2A Dems that won

[NineseveN]

Beren, I found a few pieces like that, but I guess it's not enough for me to breathe easy about him just yet. Thanks for the addittional source.

 

[Manedwolf]

I'm hoping that Webb turns out to be a Republican in Democrat's clothing. Will he vote his principles or vote the party line on gun control? Stay tuned -- we'll find out soon enough.

He seems pretty down-to-earth. I don't worry much about him. Allen, well...to be blunt, Allen just showed himself to be a complete and utter a**hole in the purest terms, and I think the voters just got fed up with that.

 

[GT]

There are no pro-gun Democrats, just liars - and the fools that believe them of course.

G

 

[RNB65]

He seems pretty down-to-earth. I don't worry much about him. Allen, well...to be blunt, Allen just showed himself to be a complete and utter a**hole in the purest terms, and I think the voters just got fed up with that.

Yep. Allen suffers from way too much spoiled frat-boy, silver spoon disease. The golden boy of the VA GOP got his *** handed to him yesterday. It was just a few months ago that he was being tauted as the Republican front-runner in the '08 race for the White House. That's two former VA govs that have have recently had the door rudely slammed on their presidential ambitions -- George Allen and Mark Warner.

 

[Beren]

There are no pro-gun Democrats, just liars - and the fools that believe them of course.

Statements like this help no one. They're the written equivalent of clearing's one throat in the hopes it will make one feel better about something.

There are many pro-gun Democrats. Newly elected U.S. Sen. Bob Casey has an 'A' rating from the NRA, for example.

What worries me, however, is Speaker Pelosi pushing her anti-gun rhetoric down everyone's throat. We know G.W. Bush will sign a new AWB. What fool really believes he wouldn't, if a bill makes it to his desk?

 

[Helmetcase]

You cited two incumbents as evidence that my statement about incumbents is wrong? Nice.

The problem is you've yet to address my question at all--find me ANY example of some pro-2A Dem who flipped because Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid (a pro gun guy) told them to on the GUN issue. Not on some other issue.

LG is right--the gun control isn't an issue where the leadership is going to try to enforce conformity. It's not a core or central platform of the party. They know doing so will hurt them just as badly as the 1994 AWB hurt them.

Perhaps you should check the Congressional Record concerning the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. How many pro-gun Democrats who had voted against the bill prior to 1994 changed when the Dems enforced party discipline on that vote? That is historical fact, not a made-up fantasy of the Republican party.

Hmm, then perhaps you'll do better than buzz did on this question. Can you give me a list of formerly staunch pro-2A Dems (guys like Webb, Reid, Nelson, etc) who flipped on the AWB because the leadership told them to? Which ones? What were their prior 2A credentials? What pro-2A bills had they voted for before? What were their NRA ratings before? Their statements on record?

Assuming you do produce that list, and it's of a number such that it should make us worry about the progun majority in the Senate (or the House, even), how many such members *didn't* pay for their votes for the AWB by being voted out in 1994? How many of them survived the disastrous AWB-induced house cleaning in 1994? How many of them were swept out with the garbage? Who was the person doing the enforcement?

You forget that the Senate Dem leader is pro-2A; he seems an unlikely guy to go around berating Jim Webb or Tester or Casey because they didn't vote for an AWB. You assume they've forgotten that 1994 happened to them because of the Clinton AWB.

It's not 1994 anymore. Gun control isn't a central party platform anymore. Party discipline is like spending money--you save it for the stuff you really want. AWBs might be something they'd favor, but not something they're going to want to spend that money on. We need to be on the lookout for more subtle infringements on our rights instead of outright confiscation and bans.

 

[30 cal slob]

i guess we have no choice but to wait and see what happens.

in the meantime, the NRA is probably dusting off its fundraising and membership machine after years of relative inactivity. time for all of us to get vocal again.

given the choice between an anti-gun republican and pro-gun Democrat, i'd obviously pick the latter.

but what i am (and you all seem to be) concerned about are those who look good on paper initially - campaigning from the center/right and then eventually voting with the gun-grabbing liberals. party discipline indeed.

 

[Helmetcase]

Fine, be concerned about it, but provide me specific GUN LEGISLATION specific examples of Dems we need to be worried about out there.

