Skip to main content

View Diary: The RKBA From the Left - A Matter of Trust (375 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  All the gun enthusiasts I know personally (23+ / 0-)

    acknowledge, and personally practice, responsible gun ownership.

    That includes individuals in our RKBA group.

    I have never seen a diary endorse irresponsible gun ownership or encourage threatening the safety or lives of others.

    •  That is a nonsense reply that avoids the point... (21+ / 0-)

      The point isn't do YOU or THEY practice safe gun handling; the question is "can you trust or expect EVERYBODY to practice safe gun handling?"

      You state nobody you know advocate unsafe handling, but if you oppose gun regulations and controls, then in fact you are advocating exactly that.

      It is the same as if I advocated unrestricted speech but denied that anybody I knew had ever said anything racist or inflammatory.  I would only be demonstrating my own naivety, not the soundness of my argument.

      Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

      by LiberalCanuck on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:24:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't trust everyone to do the right thing ever. (13+ / 0-)

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:26:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No you qualified the characterization (16+ / 0-)

        and identified the group as:

        If the RKBA crowd would acknowledge that with gun ownership comes enormous responsibility to ensure their right to have a gun does not threaten the safety or lives of others

        Your words, not mine.

        I do not oppose ALL gun regulations and controls. Neither do the people I know, and the people you are discussing.

        I do endorse common sense regulations and controls. Always have, and as far as I know, the "RKBA crowd" and "2nd Ammendment Defenders" do as well.

        •  Why Canadian gun ownership does not equal.... (11+ / 0-)

          the number of deaths by guns experienced in the United States:

          Controls, Rules & Regulations to Gun Ownership in Canada:

          In the beginning...there was the PAL. A PAL as it is affectionately referred to it is actually a Possession Acquisition License - the license you need in order to be able to possess and purchase firearms in Canada - it used to be called an FAC - and the old timers still refer to it as such. The two types of PALs for Newbies are:

          Non-restricted - This license allows you to possess and purchase what would essentially be the types of firearms that would be used for hunting (in Canada - no elephants here!).

          Restricted - This license allows you to posses handguns and certain rifles

          The first step to acquiring one of these is to take a Canadian Firearms Safety Course (or its equivalent) and/or the Restricted Canadian Firearms Safety Course

          These courses are meant to familiarize you with the different types of firearms, how they function, how to handle and store them safely, as well as make you aware of all the rules and regulations that accompany the responsibility of owning firearms in Canada.

          In many cases the Instructor will have you fill out the required paperwork to process your license application(s) once you've passed the exam(s) and submit the paperwork for you.   Once your application has been submitted you have to sit back and wait for the government to process their background checks and your application.

          GOT MY PAL...NOW WHAT!

          Buying Your first Firearm... The process that you go through when buying a firearm differs from dealer to dealer and province to province. The best thing to do is to identify a dealer in your area - go visit them and ask questions. If you are buying a restricted firearm - there may very well be a delay between the time you purchase it and the time you can take it home.

          HUNTING...If you are intending to hunt you will also need to take a Hunter's Education course - you can get instructor information from most of the instructors that teach the PAL courses. Hunter's Ed courses differ from Province to Province.

          TARGET SHOOTING...You have Restricted PAL and now what do you do? In order to use a restricted firearm you will need an Authorization to Transport (ATT). This allows you to take your firearms to and from the shooting range. In order to get one - you need to belong to a club. Many times your instructor will be able to give you a list of clubs in your area that are taking new members.

          Storage: Non-restricted firearms

          Attach a secure locking device, such as a trigger lock or cable lock (or remove the bolt) so the firearms cannot be fired; or Lock the firearms in a cabinet, container or room that is difficult to break into.

          Restricted and prohibited firearms

          Attach a secure locking device so the firearms cannot be fired and lock them in a cabinet, container or room that is difficult to break into; or Lock the firearms in a vault, safe or room that was built or modified specifically to store firearms safely.

          For automatic firearms, also remove the bolts or bolt carriers (if removable) and lock them in a separate room that is difficult to break into.

