Friday, August 31, 2007

Second Amendment Democrats Respond

to this:

Your article on Amendment II Democrats
by Daniel Barnett
Webmaster, Amendment II Democrats

Over the past few days, I've read quite a bit in the RKBA blogosphere in response to the call for a "Save the Second Amendment Rally" in Dallas by Amendment II Democrats. Much of that response, including those from David on the War on Guns blog, had more to do with our policy on Democratic candidates than on the rally itself. I decided to take a critical but fair look at both our current policy on Democratic candidates and at David's response, especially with some in the blogosphere declaring prima facie that Amendment II Democrats is somehow "anti-gun" or "anti-RKBA."

The statement on our website, under the "Who We Are" section, reads as follows:

Do you actively oppose Democrats who support sensible gun measures if they run for public office?

We are Democrats, and as such we will support our party's nominees for local, state, and federal office. During the primaries, however, if any Democratic candidate supports gun control measures that Amendment II Democrats oppose (such as reauthorizing the national ban on semi-automatics), that primary candidate is fair game, and we will encourage voters to support Democratic candidates who are in greater harmony with our outlook on Second Amendment rights. But once the primaries are over and the candidates for the general election have been chosen, it is important that all Democrats pull together and support our party's candidates as best as we are able. Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats. We are, after all, Democrats.
David has brought up a few points in his earlier post that I'd like to address one at a time, starting with this:

Nu-uh, guys. It doesn't work that way, and don't think that bit about "sensible gun measures" went unnoticed--what the hell are those?
My point exactly. The term "sensible gun measures" is one that is frequently thrown around by the Brady Campaign and its Million Mom March satellites to denote the well-worn gun-control of paradigm of banning semi-automatics, banning handguns, and otherwise regulating gun ownership to the point where you're left with only a Lyman Great Plains Hunter - and that's for your hunting, shooting, and self-defense needs. Not that there's anything wrong with blackpower arms, mind you, but my own interpretation of the term "sensible gun measures" means not keeping the Tantal where the darned cat can turn the handguards into a chew toy. I only used the phrase in an attempt to challenge the frame that the Brady Campaign et al try to push, namely, that their approach to gun legislation is the only approach that could be called "sensible." I think most readers of the blog are intelligent and informed enough to know the score on this issue.

Next on the docket:

If you would pick an "F" over an "A" simply because of blind party loyalty, you have made yourselves part of the problem.

What this indicates is, ultimately, the Second Amendment is expendable to you, not as much of a priority as re-electing Carolyn McCarthy or Chuck Schumer, or electing Hillary Clinton.
If that were indeed the case with Amendment II Democrats, you'd be absolutely right. And part of that, I fear, is because the policy on Democratic candidates may not have been explicit enough. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. Although we do keep the focus on Democratic candidates, we have not and will not provide support to anti-RKBA Democrats who run for office, even if they win the primaries.

I refer the reader to the now-defunct Democrats for the Second Amendment, another pro-RKBA Democratic organization that predated Amendment II Democrats. Don Baldwin, founder of Democrats for the Second Amendment, once stated: "We will not endorse anti-gun Democrats or non-Democrats. We welcome friendly non-Democrats to join as supporters but require Democratic registration for full membership."

Amendment II Democrats has yet to issue any endorsements in local, state, or Federal races of any kind - we haven't quite reached that point, yet. We have invited Democratic candidates for Federal office to share with us their perspectives on firearms legislation, and we're still doing it today. And we thank those who have responded in the past. We have presented their responses in what we hope is a fair, impartial manner without further commentary or critique. It is our policy that a candidate's words speak for themselves, and you can read them for yourself on the Amendment II Democrats website and make your own decisions.

But even a cursory look at our issues papers and the posts on our MySpace blog should serve as an indicator of how we feel about HR 1022, S 1237, and other anti-RKBA legisation that is being proposed by our legislators. So if we try to solicit answers from anti-RKBA Democrats such as Carolyn McCarthy or Barack Obama, it's mainly for two purposes: first, to be as fair as possible to all Democratic candidates, and second, to leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of the pro-RKBA Democratic voter as to which candidates are most in harmony with their own views.

And finally:

It means you consider other social and economic issues more important than my elemental right to defend my life and freedom, and will aid and abet those trying to strip me of the means to do so.
This is only an assumption on David's part, and one that I challenge most strenuously. It is true that many issues are important to me, including civil rights, environmental pollution and global climate change, the occupation of Iraq, and so on. But to insinuate that I am willing to sacrifice our Second Amendment rights just to score points on other issues - well, that just isn't going to happen. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is of paramount importance both to myself and to Amendment II Democrats as a whole.

I am a Democratic precinct chair and state convention delegate. I participate in our county party's semi-annual committee meetings - sometimes loudly. And if I hear anyone else at the meeting put forth a resolution that even hints at fostering anti-RKBA sentiment among my fellow Democrats, I will descend upon that resolution like a rock on an eggshell. And that means I'll have to take a lot of flak from anti-RKBA Democrats. I'm used to it. Bring it the hell on, already.