You may find this to be of interest: http://www.wmsa.net/news/KCStar/kcs052302skelton_pro_gun.htm

Pelosi et al apparently want to learn what they can do so that they can win in places other than the California coast and the Northeast Corridor--and the answer is "ease up on guns" according to a pro gun Democrat.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned--I'm saying that most of the hyperbole floating around here is exaggerated.

 

[RealGun]

Virginia's a done deal. There's going to be a recount I'm sure, but Jim Webb has it in the bag.

You would have to think very highly of the voting system to believe that less than a third of one per cent margin was beyond question.

 

[RealGun]

We'll find out Casey's true leanings soon enough, but consider this:

Casey opposes gun-control laws, including the 10-year ban on 19 types of assault weapons that expired in 2004. He vowed to aggressively court sportsmen's support by emphasizing his character, his long support for gun owners' rights and his record in state government. "I've been a strong supporter of the second amendment, the right to bear arms. That's evidenced not just by what I've said but the support I've gotten over the last decade from sportsmen's groups, including the NRA," Casey said.

Source: Brett Lieberman, The Patriot News Feb 21, 2006 - Beren

He is replacing Santorum, who rose from C to B- in GOA ratings...not exactly stellar but better than literally ANY Democrat in the Senate. The question now becomes whether a freshman Senator has the stones to be independent of the Democratic caucus position, not a single gun friendly Senator among them.

The same goes for Tester of Montana, GOA rated B for the time being, based upon questionnaire responses or State level record, not real voting record in Congress.

 

[Helmetcase]

The GOA's position that there are "no gun friendly Senators in the Democratic party" simply isn't grounded in reality. I like the GOA, but I've noticed when people are trying to push the "Dems are gonna pass an AWB instantly and come get all your guns right now!" school of thought, they assume that the GOA has it right in that regard.

I'd argue they don't.

 

[RealGun]

The GOA's position that there are "no gun friendly Senators in the Democratic party" simply isn't grounded in reality.

I would be interested in what you would use to support that. The GOA's "reality" is primarily voting records. I infer that you somehow have a better, more credible measure.

 

[Helmetcase]

How can you rate as F someone who voted against the extension of the AWB? There's no credit offered for that? Their voting records? According to the GOA, F means a "philosophically committed anti-gunner." That's not Reid at all. Must not be that committed, or he'd have voted to extend the AWB.

Let's start with Reid. Justify the F rating for him via his record. Explain the discrepancy between the NRA and GOA rating of him.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Hmm, then perhaps you'll do better than buzz did on this question. Can you give me a list of formerly staunch pro-2A Dems (guys like Webb, Reid, Nelson, etc) who flipped on the AWB because the leadership told them to?

First, why are we assuming that Webb (no record), Reid and Nelson are "staunch pro-2A Dems?" Both Nelsons are rated F by GOA, as is Reid. Is that your idea of a "staunch pro-2A Dem?"

As for who flipped on the AWB? H.R. 3104 was proposed in 1991 (1st Session, 102nd Congress) with no party discipline enforced and a Democratic House. It gathers 45 co-sponsors and never leaves committee. Clinton gets elected in 1992 and Chuck Schumer proposes H.R. 4296 in the 103rd Congress, 1st Session. It gets 61 co-sponsors and is reported out of committee where it gets a 216-214 floor vote. 177 Democrats vote yes out of 254.

Among the Democrats voting "Yes", you'll see Dick Gephardt's name. In Clinton's "My Life" book, Clinton talks about how Gephardt and then Speaker Tom Foley begged him not to make this an issue. But when Clinton pressed hard, Gephardt voted as he was told.

But you seem to think this is a "different era" and it "isn't 1994" anymore, so instead of looking to the far past, let's look at the votes in 2004 for the AWB renewal.

Here is the Boxer Amendment vote requiring all guns to be sold with locking devices whether you need them or not. Only two Dems vote "No." Kerry and Edwards miss the vote because they are campaigning. "Staunch pro-2A Dems" like Reid and either Nelson vote YES.

