to this:
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:
Next on the docket:
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:
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
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?David has brought up a few points in his earlier post that I'd like to address one at a time, starting with this:
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.
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.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.
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.
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