But on the other hand, take a good look at the makeup of the Senate in the 110th Congress. Of the Democratic majority in the Senate, there are no less than eight Democratic Senators - Max Baucus (MT), Bob Casey (PA), Russ Feingold (WI), Mary Landrieu (LA), Ben Nelson (NE), Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV), Jon Tester (MT), and Jim Webb (VA) - who will form a block against any attempt to resurrect a Federal ban on semi-automatics. Judging by the current makeup of the Senate, when it comes to gun legislation, these eight Democratic Senators may prove to be the gatekeepers, much to the constant frustration of Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer. My pro-RKBA stance may technically be the minority within the Democratic Party, but it is gaining in strength. And while Obama and Hillary Clinton may try their best to ignore us, other Democratic candidates do so strictly at their own peril.

So, if there is anyone reading this who is still upset that we will only throw our support behind Democrats, take a good look at our name - we are Amendment II Democrats. We have our own goals for transforming the Democratic Party from the group up. It will not happen overnight. And it will not be easy. But I think the majority of you who read this will agree that it will be a fine day indeed when you show up at the polls and realize that your choices for the White House are a pro-RKBA Republican, a pro-RKBA Libertarian, and a pro-RKBA Democrat. It's something to aim for.

In a way, David seems to have beaten me to the punch in one regard, for which I salute him. I've been mulling over creating another issue paper for our website under the working title And Now For Plan B which would cover how to deal with anti-RKBA Democratic primary winners while still nurturing the growth of pro-RKBA sentiment among the party's rank-and-file as well as other candidates. Like I said earlier, the goals we seek will not be easy to attain, but I am convinced that it is doable if enough people get on board. Within our own ranks, Amendment II Democrats currently boast military veterans, NRA members, gay rights activists, and other diverse sorts within its informal membership ranks. In other words, it looks a bit like a microcosm of the Democratic Party at large. Which means - well, you get the idea.

I'll try to field whatever questions you might have. Thanks in advance for your patience.

Molon labe!

Daniel Barnett
Webmaster, Amendment II Democrats

31 comments:

  1. ...my own interpretation of the term "sensible gun measures" means not keeping the Tantal where the darned cat can turn the handguards into a chew toy....

    Fair enough, but does that require an act of the government? If so, why? I don't mean to be a heresy-hunter, but experience dealing with sophists teaches us to be wary in dealing with those who claim to be sincere. If the Amendment II Democrats do turn out to be sincere, I'll apologize gladly.

    "Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats. We are, after all, Democrats."

    As this statement is worded, I think David's original comment stands. I note that Mr. Barnett even in his follow-up doesn't really call out anti-gun Democrats, nor promise much more than the old college try with respect to RKBA:

    "...if I hear anyone else at the meeting put forth a resolution that even hints at fostering anti-RKBA sentiment among my fellow Democrats, I will descend upon that resolution like a rock on an eggshell. And that means I'll have to take a lot of flak from anti-RKBA Democrats. I'm used to it. Bring it the hell on, already."

    That leaves aside the known anti-2A candidate who has cunning enough to keep her durn mouth shut about it until safely ensconced in office. What it provides Amendment II Democrats is plausible deniability, an opportunity to say, "Oh well, we tried."

    Contrast the Amendment II Democrats' kid-gloves handling of Senator Obama and Lady Macbeth to the "oh, hell no" response from "Amendment II Republicans" to Giuliani, Romney, and Honest John Goodgovernment McKeating and tell me which side you would conclude is dead serious about preserving G_d-given fundamental rights.

    At this point, I would say Mr. Barnett and his colleagues have some soul-searching to do. On the available evidence, I conclude that the Amendment II Democrats are among those about whom Dan'l Webster warned us: "In every age there are men who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern...."

    ReplyDelete
  2. This rebuttal seems only to reinforce the notion that Mr. Barnett's group provides a fig leaf for Democrats to use in pro RTKBA areas.

    I suspect Mr. Barnett of being disingenuous.

    Mr. Barnett says "Of the Democratic majority in the Senate, there are no less than eight Democratic Senators - Max Baucus (MT), Bob Casey (PA), Russ Feingold (WI), Mary Landrieu (LA), Ben Nelson (NE), Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV), Jon Tester (MT), and Jim Webb (VA) - who will form a block against any attempt to resurrect a Federal ban on semi-automatics."

    Well let's look at the recent voting record these defenders of the 2nd Amendment.