Here is the McCain Amendment for background checks on private sales. Only 3 Dems vote NO (Zell Miller, Nelson - NE, Max Baucus). One Dem abstains (campaign) and the remainder vote YES, including Nelson - FL and Reid.

Here is the infamous Teddy Kennedy's "Let's Ban ALL Centerfire Rifle Ammo" Amendment. 33 Democrats and 1 Republican (the now fired Lincoln Chaffee) vote YES. Of the Democrats who vote YES, you find the following names: Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer and Durbin - remember those names because it will be important later.

You forget that the Senate Dem leader is pro-2A; he seems an unlikely guy to go around berating Jim Webb or Tester or Casey because they didn't vote for an AWB. You assume they've forgotten that 1994 happened to them because of the Clinton AWB.

You seem to be concentrating exclusively on the Senate and I don't blame you. If I was trying to make the ridiculous argument that Dems were pro-gun, I sure wouldn't want to bring up Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when I was pointing out the leadership; but since you brought up the Senate and how gun-friendly it is among Dems these days, let's look at the makeup of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hear all gun control legislation:

Leahy - Chairman (GOA F), Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer and Durbin (GOA F-). Hey! What do you know, with the exception of Leahy, every single Democratic member of the committee that oversees all gun legislation also voted to ban all centerfire rifle ammunition as recently as 2004. Looks like a bunch of staunch pro-gun Dems to me...

Maybe that is just an anomaly? Let's see who we have in the House?

Why we have John Conyers as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee! Yay! Not only is he one of the few proponents of a universal handgun ban still in the House, he is also the sole active House member to have voted for the 1968 Gun Control Act as well as being a sponsor of a gun ban as recently as 2005. Maybe his committee is better than he is?

Berman (D) California, 28th - GOA F- (also sponsored stricter McCarthy ban in 2005)
Boucher (D) Virginia, 9th - GOA A-
Nadler (D) New York, 8th - GOA F- (sponsored McCarthy ban in 2005)
Scott (D) Virginia, 3rd - GOA F-
Watt (D) North Carolina, 12th - GOA F-
Lofgren (D) California, 16th - GOA F- (sponsored McCarthy ban in 2005)
Jackson Lee (D) Texas, 18th - GOA F- (sponsored McCarthy ban in 2005)
Waters (D) California, 35th - GOA F- (sponsored McCarthy ban in 2005)
Meehan (D) Massachusetts, 5th - GOA F- (sponsored McCarthy ban in 2005)
Delahunt (D) Massachusetts, 10th - GOA F- (sponsored McCarthy ban in 2005)
Wexler (D) Florida, 19th - GOA F- (sponsored McCarthy ban in 2005)
Weiner (D) New York, 9th - GOA F- (sponsored McCarthy ban in 2005)
Schiff (D) California, 29th - GOA F- (sponsored McCarthy ban in 2005)
Sánchez (D) California, 39th - GOA F- (sponsored McCarthy ban in 2005)
Van Hollen (D) Maryland, 8th - GOA F (sponsored McCarthy ban in 2005)
Wasserman Schultz (D) Florida, 20th - GOA F

Hmmmm, I think I see a trend here! If you really think the Democrats have learned their lesson from 1994, then why would they stack both committees with the biggest anti-gun people they can find? I don't have to comment on the Democrats future goals, their actions speak loudly to all who are aware of them.

How about you do me a favor now and show me all these staunch pro-2A Dems out there and the actions they have taken to stop this?

 

[RealGun]

Let's start with Reid. Justify the F rating for him via his record.

Only voting records at face value would be less sophisticated. For example, most of the pro-gunners voted against the first iteration of Gun Manufacturer's Protection, because it was laden with anti-gun amendments. Waiting for a better day was fulfilled a year later. They might have also voted for "poison pills", while getting pro-gun credit for doing so.

Harry Reid is a slippery guy. You have to acknowledge when he might vote for a deal he negotiated as minority leader.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Hmmmm, I think I see a trend here!

I think you are missing a trend, though, Bartholomew...

Most of the Democrats on your list are from California, New York, and Massachusetts. These Democrats are always the most rabid supports of anti-gun laws. Their re-elections were also unavoidable in those states.

However, most of the new Democrats are coming from much more conservative states.

