Skip to main content

It has been demonstrated beyond any question that what now passes for "gun regulation" in this country was written, bought, and paid for by the NRA, etc. To be opposed to what we have, and in favor of the opposite requires no more understanding than that. I've been following this issue closely since the assassinations of the sixties, and now know no one else who has done the same thing and who doesn't feel perfectly comfortable in reflexively opposing whatever flavor of the day NRA (and ALEC, and a very large number of other influential, even powerful, right wing whackos) supports.

The simple truth is that if there were no guns there would be no gun deaths. And if you want to call that simplistic as well as simple, well obviously so. But certainly no more simplistic than "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and all of the inane repetitive tripe that flows so freely from that initial starting point.

What's now needed is a focus on simply terminating the Second Amendment, and any kind of right to keep and bear arms. If and when that has been accomplished, there very clearly will be need to have informed discussion about the details of what to replace it with. Between now and then the tactic of the left reasonably can be to pass a vast sea of every conceivable variety of regulation, and let the SCOTUS sort it out. A politically dangerous approach? Sadly, not! We can reliably count on a continuing stream of atrocities to keep the public consciousness appropriately focused.

Originally posted to Shut Down the NRA on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 04:33 PM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 04:33:12 PM PST

  •  Guns are just too easy to kill people with and the (4+ / 0-)

    30,000 gun deaths a year in the United States says it all for me.  Rgulation which the NRA does not want is what is needed to bring reason, safety and fairness to this issue.

    •  Our hands are currently tied by an archaic (5+ / 0-)

      provision. Our access to self determination today is being seriously curtailed by events and decisions more than two hundred years ago.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 04:54:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's the not the elapsed time (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpotsmuggler, Glen The Plumber

        It's the completely different society -- urbanized, with a standing army and professional police force.

        •  But human nature hasn't changed. (0+ / 0-)

          So the elapsed time really doesn't matter. Neither does the residential density. Dense, scattered, the people are still people and people haven't changed.

          We are struggling against a return to feudalism of the 1%. During the first feudal era the peasants without horses and armor were oppressed by the nobles who hired law enforcement that wore armore and rode horses.

          It's up to you, in at least some small way, with what we shall face the 1% nobles of this next threat of feudalism.

          It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

          by JayFromPA on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 10:50:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let's just say it ain't going to be a shooting (0+ / 0-)

            confrontation, because no one could possibly win something like that in the context of the modern U.S.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 08:52:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  At some point it will. (0+ / 0-)

              Become a shooting confrontation, that is.

              Historically, the labor movements have a lot to show us about what's to come.

              Pinkertons shooting workers if they strike and only retreating under the strikers returning fire, for one.

              Strikes that lasted a year with just a little physical violence were possible when people could live off the land and there weren't other avenues for the 1% to punish them. One such other avenue was in the Matewan story, where mining 1% overlords tossed pro-labor families into the street and bulldozed their homes, threatening to do the same to any who took in the newly homeless and penniless. Good luck with that now. There has been such consolidation of farmland under conglomerates such as monsanto that there are relatively few family farms around to take on a couple hired hands. There has been such a squeezing of income that any disruption drops families into a state of not having anything left to lose - and if there's nothing left to lose then there's not really anything to deter some truly stunning plots.

              There was the taking of chevy 4, the plant that made all the chevy engines, where after standing firm against the attempt at starvation and freezing and gassing over several days the strikers said...

              "…The police of the city of Flint belong to General Motors. The sheriff of Genesee County belongs to General Motors, The judges of Genesee County belong to General Motors.... It remains to be seen whether the governor of the State also belongs to General Motors. Governor, we have decided to stay in the plant. We have no illusions about the sacrifices which this decision will entail. We fully expect that if a violent effort is made to oust us many of us will be killed and we take this means of making it known to our wives, to our children, to the people of the state of Michigan and the country, that if this result follows from the attempt to eject us, you are the one who must be held responsible for our deaths!"
              Emphasis mine, to point out that such violent efforts against labor were not unknown. That such a thing was contemplated regarding the most important manufacturing plant for a nationally known company leads one to consider that violent extraction efforts such as pinkertons storming striking labor plants of smaller size/importance was known well enough to be expected.