    Harry Reid (NV):
    GOA Rating F

    Agreed To Protecting Free Speech For Groups Like GOA 01/18/2007 N

    Agreed To Trigger Lock Requirement 07/28/2005 Y

    Agreed To Ammunition Restriction Study 03/02/2004 Y

    Agreed To McCain Gun Show Ban 03/02/2004 Y

    Agreed To Lock Up Your Safety Requirement 02/26/2004 Y

    Passed Incumbent Protection (Campaign Finance) 03/20/2002 Y


    Russ Feingold (WI):
    GOA Rating F

    Agreed To Protecting Free Speech For Groups Like GOA 01/18/2007 N

    Agreed To Trigger Lock Requirement 07/28/2005 Y

    Agreed To McCain Gun Show Ban 03/02/2004 Y

    Agreed To Lock Up Your Safety Requirement 02/26/2004 Y

    Passed Incumbent Protection (Campaign Finance) 03/20/2002 Y


    Max Baucus (MT)
    GOA rating D

    Agreed To Trigger Lock Requirement 07/28/2005 Y

    Agreed To Ammunition Restriction Study 03/02/2004 Y

    Agreed To Lock Up Your Safety Requirement 02/26/2004 Y

    Passed Incumbent Protection (Campaign Finance) 03/20/2002 Y


    Mary Landrieu (LA)
    GOA Rating F

    Agreed To Trigger Lock Requirement 07/28/2005 Y

    Agreed To Ammunition Restriction Study 03/02/2004 Y

    Agreed To McCain Gun Show Ban 03/02/2004 Y

    Agreed To Lock Up Your Safety Requirement 02/26/2004 Y

    Passed Incumbent Protection (Campaign Finance) 03/20/2002 Y

    Ben Nelson (NE)
    GOA Rating C
    Agreed To Trigger Lock Requirement 07/28/2005 Y

    Agreed To Ammunition Restriction Study 03/02/2004 Y

    Agreed To Lock Up Your Safety Requirement 02/26/2004 Y

    Passed Incumbent Protection (Campaign Finance) 03/20/2002 Y


    Bob Casey (PA)
    Not yet rated by GOA

    Agreed To Protecting Free Speech For Groups Like GOA 01/18/2007 N


    Jon Tester (MT)
    GOA Rating B

    Agreed To Protecting Free Speech For Groups Like GOA 01/18/2007 N


    Jim Webb (VA)
    Not yet rated by GOA

    Agreed To Protecting Free Speech For Groups Like GOA 01/18/2007 N


    These are the hallmarks of defense of the RTKBA in the Senate for Mr. Barnett. Their best rated senator Tester (MT) gets a B from GOA. He is the junior Senator from MT Baucus (MT) the senior Senator, has a D rating.

    Tester's only RTKBA related vote so far has been cast against us (the vote to muzzle political groups before an election).

    Mr. Barnett, is that the best you can do? It sound's to me like you cherry picked Senators that did not vote for ONE ANTI GUN MEASURE, that being the "Federal ban on semi-automatics" that Mr. Barnett mentioned in his response.

    Let's look at that measure:
    Feinstein Semi-auto Ban

    -- Feinstein amendment to the gun liability bill
    03/02/2004
    Senate Roll Call No. 24
    108th Congress, 2nd Session

    Agreed to: 52-47 (see complete tally)
    On March 2, 2004, the Senate voted 52-47 in favor of the amendment offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). This amendment would extend the ban that was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 -- a ban which outlaws certain magazines and more than 180 semi-automatic firearms. Without this legislative extension, the ban would sunset in September 2004. The Feinstein amendment passed as an amendment to S. 1805.

    The measure was sponsored by Senator Feinstein Democrat from CA, one of the most powerful Senators and a staunch enemy of the 2nd Amendment.

    And of the 52 votes cast in favor of the measure? 42 of the Yea votes were cast by Democrats that's 81%.

    Here is the roll:

    Yea : 52 Members
    Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
    Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
    Bill Nelson (D-FL)
    Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
    Bob Graham (D-FL)
    Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
    Carl Levin (D-MI)
    Charles Schumer (D-NY)
    Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
    Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
    Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
    Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
    Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
    Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
    Ernest Hollings (D-SC)
    Evan Bayh (D-IN)
    Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    Herbert Kohl (D-WI)
    Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
    Jack Reed (D-RI)
    James Jeffords (I-VT)
    Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
    John Breaux (D-LA)
    John Edwards (D-NC)
    John Kerry (D-MA)
    John Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
    Joseph Biden (D-DE)
    Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
    Kent Conrad (D-ND)
    Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
    Mark Dayton (D-MN)
    Mark Pryor (D-AR)
    Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
    Patty Murray (D-WA)
    Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
    Richard Durbin (D-IL)
    Robert Byrd (D-WV)
    Ron Wyden (D-OR)
    Thomas Carper (D-DE)
    Thomas Daschle (D-SD)
    Tom Harkin (D-IA)
    George Voinovich (R-OH)
    Gordon Smith (R-OR)
    John Warner (R-VA)
    Judd Gregg (R-NH)
    Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
    Mike DeWine (R-OH)
    Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
    Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
    Richard Lugar (R-IN)
    Susan Collins (R-ME)

    So "Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining". Democrats are NOT pro 2nd Amendment as a group. And when faced with a faced with a blatantly anti 2nd Amendment vote 81% of Democrats voted yea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In response to Oldsmoblogger:

    That leaves aside the known anti-2A candidate who has cunning enough to keep her durn mouth shut about it until safely ensconced in office.

