Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  I think one problem lies in how the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Glen The Plumber

    second amendment is currently worded and interpreted, such that it sets up the very dynamic of creating groups like the RKBA, because it's the 'only game in town'.  Unless you're careful to always caveat your words, you end up either blanket supporting it or blanket opposing it.  And as I said to RKBA'ers elsewhere, if you blanket support it, I consider you partially responsible for the ongoing massacres, because you're actually backstopping groups like the NRA, rather than fighting for changes to the second that might result in reduced gun violence while still granting responsible access to firearms.

    Removing the influence of the NRA on legislators and altering the second amendment to be more specific about what 'well-regulated' entails are merely tactics towards the true goal - reduced gun violence.  And I tend to think the obsessive focus on specific weapon or magazine types, and the black and white granting of licenses to individual A but not individual B are failed band-aid attempts toward that problem.

    •  Well, here's where we part ways. (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think there's anything wrong with the 2nd as written. I think it's being interpreted wrong, by ideological warriors bent on returning us to an era that never was. you know what i mean? I think the conservative members of SCOTUS see guns rights as a freedom issue but, like  ignoring the excesses of wall street and hedge fund managers, allow things to go off the deep end of the spectrum? does that make sense. sorry, i lost my train of thought while writing this.

      "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

      by blueoregon on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 08:10:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Heh. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoregon, Glen The Plumber

        The problem with it as written is exactly what you've pointed out in the rest of your comment.  It's vague enough to interpret in ideologically driven ways, rather than ones that support 'the right to life'.

        I'd like it rewritten to establish some minimums for just what 'well-regulated' actually means, that deliver a reduction in violence by actually requiring a third party intervention at the time you decide to 'access' a weapon in most cases, and limit you to having physical possession of a single weapon at a time, even if you own multiples.

      •  Well Regulated (0+ / 0-)

        This language is in the amendment. It's on the home page of the freakin' NRA website. Yet mention to an RKBA member that, like the first amendment doesn't guarantee ALL speech is protected, so the second amendment doesn't guarantee ALL gun ownership. They won't hear of it. "Well regulated militia" means nothing to them, or at least it certainly doesn't mean that types of firearms should be regulated or prohibited from sale. It's a death culture, designed to spread fear and generate profits, not just for the gun industry, but for a host of goods and services aimed at exploiting people's fear and mistrust, the nation's military program seated high on that list.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site