              Nowadays the local cops have full-military gear funded by the homeland security, just sitting there doing nothing until labor issues provide a 'disorderly event'. Look at occupy. Look at protests at wto events. Look at protests at anything economic/labor.

              When it gets bad enough that people start saying "screw it, anything is better than this", that's when it becomes a shooting confrontation.

              It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

              by JayFromPA on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:59:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  i hear where you're coming from, and I agree (0+ / 0-)

                with your reading of labor history, but I just think that enough has changed that we don't need to go through some vast night of ugliness on this one to be able to reach a better place.

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 11:03:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst. eom. (0+ / 0-)

                  It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

                  by JayFromPA on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:03:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  The 2nd has gotten us to the point where (7+ / 0-)

    80ish a day are dead , 300ish are wounded . It seems to be a failure or broken . Its time to fix it up or replace it with something modern that has been shown to work .

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    Albert Einstein

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 04:42:16 PM PST

  •  Repealing the 2nd is a dead loser idea (6+ / 0-)

    Maybe 20% of the entire US population would support and you'd have likely a majority of American voters against you.

    If you really want to change things, you have to go really slowly.   Make it attractive for people to voluntarily disarm and very slowly "drain the swamp" by doing more gun buybacks(and make sure those guns are destroyed).

    Unlike the diarist, I think universal background checks and cracking down on gun trafficking are both really good steps to starting to end the gun violence problem.   And a society that can start to treat guns like we do motor vehicles in how they have to be insured and the users/owners properly licensed is where we should be realisticly headed.

    I don't like how a few people think that Daily Kos should speak for the extremists who just want to ban all guns when it is a bad idea politically.

    Washington and Colorado said that you've got to legalize it. Hope the DOJ respects that.

    by pistolSO on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 04:50:48 PM PST

    •  They can voice those ideas. (5+ / 0-)

      And be wrong.

      Among other problems, how can you possibly remove all the guns which are in private hands today?

      •  Eventually. nt (0+ / 0-)

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:05:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Meaning what? (4+ / 0-)

          How did Prohibition work the last time we tried to outlaw a commonplace, popular product?

          •  drugs don't harm other people (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doomedtorepeathistory, Bisbonian

            only the user. Guns can harm not only the user, but others around them as well. Biiiig difference.

            Actually, we're still continuing Prohibition in the form of the war on drugs while insisting that guns should be readily available to anyone who wants them. Completely backwards, if you ask me.

            "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

            by limpidglass on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:16:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not talking about the reasons ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive, VClib

              ... I'm talking about the effectiveness of trying to eliminate the product from America.

            •  I disagree with that statement... (0+ / 0-)

              Drugs most certainly can and do harm other people.  DWI comes easily to mind...and here are lots of families that have been devastated financially, emotionally, and physically by someone's drug use...

              Do not, please, make any assumptions from the above about what I think about our drug laws.  I'm simply refuting your statement.  

              The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

              by Persiflage on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:03:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Really. Please seperate out the damage of the WOD (0+ / 0-)

                from the damage caused by drugs themselves, and see if you reach the same result. And you can't really count consensual use, because that goes back a million years before civilization.

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:37:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sir, your recent diaries / diatribes against (0+ / 0-)

                  firearms and their ownership...even by law-abiding citizens who have never, and likely never will behave irresponsibly caused me to look back over your diaries.

                  I assume from a scan of those diaries and various comments that you were once involved in illegal drug procurement and distribution.  (Whether or not some of those drugs should be/should have been treated like acohol is not the issue at the moment.)    