    Fair enough, but if a Democratic candidate refuses to unveil her own position on the Second Amendment, we're not going to torture it out of her. We have to be on the lookout for "stealth" candidates amongst our ranks, too. That includes Democrats who will tell you that sure, they support the Second Amendment, but then they turn around and tell you that the Second Amendment does not guarantee you, the citizen, the right to keep and bear arms, muttering something about the National Guard or Homeland Security. That's one reason why we send campaign questionnaires to Democratic candidates - we want to know exactly how they feel about our Second Amendment rights, rather than trying to blow us off with an "I support the rights of hunters and sportsmen" line.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It appears "Daniel" is from the http://www.a2dems.net/ site.

    Well, if you are willing I would like to hear how you respond to the voting record of Democrats on the topic of the RTKBA?......

    ReplyDelete
  5. I feel many "progressive" pro 2nd Amendment groups are what I like to call "sheep in wolves clothing".

    They talk a good game to fracture potential RTKBA solidarity; while providing a fig leaf for any real 2nd Amendment supporters amongst them,
    keep them in the flock so to speak.

    Quislings all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Response to 1894c:

    I didn't actually see a question in your post, but instead a lot of data that has been passed through a GOA filter. With all due respect to the GOA, they are not the same thing as Amendment II Democrats. If you have a question concerning the topics covered in my earlier reponse to David, I'll do my best to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My question vis a vie David's post is this:

    David said:
    "If you would pick an "F" over an "A" simply because of blind party loyalty, you have made yourselves part of the problem."

    Mr. Barnett replies:
    "But even a cursory look at our issues papers and the posts on our MySpace blog should serve as an indicator of how we feel about HR 1022, S 1237, and other anti-RKBA legisation that is being proposed by our legislators. So if we try to solicit answers from anti-RKBA Democrats such as Carolyn McCarthy or Barack Obama, it's mainly for two purposes: first, to be as fair as possible to all Democratic candidates, and second, to leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of the pro-RKBA Democratic voter as to which candidates are most in harmony with their own views."

    Which brings me to my question, for which I cite the actual votes of the Senate.

    How can you say Democrats support the RTKBA when the example of such support that Mr. Barnett cites is one where Democrats represented only 49% of the Senate (but 81% of the vote) to ban semi automatic firearms?

    CLEARLY Democrats did not support the RTKBA in the very instance Mr. Barnett mentioned. Whereas 87% of Republicans did support the RTKBA in said same instance.

    So excuse me if I feel I have good reason not to believe Mr. Barnett when he says:

    "But to insinuate that I am willing to sacrifice our Second Amendment rights just to score points on other issues - well, that just isn't going to happen. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is of paramount importance both to myself and to Amendment II Democrats as a whole."

    Leading to my final question, which is when "Democrats as a whole" voted 7 to 1 (with 1 abstention) to GUT the RTKBA how was the the RTKBA of "paramount importance"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The complete vote on the "attempt to resurrect a Federal ban on semi-automatics" that Mr. Barnett cites as evidence of Democrats as a whole defense of the RTKBA.

    Facts:
    Democrats represented only 49% of the Senate.

    Yet Democrats represented 81% of the Yea votes (42 out of 52 yea votes).

    87% of Republicans voted No on the measure.

    Here is the roll:
    Yea : 52 Members
    Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
    Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
    Bill Nelson (D-FL)
    Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
    Bob Graham (D-FL)
    Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
    Carl Levin (D-MI)
    Charles Schumer (D-NY)
    Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
    Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
    Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
    Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
    Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
    Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
    Ernest Hollings (D-SC)
    Evan Bayh (D-IN)
    Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    Herbert Kohl (D-WI)
    Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
    Jack Reed (D-RI)
    James Jeffords (I-VT)
    Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
    John Breaux (D-LA)
    John Edwards (D-NC)
    John Kerry (D-MA)
    John Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
    Joseph Biden (D-DE)
    Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
    Kent Conrad (D-ND)
    Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
    Mark Dayton (D-MN)
    Mark Pryor (D-AR)
    Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
    Patty Murray (D-WA)
    Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
    Richard Durbin (D-IL)
    Robert Byrd (D-WV)
    Ron Wyden (D-OR)
    Thomas Carper (D-DE)
    Thomas Daschle (D-SD)
    Tom Harkin (D-IA)
    George Voinovich (R-OH)
    Gordon Smith (R-OR)
    John Warner (R-VA)
    Judd Gregg (R-NH)
    Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
    Mike DeWine (R-OH)
    Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
    Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
    Richard Lugar (R-IN)
    Susan Collins (R-ME)

