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.