                  I don't know what WOD stands for...but, it is reasonable to assume that most recreational drug use is consensual regardless of the consequences.  My daughter 20+ years ago certainly wasn't forced to smoke/do drugs and DWI folks don't usually have a bottle forcefully inserted between their lips.  But, the damage, if any, is real.  And, I can say that if 20+ years ago I could have found the asshole who sold/gave my daughter drugs, jail would have been a minor inconvenience to him/her compared to what I would have done.  And, in my opinion, drug dealers...regardless of jail time...never repay the damage they do...even if only to a single susceptible person whose life was ruined.  

                  So, you may take your current attitude of moral superiority and insert it where the sun doesn't shine.    
                   

                  The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

                  by Persiflage on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:55:38 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  WOD War on Drugs, the support for drug (0+ / 0-)

                    prohibition that is devastating the planet. Of course the supporters always want to put the blame elsewhere.

                    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                    by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:23:41 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I don't see the equivalency, for any number of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            limpidglass

            reasons, but the main being the biological imperative of the human organisn to engage in mind altering experiences. How many thousands and thousand of years longer did we evolve in the presence of naturally occuring substances like alcohol (and I don't mean to use longevity as an excuse here, merely as an explanation) than the mere sliver of time that we have spent trying to figure out how to co exist with explosive weapons?

            I don't know about you, but the years I spent locked up helped me learn that the mere act of making things illegal is a great way to force folks to focus very carefully on their behavior.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:22:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  A bad idea on every level. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO

      It has only minimal support, isn't remotely practical, and is counterproductive politically. The only people that would float this idea are misguided idealists or damn fools who want to see the Democratic Party defeated.

    •  Repealing the Amendment Is Not Banning All Guns. (6+ / 0-)

      Every civilized nation without a gun right has gun owners, in many cases, millions of them.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:06:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm glad that I've given this subject more thought (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dogs are fuzzy, Bisbonian

      than you have. This thought about "making it worthwhile for folks to turn guns in" sounds great in theory. On the other hand, it is really a disguised road map to gun manufaturer nirvana. To be effective, it is commonly suggested that the buyback price be significant. And if it were, I, personally, would simply make my living by buying guns low and selling them high to the government. I guarantee you that whatever "demand" could be generated for this could very easily and happily be met by expanding the gun factories.

      More importantly, I would never recommend that we try to take the gun lobby head on over the Second. My belief is that the only way to get rid of it is to do it inconjunction with a full on rethink and rewite of the Constitution. Divide and conquer. The right has captured tons of turf, and is marginally able to defend it in a piece meal manner. Throw everything up for grabs all at once, and our numbers can finally do righteous battle against their dollars. And the 1% have far bigger fish to fry than trying to maintain their relatively modest dividend stream from Remington, Winchester and the boys.

      Uh, like fighting for the continuation of their very existence at the top of the pyramid.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:14:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you know what it would take to amend (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        notrouble

        the Constitution?   2/3rds of both Houses of Congress and 2/3rds of a majority of state legislatures OR a Constitution Convention that has never been called in our 200-plus year history.

        I will admit that I am not an expert in gun policy and I came that reform was necessary in the aftermath of Sandy Hook, but I also know that A.) we still only have an opportunity to seriously address gun reform for the first time since 1994 and Obama's recommendations are the broadest-reaching since 1968.   Overreaching by that much cedes popular opinion to the gun-rights absolutists.   On the other hand, Obama's approach is making that side look ridiculous and we could end the NRA's influence in Washington if we play this right.   B.)  Grandstanding will not save any lives.   Universal background checks and the other Obama reforms will.  C.) Not even Masssachusetts would vote for repeal of the 2nd.   So I would be shocked if you got even 1 state to go along with you.

        Washington and Colorado said that you've got to legalize it. Hope the DOJ respects that.

        by pistolSO on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:33:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Our current Constitution is broadly dysfunctional (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bisbonian

          and recognition of this fact is growing exponentially. When everything finally is on the table, it'll be similar to a game of musical chairs, and my considered opinion is that RKBA will prove to be in the "odd man out" category.

          Aside from a small handfull of demonstrable zealots (read NRA types) for whom would this end up being their Number One issue in the ensuing discussion?

