GOA Lacks Credibility on 2nd Amendment Bipartisanship
In order for the Second Amendment to be truly preserved, it must have support of both of our major political parties. That's evidenced by the fact that in the most Democratic Conresss a generation, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has not only been preserved, but has been enhanced, and we owe much of that support from pro-gun Democrats, including Harry Reid.
Gun Owners of America has once again shown that it is unwilling to help make supporting the Second Amendment a bipartisan issue, and it is shameful. Shameful that Gun Owners of America, in the 2008 election cycle, spent less than 200 dollars supporting pro-gun Democrats. In contrast, National Rifle Association, which is a bipartisan Second Amendment advocacy group, spent almost 1300 times as much supporting pro-gun Democrats, despite still spending 78% of its PAC money supporting Republican candidates. In the 2010 election cycle so far, NRA has spent infinitely more money supporting pro-gun Democrats, spending close to 150,000 dollars compared with GOA's whopping $0.
But I don't just want to focus on Gun Owners of America's poor record of supporting a bipartisan Second Amendment. I'd also like to address their double standard when it comes to Republican pro-gun candidates versus Democratic pro-gun candidates. Their opposition to Senate Majority Leader Reid is a prime example of this.
Harry Reid did, in fact, vote for the Brady Act. This vote was in 1993. Also voting for the Brady Act was Kay Bailey Hutchison, who GOA gives an A grade to. Funny how Republicans get forgiven, isn’t it? Oh, but Reid voted for the evil assault weapons ban! Well, he did, but he didn’t. The assault weapons ban was attached to the Crime Bill, which was a must-pass part of a highly popular President’s agenda. See my post on the history of the Assault Weapons Ban. The actual AWB was called the Feinstein Amendment, and Reid voted against that. There were only four Senators who voted against the final Crime Bill. One of the other votes for the final bill? GOA A-Rated Alabama Republican Senator Richard Shelby. Shelby also joined Reid in voting to eliminate CMP funding. And here too, along with Hutchison again.
But I’m not going to sit here and do this all day for decades old votes. I mean, yeah, Reid did vote against the Lott Amendment back in 2000, but so did Fred Thompson. He did vote for trigger locks back in 2004, but so did Hutchison. But he also voted against renewing the Assault Weapons Ban on that same bill. Reid also voted against the final version of the bill that was amended with the trigger lock provision, gun show provision, and assault weapons ban.
Also worthwhile to note Harry Reid voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was a major legislative initiative for the the Right to Keep and Bear Arms movement this past decade. But I think what stands out the most is Harry Reid’s leadership on the issue in the current Senate. Shall we name what we’ve gotten?
- An amendment to allow National Park carry inserted into the Credit Card bill.
- An amendment to fix DC’s gun laws inserted into the Voting Rights Act.
- An amendment to create national reciprocity recognition that even included recognition for states that did not issue licenses, like Vermont. We lost his one, but the vote never would have happened without Harry Reid.
- Funding rider to force Amtrak to allow guns in checked baggage.
- Let’s also not forget all the other funding riders which are important for us, which Reid helped us get.
It's certainly true that conservatives have plenty of reasons to be upset about Harry Reid, but Gun Owners of America bills itself as a gun rights group, not a partisan conservative group. But you'd never know it from their actions. The fact is that Harry Reid is solid on the Second Amendment. We’ve gotten more out of the Senate under Reid than we got out of Republicans in the roughly 14 years they ran things. Harry Reid is not perfect, but there’s no politician that has a voting perfect record, and many that have records on guns comparable to Reid which GOA grades highly. I will leave it to you to determine whether GOA have any credibility at all when it comes to help making sure the Second Amendment is protected by both parties.To me the answer is clear, and it's been obvious for a while Gun Owners of America is more interested in tearing down others in order to promote itself, than it is about keeping this important right for future generations.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I have to agree completely with the author. I am for all practical purposes a single issue voter (2nd amendment rights) but I am a member of the NRA rather than the GOA for eactly these reasons. While I am not a Democrat in any substantial way, I will vote for one if they are a 2nd amendment supporter as I did in voting for Poshard (D) over Ryan (RINO) in the Illinois governor's election many moons ago.
My point was not that Harry Reid is some kind of godsend for gun rights . I admit he's been less than perfect. The question is whether he's better than the possible alternatives, which are Schumer or Durbin, if Reid loses, but the GOP does not take back the Senate . I would note the GOP is very unlikely to take back the Senate in 2010. Maybe in 2012 . This isn't because the Republicans aren't running strong this year, it's just a matter of which seats are up.
