to provide it, just as I work to get my government to do so. Further than that  I cannot go.
    Who isn't our brothers and our sisters?
    Those who have, by their actions, removed themselves from our family, by demonstarting by those actions that they are unworthy to be a part of it. Pol Pot was never my brother. Francisco Franco was a member of my species, nothing more.


    "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 Dec 14, 2012 at 09:16:58 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The more distance from well-regulated militia, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radical simplicity, a2nite, MrJersey

      the closer to ape-shit militia we go, the more guns that will be eliminated. Dissent against government is standing up to a tank (Tienanmen Square), not Red Dawn (Tinsel Town).   Good bye to unregulated guns.

      Hey, GOP - Get In, Sit Down, Shut up, & Hang On!

      by 88kathy on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 10:34:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I actually agree with that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      George3, mamamedusa, fuzzyguy

      even if you are from RKBA, whatever the hell that stands for. The author of the comment went off the rails framing these issues as being stopped by votes. Nobody here wants to shut up Rush Limbaugh with a vote, but we would all like to see him lose his advertisers and ultimately his position in radio.

      The same with the NRA. It's time the citizens of this country took them on and pointed out how much damage they do, on a very public, continuing, day by day basis.

    •  If you support the second amendment as written (5+ / 0-)

      then "A well regulated (trained) ...," should be very important words to you since they were carefully chosen to be the very first three.

      Also, the only weapons under consideration at the time were muzzles loaders. I'd be happy to let any American own as many muzzle loaders as they like. It would be nearly impossible for a single person to commit mass murder with a muzzle loader.

      Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

      by FrY10cK on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 04:42:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  All men are our brothers. Even the monsters. And (6+ / 0-)

      as such we bear some responsibility for what they did. It is called humility. Something we are in desperate need of in this country. Pride and hubris go before a fall. And if we fail to recognize the essential humanity in everyone then we fail to recognize just how evil never goes away.

    •  Acorn. (16+ / 0-)

      Acorn was 'shut down', and it was done without 'applying force'.  It was defunded, and shamed, albeit unfairly so.

      To 'shut down' the NRA doesn't mean to literally make it illegal to be an NRA member or any such authoritarian twaddle.  It means to remove their power to intimidate legislators into voting in specific fashion by turning public opinion against such influence.

      •  Agreed. Add me. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found, fuzzyguy


        by kestrel9000 on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 05:43:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Before you request that, you might check out a (6+ / 0-)

          few of my recent responses to other RKBA member comments.  I'm thinking of a rather fundamental difference in how firearms are accessed in this country.  Ownership would not imply the right to unfettered possession 24/7, for instance.  I'd like to change the conversation from 'banning' specific types of guns or clips or magazines, and to 'well-regulating' gun access at the specific point in time guns are going to be used.

          To seek to have the vast majority of guns stored at secure facilities whenever not in use, and checked out from licensed armourers who would have the discretion to call in police to talk to users who seemed to be acting oddly at the point they want to check out firearms.  On the flip side, you wouldn't necessarily even be required to own guns.  You could check out state-owned hunting rifles for trips, for instance, if you had passed training requirements and background checks.

          If you think we can work towards that goal in common as well as in reducing NRA influence on legislators, I'll work with you with open arms.  I'm not interest in diaries getting bogged down in fights over the size of clips, the difference between clips and magazines, or the outward appearances of guns.

          •  We won't agree on everything (6+ / 0-)

            but we've never had to.
            We do seem to agree on the salient point: the influence of the National Rifle Association is destructive and must be reduced or countered in some way.
            Whether that influence be legislative or cultural or both.

            To seek to have the vast majority of guns stored at secure facilities whenever not in use, and checked out from licensed armourers who would have the discretion to call in police to talk to users who seemed to be acting oddly at the point they want to check out firearms.
            No, we'd not agree on that.

            But we could focus on those places where we do.


            by kestrel9000 on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 06:00:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ok. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              I'll send an invite, and hope we can keep things focused on the actual problem to be solved.

            •  The NRA warps the RKBA (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kestrel9000, oldpunk, VectorScalar

              int a partisan issue. The right to self-defense is universal and is neither reserved exclusively the state nor the cultural base of the NRA. The wingers need to get over themselves and their racial paranoia.

              That being said I support some demand-side reforms, where they would be most effective:

              If people, particularly poor people, feel more secure communities to begin with, they wouldn't feel compelled to arm themselves.

              If people had better access to mental health care and the stigma surrounding mental health care was removed, especially for men, then there would be fewer ticking time-bombs out there.

              If law enforcement was required to more assertively restrict weapon sales to mental patients and convicted felons, including the gun show loophole and private sales, then fewer disturbed individuals would have access to firearms.

              Finally, I'm going to say something that will get me HRed, but we need to allow teachers and professors and administrators working the the classroom to defend themselves with all available legal self-defense options.

              •  not from me (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oldpunk, fuzzyguy, VectorScalar

                you won't catch an HR.
                We probably don't agree entirely on what the gun show loophole is and isn't, but that's okay.
                We can have that conversation another time.
                I agree strongly with the remainder of your comment.


                by kestrel9000 on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 06:38:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Including arming teachers?? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sidnora, Bugsydarlin
                  •  Yes, arm the teachers. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    There is absolutely no need to arm the students:

                    I’ll repeat what I said in the Wall Street Journal op-ed section and on the Today show in 1999, after the Columbine High School atrocity: if we simply prepared teachers to handle this type of crisis the way we teach them to handle fires and medical emergencies, the death toll would drop dramatically.  We don’t hear of mass deaths of children in school fires these days: fire drills have long since been commonplace, led by trained school staff, not to mention sprinkler systems and smoke alarms and strategically placed fire extinguishers that can nip a blaze in the bud while firefighters are en route.  In the past, if someone “dropped dead,” people would cry and wring their hands and wail, “When will the ambulance get here?” Today, almost every responsible adult knows CPR; most schools have easily-operated Automatic Electronic Defibrillators readily accessible; and a heart attack victim’s chance of surviving until the paramedics arrive to take over is now far greater.

                    The same principle works for defending against mass murders…it just doesn’t work HERE, because it is politically incorrect to employ it HERE.  After the Ma’alot massacre in 1974, Israel instituted a policy in which volunteer school personnel, parents, and grandparents received special training from the civil guard, and were seeded throughout the schools armed with discreetly concealed 9mm semiautomatic pistols.  Since that time, there has been no successful mass murder at an Israeli school, and every attempt at such has been quickly shortstopped by the good guys’ gunfire, with minimal casualties among the innocent.  Similar programs are in place in Peru and the Phillippines, with similarly successful results.


                    "Gun free" areas are hunting grounds for psychopaths and delusional infamy seekers. There is guarantee, much less substantive proof that any would stop them from acquiring weapons. We need to deny them the ability to prey at will.

            •  that's how it's done (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

              on military peacetime posts.

              The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers. - The Communist Manifesto

              by nolagrl on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 08:45:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  add me (0+ / 0-)

        The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers. - The Communist Manifesto

        by nolagrl on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 08:44:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site