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:52:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The balanced budget people came close (0+ / 0-)

          They were within a hair of getting enough states on board to call a Constitutional Convention.

          A major rethink has a lot to recommend it, but it's terrifyingly easy to make things worse.

        •  pistol - just a nit (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharon Wraight, pistolSO

          2/3rds of the House and Senate, 3/4 (38) states required.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 11:06:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Under the old Constitution. The new rules will be (0+ / 0-)

            made by the new Convention. Aside from assuring sufficient popular support, their hands will be tied in no respect, and one of the archaic concepts that I would expect to be disavowed is "State Soverignity". Too many people are disenfranchised by that one for it to survive.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:03:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  It can be a long-term project (3+ / 0-)

      We've had movements before that took many generations to reach their goals against initially very long odds.

      We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

      by denise b on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:47:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How about fixing it instead of repealing it? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, Sharon Wraight

      It's probably not possible to get wide enough agreement on a replacement, but on the other hand lots of progressives say they're OK with some civilian gun ownership.

      Why not try to amend it so that it's possible to figure out what it means?

      For example, the English did it better in 1689.

  •  I for one am not for repealing any of the (3+ / 0-)

    amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Frankly, on principle. However, it seems to me that what makes the Second Amendment toxic is not what it says, but how the SCOTUS has interpreted it. Perhaps given what's happened, some gun regulation that's passes will end up being challenged and the Supremes will decide that they were wrong on the personal right interpretation.

    What is truth? -- Pontius Pilate

    by commonmass on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:10:43 PM PST

  •  it will probably eventually head that way (0+ / 0-)

    America is becoming increasingly urbanized. Our cities will have to become denser in order to fight climate change. In areas of ever-increasing population density, allowing people to run around with guns will lead to larger and larger massacres.

    The problem won't go away, it will continue to worsen drastically unless our politicians act decisively to solve it. Ultimately, that may mean repealing the Second Amendment altogether.

    Demographically, the gun culture is dwindling. Gun ownership is not so popular among the new generations of American immigrants. It's a dying culture.

    What's become clear to me in the wake of the recent atrocities is that there is a small but extremely rabid group of Americans who insist on a maximalist interpretation of the Second Amendment. And because they are well armed, and view any attempt at regulation as an attempt to take away their guns, they will resist to the bitter end.

    We are going to see a savage and vicious counterattack in reaction to the Obama administration's attempts to regulate firearms, run by the NRA through the Republican party. In the short term, the pro-gun movement will be energized and radicalized, signing up new members who now view gun control as an existential threat to their way of life.

    Let's recall that slavery was not ended by a softly, softly, gradualist approach--despite the best efforts of two generations of American politicians. A Civil War was fought and at the end of it, slavery was amended out of the US Constitution.

    I don't say that there will be a second Civil War over gun control, but it certainly has the potential to split this country very badly and result in a mass confrontation. Many of the NRA types view themselves as a citizen militia acting to defend America. They literally view themselves as being at war with what they consider un-American. So they will go to war with the rest of us, literally.

    We saw scattered hints of this during the 90s, with Ruby Ridge and Waco. I think we will see such incidents flare up again, this time on a much larger scale and with political, perhaps financial backing from the gun lobbies. Correspondingly, it will be a lot more dangerous.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:10:57 PM PST

    •  Let's play the conforntation out very openly and (0+ / 0-)

      publicly. Let's put everything on the table and hold a Constitutional Convention. We have the numbers solidly on our side.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:27:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Too weird and they lose mainstream support (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dannyinla

      My example of that is Bush the Competent resigning his NRA life membership.

      Without mainstream support they will fail. I think the military term for a guerilla who can't count on help from the populace is something like "human remains".

      •  "Too weird"? Hey, I was in prison with "to weird" (0+ / 0-)

        (true militia), and I think that even you may not know just how right you are. Real goddamned few, and very far between is a very accurate description.

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 07:07:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site