    Nay : 47 Members
    Zell Miller (D-GA)
    Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
    Max Baucus (D-MT)
    Ben Nelson (D-NE)
    Harry Reid (D-NV)
    Russ Feingold (D-WI)
    Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
    Ted Stevens (R-AK)
    Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
    Richard Shelby (R-AL)
    Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
    John McCain (R-AZ)
    Wayne Allard (R-CO)
    Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)
    Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
    Charles Grassley (R-IA)
    Larry Craig (R-ID)
    Mike Crapo (R-ID)
    Sam Brownback (R-KS)
    Pat Roberts (R-KS)
    Jim Bunning (R-KY)
    Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
    Norm Coleman (R-MN)
    Christopher Bond (R-MO)
    Jim Talent (R-MO)
    Thad Cochran (R-MS)
    Trent Lott (R-MS)
    Conrad Burns (R-MT)
    Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
    Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
    John Sununu (R-NH)
    Pete Domenici (R-NM)
    John Ensign (R-NV)
    James Inhofe (R-OK)
    Don Nickles (R-OK)
    Rick Santorum (R-PA)
    Arlen Specter (R-PA)
    Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
    Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
    Bill Frist (R-TN)
    John Cornyn (R-TX)
    Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
    Robert Bennett (R-UT)
    Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
    George Allen (R-VA)
    Michael Enzi (R-WY)
    Craig Thomas (R-WY)

    Not Voting : 1 Member
    Tim Johnson (D-SD)

    ReplyDelete
  9. As a follow-up question to pro 2nd Amendment Democrats.

    Give me ANY example of ANY pro 2nd Amendment vote where 80% of Democrats voted for it and 80% voted against it.

    Anybody willing to try?

    ReplyDelete
  10. -----CORRECTION-----

    As a follow-up question to pro 2nd Amendment Democrats.

    Give me ANY example of ANY pro 2nd Amendment vote where 80% of Democrats voted for it and 80% OF REPUBLICANS voted against it.

    Anybody willing to try?

    -----------------

    Sorry for the typo.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Daniel, I noticed a lot of verbiage, but nowhere did I see where you said you would withold your vote from and anti-RKBA Democrat in the general election.

    What you didn't say tells me you are not on my side in adoring freedom nor in the contest to perpetuate it.

    Sorry, but being good with a keyboard doesn't buy much around here if what you say is anathema to liberty.

    And saying you wish, which is really what you said, your party's candidate might be rights friendly, but he is your candidate regardless, does not give you cover. Hell, it doesn't even give you concealment.

    I was a Democrat most of my life, but could no longer tolerate the incessant assault on all things American and all things liberty. You have stated that you can if your side can be in power.

    No sir, I do not think you are liberty friendly if you are willing to sacrifice the linchpin of liberty for political power.

    I don't think you fooled many others either.

    Oh, I have no question for you. You already told me or rather didn't tell me all I need to know.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr. Barnett,

    I just realized from re-reading your response to Mr. Codrea that the commenter Daniel and Mr. Barnett are one in the same.

    That makes parts of my comments to Daniel here read a bit awkward. Specifically where I say "you" and then "Mr. Barnett" right after.

    My apologies sir. I intended no disrespect the stilted language was purely unintentional.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To Daniel:

    Thanks for responding, Mr. Barnett. We are in agreement that anti-2A stealth candidates are bad for the Republic. But do you really need either a completed questionnaire or torture to know where the Democratic presidential candidates stand on gun control? Ontheissues.org has chapter and verse on the lot. I have perused your site and I don't see peep nor sausage about any of the candidates. If I were in your shoes, and serious about the Second Amendment, I'd either be endorsing Bill Richardson and holding his feet to the fire to support Second Amendment rights more strongly, or I'd be looking for a candidate who was acceptable on gun rights as well as other issues of import.

    These are the things many of us (Second Amendment Republicans) have done--successfully, it appears, in the latter regard. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. In response to straightarrow:

    It sounds like you're just looking for a Democrat to dump on. I'd suggest your energies are better spent picketing an anti-RKBA Democrat (or an anti-RKBA Republican, for that matter) instead of putting words in the mouth of a Democrat who does support your Constitutional rights, your protests notwithstanding.

    I'm sorry you were driven away from the Democratic Party - but I'm not the one responsible for doing so. The ones who are, however, know they are in serious danger of losing ground. I even heard Carolyn McCarthy whining about how this is "a pro-gun Congress" because the only legislation that could get passed after the Virginia Tech tragedy was changes to the NICS process. I can't say that I agree with her assessment of Congress, but the fact that McCarthy appears to be frustrated in her attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment gives me some hope.

    So there you are. If you don't like where the Democratic Party is headed, by all means, do something about it instead of taking pot shots.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In response to oldsmoblogger:

    I like Bill Richardson. If I had to cast my primary vote today, it would go to either Richardson or to Mike Gravel.