          Transporting Firearms Safely

          Non-restricted firearms

          Non-restricted firearms must be unloaded during transportation.

          Restricted and prohibited firearms
          Unload the firearms; and attach secure locking devices to the firearms; and lock the firearms in a sturdy, non-transparent container; and remove the bolts or bolt carriers from any automatic firearms (if removable). Obtain an Authorization to Transport

          Leaving Any Class of Firearm in an Unattended Vehicle

          Lock non-restricted firearms and locked containers carrying restricted or prohibited firearms in the trunk or in a similar lockable compartment.

          If the vehicle does not have a trunk or lockable compartment, put firearms and firearm containers out of sight inside the vehicle and lock the vehicle.

          If you are in a remote wilderness area and cannot lock your non-restricted firearms inside your vehicle, unload them and put them out of sight. Attach a secure locking device to the firearms unless they are needed for predator control.

          Displaying Firearms Safely

          Unload and lock your firearms!
          Ammunition cannot be displayed with, or accessible to, the firearms.

          Non-restricted firearms

          Attach secure locking devices to the firearms; or
          Lock the firearms in a cabinet, container or room that is difficult to break into.

          Restricted and prohibited firearms

          Attach secure locking devices to the firearms; and
          Securely attach them to something that cannot be moved.
          For automatic firearms, also remove the bolts or bolt carriers (if removable) and lock them in a separate room that is difficult to break into.

          These are the laws for gun ownership in Canada.  Does the RKBA, NRA and other gun advocacy groups support such laws being introduced into the United States?

          Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

          by LiberalCanuck on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 12:09:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What does that have to do (11+ / 0-)

            with painting a whole group of people as not able to:

            acknowledge that with gun ownership comes enormous responsibility to ensure their right to have a gun does not threaten the safety or lives of others
          •  Canadian violent crime is low period. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, fuzzyguy, Wolf10, gerrilea

            Half the assaults, sixty percent of the robberies.  

          •  Liberal Canuck, sorry for the late reply. (0+ / 0-)

            I've had a couple of busy days, and only now (friday morning) had a chance to duck-in and see your comment.

            I see three items, which I question.

            1) ATT.
            Defined as transporting to the chosen firing range.
            Makes no mention of use of your owned property, such as a hunting camp.

            2) Storage requirements.  
            Upon reading, if a functional firearm is in your possession, outside of a licensed range, or upon designated hunting grounds - you're charged with a criminal offense.
            So if criminally attacked, Dial 9-1-1 and do nothing?

            The exception would be for "predator protection".
            Which from my understanding, is defined most commonly as  a shotgun used in-case-of Bear attacks

            3) Sum total of gun regulations is what precludes criminal misuse.
            A summation which ignores other factors in Canada.
            Canadians as a polyglot are more homogenous.  I realize the polyglot is a contentious issue for some; by the by, most Canadians live in proximity to others like themselves.
            You don't find a concentration of Scottish ex-Nova's living in Alberta amidst the Metis, causing friction.
            Same for the Quebecois.  Who insulate the Maritimes from Ontario.
            Upper Canadians who view the Maritimes as a pesky child who won't move out of the house and become self-sufficient.  BC and the rest of the West, certainly have strife with Ottawa and the East - but they're not doing so in neighborhoods of Toronto.
            Until the arrest of Marc Emory, I felt you folks were doing a smarter job on the issues of marijuana and drugs in general.
            National Health.  Psychological services.
            There's a list, beyond gun laws, which yield positive results.

            A fact not known to many here, heavily armed Switzerland has two national emergency numbers for Psychological Support.  One for adults, one for minor children and youth.
            They also have an cultural attitude regarding use of guns, where the use of any gun in a criminal fashion (being closely affiliated with military service) results in severe criminal penalties.

      •  I don't trust EVERYBODY (16+ / 0-)

        with a kitchen knife to handle it safely. But I don't see any reason to either ban kitchen knives or require knife education certificates in order to have one (or more) in your kitchen.