I think it remains to be seen how closely they will tow the party line. Don't be surprised if the Democratic party leadership finds themselves unable to enforce discipline.

 

[RealGun]

*every single Democratic member of the committee that oversees all gun legislation also voted to ban all centerfire rifle ammunition as recently as 2004*. Looks like a bunch of staunch pro-gun Dems to me...

Maybe that is just an anomaly? - Bartholomew Roberts

There may be a better example. I think this may qualify as an "anomaly". Poison pill amendments get votes from those who would have preferred to vote for a clean, pro-gun bill.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Most of the Democrats on your list are from California, New York, and Massachusetts. These Democrats are always the most rabid supports of anti-gun laws. Their re-elections were also unavoidable in those states.

However, most of the new Democrats are coming from much more conservative states.

They are also freshman who have no power. Even assuming the Dems had a terrific change of heart and placed every one of these "staunch pro-2A Dems" on the respective Judiciary committees, they will still be junior to all the people I listed above and lacking numbers to make a difference. John Conyers is simply not going to let anybody who would stand up for the 2A join in large enough numbers that it threatens his control of that committee.

So what does that mean for RKBA? Well first it means you can kiss goodbye any chances of rolling back legislation. There will not be any ATF reform or even the mild changes the Republicans enacted. All of that legislation will die in committee.

Second, it means that gun control legislation will sail through committee quite easily. It won't be marked up with poison pills and it won't be round-filed indefinitely. Effectively we are down to a three line defense now - we get a chance to defeat it in a straight up floor vote in the House, a chance in the Senate, and then we hope like hell it gets vetoed if we lose in those two places. This is a much weaker positon than we enjoyed previously and gun owners need to understand that because they are going to have to be a LOT more active and organized than they have been in the last two years if they do not want to see more gun control.

Everybody likes to point out how Clinton blamed the NRA for costing them the House in 1994 and say that Dems have learned their lesson. I don't know how many people actually read the full text of what Clinton had to say though since he makes it very clear that he thinks that banning guns is the popular, majority view and that people just weren't motivated enough to counteract the NRA. This is why Dems keep sticking their hand into the fire and getting burnt come election time. They truly believe that there is a majority who will support them if they just phrase the message right - and Pelosi, Conyers, Leahy etc. are prominent supporters of that belief. Finally, if you ARE inclined to believe that anyway despite the evidence, then this election is a great balm for your soul because no matter how sunny you paint the picture, pro-RKBA candidates suffered a net loss in both the House and Senate.

Poison pill amendments get votes from those who would have preferred to vote for a clean, pro-gun bill.

You should click on that vote then and tell me which of those Senators you think would have preferred a clean, pro-gun bill. I don't think you'll find many candidates.

 

[RealGun]

As I posted on my own thread, analysis of the election results reveals nothing significant in regard to Democrat challengers with favorable ratings defeating Republican incumbents. That would indicate that this notion of the House having a new wave of pro-gun Democrats is a complete fantasy.

 

[Helmetcase]

First, why are we assuming that Webb (no record), Reid and Nelson are "staunch pro-2A Dems?" Both Nelsons are rated F by GOA, as is Reid. Is that your idea of a "staunch pro-2A Dem?"

Why is it when making this argument you ignore the NRA's ratings of the same folks? Cause it's inconvenient to your black and white world type argument, that's why.

I'm questioning the GOA's ratings; citing the GOA's ratings to defend the GOA's ratings is weak, dude. Circular arguments-R-Us.

Among the Democrats voting "Yes", you'll see Dick Gephardt's name. In Clinton's "My Life" book, Clinton talks about how Gephardt and then Speaker Tom Foley begged him not to make this an issue. But when Clinton pressed hard, Gephardt voted as he was told.

So your answer to my question is "one". And you don't address the rest of my questions because you can't. Was Gephardt considered a progunner before the vote, or just a pragmatist who didn't want it to be an issue in the first place cause he knew gun grabbing would cost the Dems votes?

