Update: Please read comments below for more about Daniel Merritt’s(?) bizarre Twitter responses.
COVID-19. There; I said it. The obligatory mention is out of the way. Now on to reality.
For once, I decided to look at issues closer to home. Specifically, the Second Amendment positions of all the candidates for my Congressional district, Georgia-01. Three Democrats and three Republicans, including the incumbent, have filed to run. I reached out to all via email.
All were asked a basic set of generalized questions, and some were also given individualized questions based on statements they have made.
What “gun control” laws would you support?
What “gun control” laws would you repeal?
Do you have a position on:
a. “Red flag” laws.
b. Universal background checks.
c. Age limits for firearm possession.
d. So-called “assault weapons.”
e. National Firearms Act of 1934.
f. New machine gun ban provision of Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.
Democrats
No response.
Lisa Ring
Also asked:
I also note that you wish to separately require “universal background checks,” and “end the gun show loophole. What do you believe to be the “gun show loophole”?
How will you make criminals conduct “universal background checks” on the unlawful transactions that are how 96% (theft, black market, friends and family) of guns used in crimes are obtained?
No response.
No response.
Republicans
Earl “Buddy” Carter (Incumbent)
No response.
Danny Merritt
Also asked:
“We must do a better job of enforcing current laws, especially background checks, so that guns stay out of the wrong hands.”
What specifically would you do to “do a better job” of enforcing background checks?
Merritt’s campaign manager, Jeanne Seaver, replied.
We would like to request a meeting to address your questions face to face.
I took that as an attempt to avoid answering until he could “feel me out” in person to decide what answers I wanted, rather than to go out on a limb by stating a real position. I pointed out that COVID-19 was already in the wild in Georgia and I preferred to limit in-person contacts. I also noted that emailed answers would avoid potential transcription errors, if I had to work from written notes and a recording. Seaver responded to that.
Understood. If you would like to Danny directly via telephone, let us know and we can set it up.
They still didn’t want to get pinned down in writing. At last, I received an email with the subject “Behind the 2nd Amendment 100%.” The entirety of the message was this.
Believe there are ample laws on the books and we should focus on enforcing them.
No specific question was addressed. I don’t even know if that statement is from the candidate, or is the manager’s summary of his “position.”
Ken Yasger
Also asked:
“Why does someone need an assault rifle? […] The answer is simple, they abide by the laws and the Second Amendment gives them the right.”
Based on that statement, will you support repealing the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the new machine gun ban provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986?
The question was intended to highlight his use of the term “assault rifle” and to discover if he was misusing it, as I suspect.
No response.
The candidates were asked these questions weeks before our region began locking down, closing offices. There is no reason for their lack of response.
It is inexcusable. At a time when the Democrats are pushing victim disarmament monstrosities like HR 5717, it is imperative that Americans know exactly where their would-be representatives stand on the Second Amendment. For those short-sighted enough to not particularly care about that, a stated position on the 2A is still a good litmus test for the candidates’ respect — or lack of — for rights generally.
But maybe it doesn’t really matter. Georgia’s governor has already “postponed” elections… again.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
(More Tip Jar Options) |
I tweeted a link to this column yesterday. Republican Danny Merritt — the one whose campaign manager was so evasive — actually retweeted it. He upped his 2A support to a whole 150%.
https://twitter.com/MerrittForGA/status/1249442650505306113
But still no answers. Makes me wonder if that Twitter account is a bot that automatically retweets any mention of him, on the theory that “any publicity is good publicity.”
Not if he’s smart when the column talks about him not replying until they can figure out where YOU stand on the issues. He should probably have read it……
Marketing-driven types aren’t always smart. A sales manager at a company where I worked came strutting into my office one day, waving a newspaper. He gleefully bragged on how the company made the business section front page, above the fold. It was publicity.
I pointed out that headline and article were all about how terrible the company was, and no one should risk doing business with us (and for good reason*).
“But they’ll know our name!”
—
* He threw a pep rally party for his salesmen one day to kick off a new product line. I noted that they’d be selling a product we could NOT support in that city. He warned me not to mention that to his crew because that might discourage them from selling it. Sell it they did. Company went bankrupt not long after.
Good gracious. Merritt retweeted it again. I think it is a bot.
https://twitter.com/MerrittForGA/status/1251866355663605760
And he’s down to 100% from 150%.
(And I checked my mail; he still hasn’t answered the questions.)
OK, this whole Daniel Merritt thing is getting strange. I replied to today’s retweet. The account “replied” to that by retweeting my mention that he still hasn’t answered the questions (making it visible on his main twitter feed) with the response:
“Lol! The same stance silly!”
https://twitter.com/MerrittForGA/status/1251870732469993474
“Lol”? “silly”? I thought the account might be a bot. Now I’m thinking 13yo girl.
Regardless of whatever position he may really have on 2A issues, I would not vote for this guy based on the poor judgement he or his representative(s) are displaying.