        Sure, people get injured or killed by kitchen knives, I'd bet more than one every day of every year. Hell, I've injured myself badly enough with a kitchen knife to need stitches (though I didn't bother, just went with a butterfly and made daughter chop the onions and do the dishes for awhile). I've worse injuries from someone else's unsafe use of drinking glasses - as in tossed carelessly into the dishwater for me to later cut my hands to ribbons on. Since I still can't absolutely trust my family members to safely handle drinking glasses despite all my bitching and injuries, I have learned to be careful when washing drinking glasses so I don't end up shredded. What I have not done is ban drinking glasses from my home.

        I don't recall ever seeing anybody in the RKBA group at DKos who "oppose(s) gun regulations and controls." Reasonable and enforceable regulations and controls are fine, many exist right now. So your argument comes across as a scarecrow.

        •  Do you kep a straight face when you say this? (9+ / 0-)

          The RKBA arguments always start with RKBA members saying they support reasonable gun regulations, but when anyone mentions any reasonable national regulation (like full background checks on every sale/transfer, licensing/training and registration) all hell breaks loose ("we're already over-regulated, won't work, unconstitutional, slippery slope, Germany in the 1930s, you want to confiscate my guns, and on and on").

          A huge part of the problem is the mish-mash of laws that in effect negate any state's/city's right to have their own laws.  We need a standard common set of regulations that work nationally, and RKBA member always argue vehemently against those).

          Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

          by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:55:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because your idea of reasonable isn't mine. (11+ / 0-)

            But hey, as long as you get to define reasonable, you get to keep whining about how we just won't see it your way.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:06:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Of course I keep a straight face. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishbone, gerrilea, ToeJamFootball

            I've got nothing against full background checks for all sales, even though I know there's people right now passing full background checks who shouldn't be passing. It probably does catch a few, which is good. I'd even support full background checks on transfers, though you've got your work cut out for you on that one, especially in states with no registration requirements. Go for it.

            I favor licensing of handguns in the cities, and training to go along with (and all CC permits). I do not favor registration, but that's just me. Some cities - even in my no-registration state - do require it, though it seems to me that licensing pretty much accomplishes the same thing as far as keeping track of who owns guns. Acknowledging that it's not the same thing as keeping track of the guns themselves. With ~270 million of them already out there, many in the homes of people who won't care to register them, I think it's a fool's errand. But please, go for it if you want. Hell, I don't even mind a sincere effort to abolish the second amendment entirely. If it makes people feel like they're doing something, right on. They'll sleep better at night, though they won't get a repeal within my lifetime.

            I think the feds are going to have to deal with the states already promising to arrest feds trying to enforce federal laws in those states before federal gun laws will ever be applied in all states. Maybe that'll be a second Civil War (looks like the Yahoos are gung-ho for that, doesn't it?). At which point I'll be doubly glad for grandpa's shotgun here at the 'stead. Like I said, go for it if it makes you feel better. The effort in real life would probably do more for your psyche than lobbing insults at anonymous Kossacks who own guns.

            •  Those that think that background checks ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau, gerrilea

              will make a big dent in reducing the number of wrongful deaths don't grasp reality.  Sure, checks should be performed as they will keep guns from some who shouldn't be let near them, but passing a check is no certification that a gun owner has no mental problems or alcohol or drug addictions.  Successfully passing a background check proves only that those cleared haven't been caught committing a crime or acting in a way that warranted putting them into the mental health system.  

              And specific to the Lanza case, no law (existing or lobbied for) would authorize police to inspect the home to confirm that all weapons were secured.  And apparently no law even required personnel at the shooting range where mom and son practiced to report that a person who obviously had mental problems was being taught to shoot.

              "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

              by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:26:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  All of the proposed regulations (4+ / 0-)

                are short-sighted and practically designed NOT to deal with the real problems of the wrong people getting hold of guns. Usually known only after the fact of murder/mass murder. Funny, that's the thing about laws. They are only ever applied after the fact of violation. Even Dino-Jesus knew that much, that's why he preached the One Law.

                "Love God, love one another..." Don't claim to know anything directly about the existence of a God to really try and justify clause #1, but if we could come anywhere close to achieving compliance with clause #2 there would be no need for laws. From gods or men. Funny how that works.