What I was attempting to point out is that Reid record is very close to the record of other people GOA ranks highly. Doesn't it seem strange that his voting record is very close to that of Kay Hutchison and yet Hutchison gets an A? No politician has a perfect voting record on guns . No one that I can think of that's been around as long as Reid has, and who's career goes back to when NRA was weak and the anti-gun folks were strong, has a spotless record. If GOA is so principled, they need to explain why it is that Hutchison has an A and Reid has an F, when Hutchison voted for Brady, voted to defund CMP, and voted for trigger locks. They claim to be a no-compromise group, and that smells like compromise to me... but only if you have an R next to your name, right?
Me thinks the emperor has no clothes.
ignored the will of the people. Harry Reid was instumental in foisting on the American people a so called health care plan that is nothing of the kind, but rather a mandantory health insurance plan that flies in the face of the Constitution. Show me where the Constitution says the Congress has the power to mandate that people buy any kind of product. Harry Reid participated in this infliction of injustice and usurption of power and deserves to be run out of office, gun rights be damned.
The Constituion ain't just about our rights. It is also about the powers and limitations of the federal govenment, and Harry Reid ignored that. He also ignored the fact that some 60% of the people didn't want that particular peice of legislation, but Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama conspired to ignore the will of the people and the powers granted to the federal government .
Harry Reids history with gun rights is a red herring to get people to forget what his role has been in an illegal expansion of federal govenment power. Let us not be decieved as to what the real purpose of this article is.
"In order for the Second Amendment to be truly preserved, it must have support of both of our major political parties."
I do not feel that it makes one bit of difference as to what the Republicans or Democrats think, it is irrelevant. As far as I am concerned, our Constitution says all it needs to say about citizens owning firearms . The Constitution is the law of the land, is it not?
The Article accurately paints NRA as seeking compromise - which is incompatible with "shall not be infringed". Pick one.
Note that America was founded on one particular answer.
In the 1770's the Torries wanted to find the middle ground.
Americans coined the phrase "unalienable rights", and "Sic Semper Tyrannis".
In the 1940, Quisling sought middle ground, and became a poster child for despicable behavior, of currying favor, of sucking up to evil.
The NRA are modern day Torries, Quislings, aligned with tyrants.
Peas in a pod. Bedfellows. A pet dog for Harry Reid to trot out.
Being friends with tyrants and communists makes you ... their friend.
Good luck with that.
Even if/when both parties are wrong - What's right is still right.
GOA has credibility precisely because it has consistent principles.
NRA lacks any credibility, because they are whores eager to get into bed with anyone, just to have friends on both sides. Currying favor is different than having principles.
What should we expect from a shill for the Negotiate Rights Away lobby. I quit sending money to the NRA when they decided that my rights could be compromised with my blessing. The NRA has been a part of every piece of gun control legislation since the 1934 NFA. While I wasn’t around for the NFA or GCA, I was around for the AWB and all the CCP nonsense.
Enough compromise already. The GOA understands this as does the JPFO.
Federalist Paper No. 84, by Alexander Hamilton, states:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government . This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
Now, note that Hamilton says: "Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
Hamilton could have very well said: "Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty to keep and bear arms shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
The same can be said for religion .
Where do you find delegated authority and restrictions? In the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does anyone read where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?
Hamilton was not really "anti-Bill of Rights." His argument was that, if the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution, it would: "... furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. That they ... "might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government."
If it is not restricted by the Constitution ... nor delegated by the same ... there is absolutely no power.
Now, I ask all of you in good faith, can you find anywhere in the Constitution where power is given by which restrictions may be imposed on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms?
There is no provision within the constitution for the government to legislate or restrict gun ownership ... period ... other than pretended pretense.
If your premises lead you to supporting Harry Reid, the only rational thing to do is to check your premises. If you're going to throw every other right under the bus in order to support this one right, all you do is make it more likely that we'll have to use our second amendment rights for the contingency they were originally acknowledged for. Nobody wants that. If you're going to bring us to that anyway, then what does all the compromise and accommodation and bipartisanship buy you? At least a 'no compromise' stance on guns allows the possibility that these people will back down before it is too late, and before all our other rights are gone too.
The "Gun Show Loophole" hoopla hook, line and sinker.
That said, he is relatively decent on the issue of guns according to what I see at ontheissues. Should GOA withhold money from more reliable legislators in order to create the impression of bipartisanship? Perhaps not.
Does this call GOA's credibility into question? Nope. It simply demonstrates prudent fiscal responsibility... I can understand how that would be confusing for those who tilt leftward (not to mention at windmills).
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.