Dear Sirs/Madams,It's not my intention to attack this group, as I've said before I believe their spokesman Daniel Barnett is sincere, but I disagree with the underlying philosophy of not supporting pro-RKBA candidates because of party loyalty. So Peter's blunt observations need to be heard and understood by them, as they reflect a sentiment we've heard before in comments on previous posts, and one they will certainly continue to hear by gun owners rightfully distrusting of the abominable record of the modern Democrat party as a whole on gun rights.
As someone who generally agrees with the Democratic side of things, at least to the point of being registered as one, I was interested in hearing about you from David Codrea.
It's lonely being a gun positive Democrat, and it gets lonelier as time goes on. I was hoping that I had been directed to a group of like-minded folks.
I was wrong. You refer glancingly to the Second Amendment, but you're really interested in electing Democrats, no matter what.
Let me explain where I'm coming from:
The American Revolution did not start on 19Apr 1775 at Concord.
Nor on 5 Dec 1773, the Boston Massacre.
Nor during the French and Indian War.
It started in January of 1629 when Charles I of England dissolved Parliament and commenced the eleven-year period of Personal Rule. At this moment in time, William Penn was an unknown landowner in the English countryside, although events would force him to emigrate and eventually found Pennsylvania, as a "for instance".
Over the next century and a half it was realized that certain things belong inalienably to the individual, no matter the government, and no matter what any government might assert.
Those items are pretty well enumerated in the Bill of Rights. A possibly heretical (to you) thought: the Bill of Rights is eternal and timeless, and would obtain even if America never existed. That means you and I have the right to worship (or not), assemble, speak our minds, and bear arms, no matter what. Period. No 'reasonable' restrictions without overarching societal need, hence the prohibition against yelling Fire In A Crowded Theatre, as one example.
You cite on your website the fact that you're not on the NRA's Blacklist. Rather than use that to establish your bona fides, I would suggest that you haven't made enough of a public splash for them to notice you. I expect that to be remedied as soon as someone over there tries to wade through the morass of nonsense you have posted.
You are partisan hacks who are trying to exploit one of the national conversations for your own benefit and the benefit of your Democratic candidates. I hold Free Speech to be sacred, so by all means continue with what you're trying to do. It won't work, and you'll be doing it without my support, and when I hear that your partisan side overrides your Constitutional side, I will work against you. Please note that I said 'when'; I have no doubt you'll toss my Second Amendment Rights over the side when it becomes convenient for you to do so.
It's my hope that this is a catalyst for a more profound reexamination than the "tweaking" we got the other day. My hope is to see them come around to a more profound and vigorous defense of their namesake amendment, one that is transparent to party lines. As always, dialog is the order of the day, and Mr. Barnett is welcome to respond in "Comments," below, or by sending me a standalone post, which I will publish unedited and in full.
Related Posts:
2A Dems to Hold 8/28 Rally
Second Amendment Democrats Respond
2A Dems "Tweak" Position
4 comments:
I would say that the Amendment II Democrats are trying to have their cake and eat it too. At some point they'll realize that the cause of liberty and the interests of the faction cannot in every instance be made to coincide (I feel like I ought to be capitalizing Liberty and Faction, but I'm already pompous enough, ain't I?), and then they'll have to make a perhaps uncomfortable choice.
I was a Democrat my whole life, but I couldn't reconcile the faction with the cause of liberty. Ever work on a wooden boat? I use this analogy: Where the Republican Party needs to be reframed, refastened, new garboard strakes, and all new standing and running rigging, the Democratic Party is a constructive total loss--just bring a chainsaw, a match, and S'mores fixings. Pity.
"... hence the prohibition against yelling Fire In A Crowded Theatre ..."
I get rather tired of seeing this as an example of "reasonable restriction". There is no prohibition against yelling 'Fire!' in any theater that I am aware of. There is however usually multiple laws, local, state, maybe even federal, that will apply consequences to a person who yells fire or otherwise creates a panic without a justification. And that is as it should be.
To bring it back to firearms: do not restrict in advance, but based on actual misdeeds.
How's this for an analogy: You drive up and park legally. A cop is observing you as you get out of the car and walk into a bar. Just as you step into the bar the cop announces to you that your driver's license is going to be suspended because you might choose to drink and drive.
Is that a reasonable restriction?
If not, then work to repeal the Lautenberg amendment. And keep your eye out for other "reasonable restrictions".
MichaelG
Agreed on the "fire" example, Michael G.
So. Three comments as of this writing, and two of them are over the Theatre in a Cowded Fire remark.
Come on.
Pay Attention, guys.
This is about people who are more focused on winning than on living within the Constitution, and NOT about some stray remark. About people whom I believe are lying like rugs in order to try to fool some of us into voting away our Rights. And since you (Michael) immediately backpedal over 'consequences', you tacitly agree with my statement, even as you take exception to my wording. One cannot, as a matter of course, yell Fire anywhere one would like, because you'll be incurring both civil and possibly criminal liabilities, effectively limiting one's Free Speech Rights, whether we agree or not.
Stay focused, OK?
I have received a rather lengthy response from Our Dear Mister Barret which I will send along to David along with my answer. My first impression is that it's more of the same over-massaged language that we've gotten so far. Expect more blunt declaritive sentences in return. :)
Post a Comment