                I don't guess we'll ever know what circuits tripped in Adam Lanza's brain to cause him to do something so completely pointless, irrational and heartbreaking before he offed himself. People with AS - very high functioning autistic - do NOT have "obvious mental problems." You probably know some, work or bowl with them and wouldn't consider them mentally ill, or even think to wonder. And none of them are more likely to murder you for no apparent reason than any of your other friends or family members. Or perfect strangers.

                The post-mortem of 12/14 is gonna leave too many unanswered questions, as usual. That's... tragic. The whole thing is tragic. We're all floundering about trying to latch on something we can do to stop this shit from happening. I'm not very sure we can. There's a weakness in our wiring, it's going to keep shorting out here and there and reminding us that we've got a serious problem with shadows in our psyches. That seems to come with the human territory. I am not very confident we'll ever evolve past it. At least not so long as the mass slaughter of humans is considered a 'glorious' use of human skills and imaginations. All the way to WMDs.

                That's a shame.

                •  To clarify, my reference to Lanza having ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau, gerrilea

                  "obvious mental problems" was based upon the reports that he seldom, if ever, even spoke; that when he was taken for haircuts by his mother, he never said a word and wouldn't even move until his mother directed him to; that he walked as close to the walls as possible in school, avoiding conversation and even making eye contact with other students, and other behaviors that were reported that would have been obvious to personnel at the shooting ranges.

                  "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                  by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:08:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I haven't kept up with all (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Neuroptimalian, annecros

                    the reports. Aspberger's is what I heard early on as a recorded 'issue' with this guy, combined with a smothering mother. But that last part was only hearsay and could as easily be an attempt to shift blame onto the actual owner of the guns used. Even though he killed her first.

                    That doesn't explain the slaughter of first-graders to me, so something is obviously being missed. Bottom line, we don't know all the details yet. Aren't likely to know them all when the smoke clears either. Just another senseless massacre. Lord knows there's plenty of those these days.

                    I truly appreciate the fear and the loathing that is being tossed willy-nilly in the desperate effort to find a scapegoat and slit its throat so we can all feel better. As a mother, a teacher, an administrator and a human being I am as horrified by what happened as anybody (except those directly impacted, of course). I have even lost a brother and a son to murder in my life, so the empathy ties are taught with deep emotion on my end. I'd love some real answers and remedies.

                    But... but... given the fact that humans are what they are, it's a risky business to give a well-armed, amoral authority absolute control over the ability (and right) of citizens to protect themselves if they have to. Cops in my neck of the woods are hours away, literally. If they bother to come at all, and they sometimes don't. They of all people expect me to be able to protect my family, home and property against threats that may arise, and even as far into the boonies as you can get the biggest threat is human. When was the last time you heard of a deer slaughtering a couple dozen defenseless humans just for fun? Or a bear, a cougar, a coyote, or any other animal, ruminant or predator?

                    As I said, I've no skin in this game. Nobody's coming to take my gun, and nothing out of D.C. or my state capital is going to even try. Something is obviously wrong in our society that this keeps happening. And too often from people who claim ostensibly that their guns are to fight off "government tyranny." Or at least Zombies. 20 first graders don't qualify in anybody's mind (except the crazy shooter's) as tyrannical gub'ment agents or the Undead. We need to try and fix that glitch, and if it costs you (figurative) 5 or 15 bullets per magazine clip, I'm fine with that. Really.

                    •  OMG. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Joieau, gerrilea, PavePusher

                      I had no idea about your brother or son.  How absolutely horrible.  I'm so sorry.

                      I lost my brother to suicide a few years ago, but it was his choice to go.  I can't even imagine how I'd deal with his loss had it been by murder.  My deepest condolences to you for your tragic losses.

                      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                      by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 11:04:10 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Joieau, I've seen at least three comments (0+ / 0-)

                      from you in this diary which deserved rec's.  Sadly I've seen them too late to do so.

                      Excellent thoughts, well written.  
                      The use of 'stead, as the new 'hood, should enter the wider lexicon.

