I received this in response, from Daniel Barnett of Amendment II Democrats:
I've tweaked the text somewhat in order to make our position a little more explicit. Any suggestions or input you might have will be appreciated.The crux of the tweak appears to be:
Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support anti-RKBA Democrats, but neither shall we support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats.
I know Mr. Barnett is trying, but I candidly don't see where this really changes much from my original assessment. If you think I'm wrong, I'm receptive to your criticism and attempts at tutelage, which is why we have "Comments."
6 comments:
"Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support anti-RKBA Democrats, but neither shall we support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats."
So, if a Republican is running against a anti-RKBA Democrat... does that mean they will support no one in that particular race?
Or is that the "NO" circumstance where they will support the anti-RKBA Democrat?
I think that's the best they can do for a partisan organization. Which is good up to a point.
I guess that is why partisan organizations aren't worth worrying over. Political parties do not deserve undying devotion. They will betray you for "the good of the party".
Unfortunately, that does not help their stance any. Given the choice of an anti-RKBA Democrat, and a pro-RKBA Republican, that new text indicates they would vote for the former.
Hardly sounds like a pro-Second-Amendment organization to me.
xufppSailorcurt has made a valid point. Unfortunately though, for Daniel, he has probably done all he can do and said as much as he dares if he hopes to retain his position in the party and if his organization hopes to hold sway in his party. Itis not nearly enough, but given the realities of the tendencies of the political animal the closest they can come to actual morality.
Best case scenario; Daniel's group will have enough influence to assure an anti-RKBA Democrat will not be nominated.
Next best case; anti-RKBA dem candidates will lie and throw a few bones to his group in exchange for their support.
Worst case scenario; Daniel's group will be so outnumbered that their support isn't needed nor courted and their non-vote in the general election will not have enough influence to affect the outcome, thus making an absent vote still a vote for the recission of rights.
Whereas a vote for the opposing party with a strong RKBA candidate will have the effect of double their actual count (not only will the dems lose a vote, the other party will gain a vote=a two vote shift) and may turn the election. Thus, garnering for II A Democrats a much more powerful position within the party for the next election. Enabling them to be the kingmakers in obtaining a candidate amenable to their 2A rights.
A likely secondary outcome should that happen, is that both parties will court them and give them influence in choice of candidates in both parties.
If Daniel and his group insist on playing politics with unalienable rights it appears to me, that the most effective strategy is the latter even if you discount the morality of the issue.
"Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support anti-RKBA Democrats, but neither shall we support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats."
Mr. Barnett does not speak for me, a relatively new member (so far) of his group. Though I have been a Democrat as long as I could vote, I have been a gun owner 12 years longer.
I will NOT vote for any anti-gun Democratic candidate regardless of how "cleverly" he tries to disguise his position. If said Democrat has a pro-gun Republican opponent, I will use that Republican to create a vote against that Democrat.
Mr. Barnett not withstanding, many Democrats feel as I do.
"Reasonable Gun Control" is something you do to make your bullets go where you want them to . . . period.
Post a Comment