I am writing this as a response to a not uncommon question that is posed in many firearm related diaries. The sum and substance of the question is how do RKBA members views on issues regarding firearms differ from the policies of the NRA. Since I am not a member of the NRA I really don’t know what their policies are but more importantly, I don’t care. The policies of the NRA have no bearing on my positions or what I believe in regards to the 2nd Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms.
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.
Again, I don't know what policies the NRA holds, in fact all I can tell you about the NRA is that one part of it promotes firearm safety and training and there is another part that focuses on politics and lobbying. Since I am unfamiliar with NRA policies and can't speak for all RKBA members, all I can do is put forward my positions.
I support the 2nd Amendment and believe that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms. I believe the 2nd Amendment is no more and no less important than any of the others listed in the BoR.
I believe that America has a violence problem not a gun violence problem. Gun violence is merely a symptom of a larger underlying problem.
I would like to see gun safety training as part of the curriculum of our public education system. This is not training on how to shoot but how to be safe around firearms.
I would rather see current laws regarding firearms fully enforced before new laws are enacted. If we aren't enforcing laws we currently have how can we know they are ineffective? Additionally if new laws were to be considered I would like to see the focus of such laws be directed at the people who commit violent crime; I am no fan of prior restraint.
I am not in favor of people being licensed to own a firearm or of registration of firearms. Again owning a firearm is a right, we don’t have to register or have a license to speak or associate or write or to practice our religious beliefs, and I see no reason to treat the 2nd Amendment any differently. If people don’t like the 2nd Amendment they can work towards having the Constitution amended. My only hope is that if they do work towards amending the Constitution in such a fashion they don’t claim to be Democrats, because if they do, I don't feel they will accomplish anything other than a permanent Republican majority for the next 20 years or more, and Republicans in power do more harm than citizens with guns.
I am all in favor of keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable, but only after they have been adjudicated in a court of law as being a threat to themselves and society.
I don’t believe there is such a thing as a “gun show loophole”. All Federal Firearm Licensed (FFL) dealers are required by law to conduct NICS checks regardless of where the sale is made. A law requiring an NICS check for the sale or transfer of firearms between private individuals would be unenforceable and cost prohibitive; in other words a waste of time and resources that could be used better else where. Besides I don't believe it is wise to have the Federal Government in the business of regulating the sale of any merchandise between private citizens. Doing so in my opinion would set a dangerous precedent.
I am not in favor of banning high capacity magazines because I don’t believe doing so will decrease crime.
I am not in favor of an assault weapons ban (AWB) because the basis of the ban was cosmetic in nature, not functionality. The ban was directed at semiautomatic firearms which are some of the most common firearms sold, not fully automatic firearms. An "assault weapon" is nothing more that a standard semiautomatic with the additions of a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, barrel shroud, a bayonet lug and other features, none of which changed how the firearm operated. Calling a semiautomatic firearm an assault weapon is really a misnomer and is intended to play on peoples fears by conjuring images of a machine gun. Again, the firearms affected by the AWB were not fully automatic, fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated.
I have other positions but this as gotten long enough. Again, I don’t know what the policies of the NRA are. Are my beliefs in alignment with theirs? I really don’t care if they are, because I am not the NRA and I vote.