              •  There is no way to provide a guarantee (5+ / 0-)

                The closest thing that we, as a society, have is the ability to use past behavior as an indicator of likely future performance.  Past behavior is a window into one's thought process and provides clues about the types of choices they make and whether or not they have appropriate decision making capability.

                The fact is that life comes with no guarantees and this applies here.  Nobody can guarantee that you won't be hit by a bus anymore than they can guarantee that you won't be gunned down in a violent conflict.  Neither is very likely, in fact, the chances are very remote.

                This nation, being founded on the principles of freedom and liberty doesn't allow citizens to hamstring others in an attempt to achieve such a guarantee.  This is part of why the most extreme gun control proposals would be deemed unconstitutional.  

          •  Maybe that is your clue (7+ / 0-)

            that what your proposing is not reasonable. Perhaps you should listen, ask if you need clarification, concerning why what you are proposing is not reasonable.

            President Obama suggests we all put on our listening ears when discussing this issue.

        •  Comparing kitchen knives and semiautomatic (0+ / 0-)

          rifles and discussing what level of regulation is appropriate for each is the very definition of false equivalence. There are good reasons to oppose some proposed gun regulations but I notice that a: you didn't make any, and b: your didn't respond to the regulations proposed.

          Unfortunately typical of many here.

          I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

          by tgrshark13 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:52:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sigh, if only the same reasoning applied (0+ / 0-)

      to lawn darts.

      But no, they're too dangerous.

      Rumor has it that those trick re-lighting birthday candles are next in line to be banned.  They already have been in Canada . . . .

    •  I do not... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alain2112, BlackSheep1

      routinely associate with irresponsible or unprincipled people either, but I can assure you they exist and some of them are gun enthusiasts (and some are not).

      We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

      by CatM on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:13:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nobody said they don't exist (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1, FrankRose, gerrilea

        Just saying they aren't ALL that way.

        •  Well of course they aren't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah

          I don't think anyone here would ever argue that they were. Well maybe someone would (there is always one in every crowd), but I wouldn't. My desire for greater regulations and banning assault rifles and large clips has nothing to do with responsible gun owners and everything to do with the irresponsible ones. I think they should create a system where people who feel a need to have these weapons that I cannot possibly understand can go to ranges and rent them orcstore them there (like bowling shoes). seems like a reasonable compromise to me. And as long as you have a permit you can user store it there --you just can't take it out of the facility.

          We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

          by CatM on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:04:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL (6+ / 0-)

            The first comment in THIS thread you are responding to is:

            If the RKBA crowd would acknowledge that with gun ownership comes enormous responsibility to ensure their right to have a gun does not threaten the safety or lives of others, and would not only agree to, but would advocate stringent and compulsory controls on gun ownership to ensure the safety of others is always paramount concern, then there would be no “gun debate” going on and no fear of “gun-grabbing” from the government.
            So yes, somebody is saying that.
            •  Not sure he meant gun owners aren't responsible (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The Hindsight Times

              I think it was inartfully worded, but my impression is that he meant if gun owners would support reasonable gun control measures to ensure those who are not responsible people are not able to represent such a great threat to safety that it would do a lot for their cause. If that was his point, I do agree, but based on polls I have seen, many gun owners do support greater restrictions and laws to try to protect society. Obviously the NRA doesn't, but they are linguists for gun manufacturers when it comes right down to it. And they have sadly convinced too many gun owners that giving an inch or two means all your guns will be taken away.

              I used to support a complete gun ban, but I evolved a bit and would be happy with a ban on large capacity weapons and clips (except as I mentioned earlier), better laws to regulate storage of guns in homes with kids, and better checking of someone's fitness to buy a gun, and a longer waiting period. I think if more gun owners spoke out in support of some of these common sense approaches to make society more comfortable and safer, it would make people see gun enthusiasts in a much better light. But when we non gun owners see them staunchly opposing such simple changes, it creates an impression that there us something wrong with these people. (no offense, just explaining)

              We Won't Let Republicans Replace Medicare with GOP Vouchercare!

              by CatM on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:05:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site