So far you're not fooling anyone. Show me a formerly staunch pro gunner Dem who had a solid pro-2A record (or had no record and had simply stated that he was pro-2A) who flipped because of pressure. Explain their prior votes (or in the case of someone without a record like Webb, their statements on the 2A), and who pressured them. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

Among the Nays was John Murtha. Heh. Where was the party discipline, eh? If they couldn't get it then, what makes you think they'll get it today? When they've had the recent lesson about what it'll cost them?

As I said elsewhere, they can't get party unity on terrorism, Iraq, abortion, global warming, taxes, etc...the real front burner issues of the day. Why would they waste their political capital on trying to get it for a back burner issue they know will hurt them?

You're not thinking logically, you're reacting to Tuesday emotionally.

But you seem to think this is a "different era" and it "isn't 1994" anymore, so instead of looking to the far past, let's look at the votes in 2004 for the AWB renewal.

What's difficult to understand about that? They'd never been burned on gun control for the most part, and they were burned BIGTIME in 1994. The leader of the party, the soul of the party, the former president has admitted as much.

2006 is not 1994. If you don't think they've learned anything, why did so many of the Dems you're berating about stupid trigger lock laws and background checks not vote to extend the AWB? Hmmmmmm?

Here is the Boxer Amendment vote requiring all guns to be sold with locking devices whether you need them or not. Only two Dems vote "No." Kerry and Edwards miss the vote because they are campaigning. "Staunch pro-2A Dems" like Reid and either Nelson vote YES.

It's a stupid law, I don't support it, but far less important to me than an AWB or other gun-grabbing measure. Hardly indicative of a "true philosophical anti-gunner". It's just a politically expedient vote for a device you can toss in the trash can or secure your gym locker with. Lot of R yeas you ignore (it got 70 damn votes) that I'll bet the GOA ignores as well. Hutchison, for example. She votes for it, gets a B from the GOA. If voting for this bill is indicative of a "true philosophical anti-gunner", something else must be at play here. And it has to be, I'm sure even the GOA would say they give her credit because she's voted against things like extending the AWB. But so has Reid, Feingold, etc.

I'd argue we should concentrate on the votes where the rubber meets the road--do you or do you not agree that we little people should actually get to own the guns or not? Ya know, things like...assault weapons bans? It's not that trigger locks and background checks aren't important issues to consider, but the real issue is whether we actually get to buy and keep the guns we want. The issues you're discussing are tangential efforts to chip away at our agenda, the AWB is an outright confrontation of us and an attempt to deny us our civil rights. The idea that you can weigh a candidate's stances on those issues equally is ridiculous.

In any event...this suggests that party discipline will be enforced exactly how? Did you think you were addressing the relevant question at all?

Next.

Here is the McCain Amendment for background checks on private sales. Only 3 Dems vote NO (Zell Miller, Nelson - NE, Max Baucus). One Dem abstains (campaign) and the remainder vote YES, including Nelson - FL and Reid.

Point taken re: Reid. So give him a C. Fine in my book. Lot of R yeas on that that you ignore (again, ignoring info that doesn't suit your case). Still not a gun grabbing bill; it's not something I'd support, but less important to me than AWBs other confiscatory measures.

Here is the infamous Teddy Kennedy's "Let's Ban ALL Centerfire Rifle Ammo" Amendment. 33 Democrats and 1 Republican (the now fired Lincoln Chaffee) vote YES. Of the Democrats who vote YES, you find the following names: Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer and Durbin - remember those names because it will be important later.

And a bunch of Dems voted no. Which you ignore.

You're still not answering the question. If someone is a true philosophically committed anti-gunner, why vote against the AWB extension?

It doesn't make sense.

You seem to be concentrating exclusively on the Senate and I don't blame you. If I was trying to make the ridiculous argument that Dems were pro-gun,

Ad hominem attack. I'm not making any such argument. I'm simply arguing that I find the GOA's ratings suspect and arbitrary, just like the NRA's. The GOA and NRA often don't see eye to eye on this, so necessarily there must be something arbitrary about ratings.

Nice try at a strawman, though. But easily spotted.

Leahy - Chairman (GOA F), Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer and Durbin (GOA F-). Hey! What do you know, with the exception of Leahy, every single Democratic member of the committee that oversees all gun legislation also voted to ban all centerfire rifle ammunition as recently as 2004. Looks like a bunch of staunch pro-gun Dems to me...