    If you check out the "Campaign 2006" section of our website, you should find the positions of quite a few Democratic candidates on gun issues, including five House candidates from Texas alone. I've revamped and improved the questionnaire since then to cover more ground on Second Amendment and hunting issues, so I am hoping it'll provide a better picture of a candidate's position on gun legislation. It's a start.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mr. Barnett said:
    "If you have a question concerning the topics covered in my earlier reponse to David, I'll do my best to answer."

    I asked. And I provided a record of the votes in the senate to back up my questions, but have yet to hear Mr. Barnett's reply.



    To reiterate.

    The questions to Mr. Barnett are:

    1)How can he say Democrats support the RTKBA when the example of such support that he cites is one where Democrats represented only 49% of the Senate (but 81% of the vote) to ban semi automatic firearms?

    2)When "Democrats as a whole" voted 7 to 1 (with 1 abstention) to GUT the RTKBA how can Mr. Barnett support the statement that the RTKBA of "paramount importance"?

    3)Can Mr. Barnett provide ANY example of ANY pro 2nd Amendment vote where 80% of Democrats voted for it and 80% OF REPUBLICANS voted against it? As this would demonstrate the importance of the RTKBA issue within the Democratic party.


    What say you Mr. Barnett?

    ReplyDelete
  17. One would think 3 hours would be sufficient time to come up with some pithy responses to 3 simple questions, no?

    If I'm wrong and there is evidence of Democrats supporting the RTKBA I'll gladly eat crow.

    Somehow however, I suspect I don't have to worry about picking feathers out of my teeth anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I did not dump on you, nor do I need to hunt a Democrat to dump on. But, of course if you are more comfortable believing that when your are words analyzed as to what they really say, go ahead.

    You are the one who stated that you would vote for a candidate who is anti-second amendment if he belonged to your party, rather than vote for someone else if no one in your party is in the general election who favors the constitution.

    You cannot possibly believe that I was dumping on you when your own words were what I referenced. I didn't put any words in your mouth. It would appear you dumped on yourself. You just seem angry that it has been recognized by others.

    I did not jump on a man who DOES support my second amendment rights. I jumped on a man who said they weren't important enough to him to not vote against them if the choice were supporting his own party rather than his country when there is only that choice to be made.

    You said that. I didn't say it. No one forced you to say it. I merely translated it into straight language. You said it was unacceptable to you to vote for a candidate who supports our rights against one who does not if the one who does not belongs to your party. And you told us "to make no mistake about it." I took you at your word. Hence, that places you in sub rosa opposition to the American ideal of liberty and constitutionally guaranteed God-given rights. You should make no mistake about that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Still awaiting a rejoinder.

    The questions to Mr. Barnett (still) are:

    1)How can he say Democrats support the RTKBA when the example of such support that he cites is one where Democrats represented only 49% of the Senate (but 81% of the vote) to ban semi automatic firearms?

    2)When "Democrats as a whole" voted 7 to 1 (with 1 abstention) to GUT the RTKBA how can Mr. Barnett support the statement that the RTKBA is of "paramount importance"?

    3)Can Mr. Barnett provide ANY example of ANY pro 2nd Amendment vote where 80% of Democrats voted for it and 80% OF REPUBLICANS voted against it? As this would demonstrate the importance of the RTKBA issue within the Democratic party.


    What say you Mr. Barnett?

    ReplyDelete
  20. In response to straightarrow:

    These are your assertions:

    You are the one who stated that you would vote for a candidate who is anti-second amendment if he belonged to your party...

    I jumped on a man who said they weren't important enough to him to not vote against them if the choice were supporting his own party rather than his country when there is only that choice to be made.

    You said it was unacceptable to you to vote for a candidate who supports our rights against one who does not if the one who does not belongs to your party.

    You know what the funny thing is? You cannot prove that any of the above statements are true. Maybe you should try re-reading what I said very, very carefully before putting more words into my mouth.

    It sounds like you are seeing only what you wish to see, which is unfortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mr. Barnett seems unwilling to respond to questions regarding Democratic support of the RTKBA.

    As I said I previously provided a record of the votes in the senate to back up my questions, but Mr. Barnett seems uninterested in replying.


    My questions for Mr. Barnett are:

    1)How can he say Democrats support the RTKBA when the example of such support that he cites is one where Democrats represented only 49% of the Senate (but 81% of the vote) to ban semi automatic firearms?

    2)When "Democrats as a whole" voted 7 to 1 (with 1 abstention) to GUT the RTKBA how can Mr. Barnett support the statement that the RTKBA of "paramount importance"?

    3)Can Mr. Barnett provide ANY example of ANY pro 2nd Amendment vote where 80% of Democrats voted for it and 80% OF REPUBLICANS voted against it? As this would demonstrate the importance of the RTKBA issue within the Democratic party.