Look, I'm on record as saying things are certainly not great; I'm just saying the GOA's ratings are suspect and give off a hint of partisanship rather than gun issue focus.

But you're conflating issues here--yeah, those committee guys are bad, but it's not an indication that they'll have the votes to get anything through or the desire to burn political capital for enforcing discipline on an issue that isn't frankly very popular. You're rattling off a list of anti gunner Dems sitting on committees. Yeah, that's bad. I'm sorry about it. I'm working to change it. But that lends no credibility to the fallacious argument that party discipline will be enforced on gun issues.

The points I'm making (GOA ratings as suspect, and your continued inability to find examples of progunners who flipped because leadership asked them to) aren't contradicted by you pointing out how anti gun the committee leaders are.

I'm talking about apples, you're talking about watermelons.

Hmmmm, I think I see a trend here! If you really think the Democrats have learned their lesson from 1994, then why would they stack both committees with the biggest anti-gun people they can find?

Because those people have seniority and the committees in question do more than just deal with gun bills. Spare me the conspiracy nonsense. How does that help your argument that leadership will flip Casey, Webb, etc? It doesn't even address it, let alone help it.

How about you do me a favor now and show me all these staunch pro-2A Dems out there and the actions they have taken to stop this?

How about you work on your reading comprehension. That's not what I've been trying to do.

I'm simply pointing out that you're engaging in hysteria and rhetoric that's not substantiated by the facts. The argument going in about twenty threads is that we're screwed because the ostensibly pro gun Dems will be flipped by leadership. I don't see any substantiation from you for that argument.

Show me the pro-gunner that flipped, and we can talk. But belaboring points we already know that aren't related to that isn't a strong argument. There are too many anti gun Dems. I know it, you know it, we all know it.

 

[American By Blood]

Joe Lieberman is the most recent example of this. I'm glad the voters of Connecticut re-elected him as an independent. He is one the few Democrats I respect.

Acording to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, Lieberman vowed to vote with his former party-mates in the Senate. Lieberman likes taxation, spending, gun control, etc. The only thing that makes him different from the moonbats who ousted him in the primary is a very personal interest in a hawkish Middle East policy.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

This has been one of the better discussions I've seen. Congrats all.

I sure hope the Dem's feet are held to the fire on this issue. I don't see how anyone could try to argue that some of the new Dems are not a pretty positive addition to the herd. Let's give them a chance, but let them know what we want out of them.

That all being said, I think there is at least an even chance that the Congressional leadership will try to put an AWB on Bush's desk before the end of his term, just to force him into the position of having to either sign it or go back on his campaign promise. I hope the RAF Dems can derail the effort, but have to admit it would be interesting watching The Pipsqueak squirm.

 

[JohnBT]

Word on the street here in the City of the Monuments is that Allen will not ask for a recount.

How will Webb vote down the road? Who knows, he's a politician now.

John

 

[Helmetcase]

The guy has a concealed carry permit. He's A rated by the NRA. He's a former Republican. He's a military man. I'd say that if the Brady Bunch were hanging their hopes on his vote, we should be safe from an AWB most likely.

Even if all the stuff Bart posted were relevant (it's not--the fact that the leadership is still largely anti gun isn't in dispute, no one's saying it's not), the reality is the pro gun forces *should* have the votes to sustain a filibuster. The Dems won the Senate by ONE measley vote, guys. If the GOP are such friends of the 2A, we should be safe, even if Casey or Webb did falter. I certainly can't imagine Tester flipping, unless he really only wants to serve six years and be bounced.

Frankly Webb doesn't seem like the kind of guy who could be flipped--it would be a huge cost to the leadership in political capital to get that done, if it even could be done. I still haven't seen a coherent argument about why the leadership--the same leadership that can't get unity on terror, Iraq, abortion, global warming, taxes, etc--would want to piddle around trying to enforce discipline on a back burner issue like gun control.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

The new congresslady from Kansas,Boyda,put out an info sheet saying she is pro 2nd amendment and concealed carry...right
She's a suburb mom from Topeka so she will toe the party line no matter what.Maybe Uncle Ted will offer her a ride home some night...