    Again, what say you Mr. Barnett?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Response to 1894c:

    Your questions, unfortunately, are not based on anything that I've said. I have stated, and I quote,
    "My pro-RKBA stance may technically be the minority within the Democratic Party, but it is gaining in strength." This negates the questions you have asked, as they were based on an incorrect assertion.

    The reason that I established Amendment II Democrats is precisely because the pro-RKBA position is still the minority position within our party. I want to change that, and so do many other Democrats I've run into over the years. And it wasn't that long ago that our party leaders understood the true importance of the Second Amendment. John F. Kennedy understood that the Second Amendment was designed to help protect the people from a
    tyrranical government. Senator Russ Feingold does, too, although you are free to take issue with some of his votes on the Senate floor. But starting in the late 1960s, our party lost its way. The result was the Gun Control Act of 1968, portions of the 1986 FOPA, and, of course, the 1994 "crime bill" that banned semi-automatic firearms. The latter was the last straw, as Democrats by the bushel lost their seats to Republicans.

    But here's a thought. Why haven't the Republicans stricken those noxious portions of FOPA from the law books? If you were to own full-auto, I personally couldn't care less if your gun was made in 1986 or 1987 - but according to FOPA, private ownership of a full-auto firearm made in 1987 is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. And why haven't the Republicans removed the heinous "hunting and sporting purposes" clause from the Gun Control Act of 1968? They've had 12 years of nearly unbroken control of both the House and the Senate in order to do so.

    I'm not saying that Republicans as a whole are weak on the Second Amendment - some of them have been veritable bulldogs on the matter, and I do appreciate that. But there still remains so much to be done. And if you think the Republicans are still the best ones for the job, then vote your conscience next year at the polls. I intend to do the same - and if anti-RKBA Democrats find that their spots on my ballots have been mysteriously left blank, they've got nobody to blame except for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The point is not to drag out an answer from someone intent on not giving one but rather to illustrate the fact that progressive groups seems to be appearing recently which give lip service to the 2nd Amendment yet are unwilling to stand behind their assertions.

    Mr. Barnett,

    If you actually believe Democrats support the RTKBA then the voting record should only lend credence to your claim.

    You alluded to just such voting support in your initial response to David.

    You have a receptive, if skeptical, audience here.

    Surely the WOGs is as good a place as any to illustrate how the Democratic plank has room for supporting the 2nd Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mr. Barnett said:
    "Why haven't the Republicans stricken those noxious portions of FOPA from the law books? ....

    And why haven't the Republicans removed the heinous "hunting and sporting purposes" clause from the Gun Control Act of 1968? They've had 12 years of nearly unbroken control of both the House and the Senate in order to do so."


    You MUST be joking. Democratic control of Congress was marked by a litany of gun control legislation.

    Pro-gun legislation, when passed by Congress, WAS passed by a Republican Congress.

    When Democrats vote 7 to 1 FOR gun control and Republicans vote 7 to 1 AGAINST gun control it does imply that someone against gun control has an easy choice.

    I'm not partisan. But the voting record speaks for itself. If I'm wrong cite an example.

    But what you're saying is just fantasy. The Democratic party does NOT understand the current importance/ relevance of the Second Amendment.

    To imply the Democratic party does understand the current importance/ relevance of the Second Amendment is not supported by either the voting record or the platform of the democratic party.

    You seem set on believing something that can be clearly shown to be false.

    ReplyDelete
  25. In response to 1894c:

    The point is not to drag out an answer from someone intent on not giving one but rather to illustrate the fact that progressive groups seems to be appearing recently which give lip service to the 2nd Amendment yet are unwilling to stand behind their assertions.

    I am aware of that. One good example is Third Way (formerly Americans for Gun Safety, IIRC) that came out with an atrocious little strategem called Taking Back the Second Amendment in which they actually tried to sell voters with the statement, and I quote, "I take a backseat to one in support of Second Amendment rights, but I also support requiring background checks at gun shows and continuing the ban on assault weapons." A lot of Democratic candidates embraced this concept during their 2004 campaigns, and most of them lost their elections as a result. That's why many Democrats didn't even try to use this phrase in 2006. And some of the new candidates actually had pro-RKBA leanings instead of this mealy-mouthed Third Way nonsense. And I believe that's one reason for some of our gains last year.

    But that doesn't mean that Third Way won't try again. Many people who are turned off by the in-your-face shrillness of the Brady Campaign or Rainbow PUSH might actually turn to Third Way, which is promoting the same gun-control laws in a different package, and say "Y'know, they might be on to something." That's all the more reason for pro-RKBA Democrats like me to be on our guard. Nobody said that taking the Democratic Party back from the anti-Second Amendment crowd was going to be easy. But, given time and enough motivated activists within the party, I still believe that it's doable.

    I can't blame you for being skeptical. But I was willing to stand against the Brady Campaign when they marched in Dallas, and I'll do it again and again if need be.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Daniel said:
    "Your questions, unfortunately, are not based on anything that I've said. I have stated, and I quote,
    "My pro-RKBA stance may technically be the minority within the Democratic Party, but it is gaining in strength." This negates the questions you have asked, as they were based on an incorrect assertion."

    You also said:

    "But on the other hand, take a good look at the makeup of the Senate in the 110th Congress. Of the Democratic majority in the Senate, there are no less than eight Democratic Senators - Max Baucus (MT), Bob Casey (PA), Russ Feingold (WI), Mary Landrieu (LA), Ben Nelson (NE), Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV), Jon Tester (MT), and Jim Webb (VA) - who will form a block against any attempt to resurrect a Federal ban on semi-automatics. Judging by the current makeup of the Senate, when it comes to gun legislation, these eight Democratic Senators may prove to be the gatekeepers, much to the constant frustration of Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer."

    I simply took the time to evaluate your statement against the actual voting record. What you said does not stand such scrutiny.

    I even took the time to list all the actual votes to which you referred.

    Further, I listed other votes your defenders of the RTKBA have made. I showed how those senators, who you would have put our faith in, are rated by a gun rights organization with impeccable credentials.

    Still having done all that, your response is to give no response.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm going to jump in for a sec here--I've been purposely staying away from this since I wanted to give Daniel a fair chance to respond to my post without any interference or attempts to steer the course of the dialog.

    Daniel--my original post was a direct response to your original words from your website, so in that instance, straightarrow is correct, although I do undertand you may wish to disagree in how he interprets them. I think he's pretty well summing up what you said, as opposed to what you may have meant to say. To me, they were pretty clear and not subject to misunderstanding, and until such time as I see them come down from your site and be replaced with what you DO mean to say, I'm not able to reevaluate your official positions.

    The bottom line--and I think that most Republicans are weasels too, and have been as tough on them as on anybody--the Dems have a miserable track record and have been the authors of much of the misery we now live under. And even though an individual candidate may have your support withdrawn, they will never know you left their ballot chad unpunched or why--you need to proactively denounce anti-2A dems if you expect--it not sympathy--at least credibility here. And even if you don't activley endorse certain candidates, supporting the party in general WILL result in campaign funds being available to all, including the worst. That's why the Republican party will never get a dime from me, but individual candidates may.

    And one other thing I look at--and it's important, and most overlook it--is who else in the party has the "pro-gun" candidate supported and endorsed? Because if they help an anti, even if their own record is pretty good, they are still enabling tyranny.

    Now, in Daniel's defense: it takes guts to come on here and stand up to this group, because you're tough and canny and well-read and not afraid to scrap. I know we've seen shill groups in the past like AHSA and whatever that new damn one was that I can't remember right now, meant to divide and distract--I have no proof other than my instincts, and those are generally pretty good: I don't think he's one of those. I believe he is sincere, and I believe he has personal integrity, just from watching his interactions here.

    I expect some of you may correct me on this, but I think the disconnect is one of outlook and thinking, not of intentional deception.

    As for typos, don't worry about 'em--I don't, and don't proof my comments--we're doing this on the fly, and I think everyone is getting the gist of things.

    I'm off now, probably won't be back tonight. Got me a maduro seegar and a firepit that I personally hauled 7 tons of gravel by shovel and barrow to landscape, and I'll probably have me a beer, too.

    Right after I fire up the steaks.

    Oh, that's right--no beer--I make Mushrooms Cabernet when I grill, my own original recipe, and since I only use a cup or two on the shrooms, well, someone's gotta keep the rest from going to waste...

    'night all.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Wishing doesn't make it so.

    The RTKBA is incompatible with the current Democratic party plank.

    I believe that you believe you are pro 2nd Amendment.

    But you support a party which is opposed to the RTKBA.

    Such people are the very definition of quislings.

    You purport to be a defender of the 2nd Amendment while supporting a party which would see it repealed.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm off too.

    Well spoken comments all.

    I hope everyone enjoys a nice weekend.

    Best regards,
    1894C

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thanks to everyone for having me around today. Despite all of our head-butting, you folks have given me some serious food for thought. Once I have a chance to switch my brain into full-on Labor Day mode, I'll review everything that's been said here, and there may be some changes on the Amendment II Democrats website itself as a result.

    Now to chow down on some pseudo-Tex-Mex and break out the stock conditioner. Enjoy yourselves, everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats. We are, after all, Democrats."-Daniel

    All the proof I need to post as to what you said and what I read. All other of my comment flow logically from what you actually said. You, of course, already know this or you wouldn't address me or my supposed reading deficiencies if there were another interpretation. You could make a case that I was wrong on your words. Since you cannot, you try to make a case on my alleged difficulty with the written word. Really lame.

    ReplyDelete

Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.