Guns as a litmus test


PDA






beerslurpy
July 26, 2006, 12:48 AM
I wrote this on another board and I decided to repost it. It basically justifies my stance as a single issue voter on the gun issue for now. Thoughts?

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the gun issue is an awesome litmus test for someone's viewpoints on the proper relationship between the citizenry and the government.

Someone who is OK with gun ownership and self defense trusts the citizenry to behave responsibly when trusted with a little freedom and some dangerous equipment. They also recognize that there are limits to what even a well intentioned government can provide without becoming a bloated and potentially tyrannical behemoth. If a government is willing to trust you with weapons, what does that say about their intended mode of governance? At the very least, you know they arent going to try to strongarm you.

The people who favor gun control tend to believe that individuals have no ability to act responsibility or take care of themselves without supervision and help. They also seem averse to such independence because of the worldview it would imply. They also seem unaware that a government capable of taking care of our every need is more likely to abuse its power in ways far more harmful than a few criminals or careless gun owners. If a government doesnt trust ordinary people with guns, what does that imply they think about the average person? What does it imply about their intended mode of governance? The range seems to fall somewhere between "overreaching, expensive nanny-state" and "genocidal totalitarianism" - basically a choice between eating **** and burning coals.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns as a litmus test" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Creeping Incrementalism
July 26, 2006, 01:26 AM
Yes, I think it is hard to go wrong with voting strictly pro-gun.

No_Brakes23
July 26, 2006, 02:21 AM
Yes, I think it is hard to go wrong with voting strictly pro-gun.

That is very close to saying that any pro-2a candidate is gonna be a stand-up guy. I simply cannot agree with that. Plenty of rotten folks support the 2nd, and plenty of supporters of the 2nd are all to happy to rob us of other liberties.

I would, however, absolutely agree with the inverse of your statement, which is to say that it is hard to go right with an anti-gun vote. While a 2a supporter isn't guaranteed to be good, an anti is no friend of freedom or the Constitution.

I don't consider myself a single issue voter when filtering out antis from prospective candidates, it just makes for a good litmus. A pro-gun position is not enough to get my vote, but an anti-gun position is enough to ensure you won't get my vote.

Husker1911
July 26, 2006, 02:23 AM
Perhaps you mean gun rights in the title of this thread, moreso than guns. If a representative doesn't respect my gun and Second Amendment rights, I can be sure he cares little for the rest of the Bill of Rights. If that's the case, he (or she) is worse than useless to me.

Take the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" bill. A blatant violation of the First Amendment endorsed by the courts. Ugh! Democratic friends of mine keep suggesting McCain as a viable presidential candidate. I suggest to them Joe Lieberman. We can't seem to get together! For another example of the point this second paragraph of my post is making, examine my signature, please.

Harve Curry
July 26, 2006, 05:36 AM
quote Beerslurpy:
........"but the gun issue is an awesome litmus test for someone's viewpoints on the proper relationship between the citizenry and the government"..........

I agree with you and I have used the same line of thinking for about the last 10 years.
If a politician trust you with firearms you can probably work with him/her on any other issue.
Once as a delegate to the Republican convention I found out real quick that you couldn't just ask a candidate if they supported the 2nd Amendment, they all say yes. You need to be specific and ask them if they support the '93 Crime Bill, or high capacity magazine ban, or ban on semi auto rifles, or a question on what ever the current issue is.
You'll only get 2 or 3 questions in.
Ask first about health care, enviroment or some other topic. I would save the firearms rights question for number 2. It throws them off guard and you may get a more honest answer that way.

Norton
July 26, 2006, 06:07 AM
I think No_Brakes summed it up pretty well. A pro-2nd stance is no guarantee that you will get my vote but an anti-gun stance will surely lose my vote.

Perhaps beerslurpy has it right, that it is a litmus test....but only to the extent that if you have a pro-2nd record I will consider looking at you further on other issues to see if you can earn my vote. Have an anti-2nd view?....conversation over..

jeepmor
July 26, 2006, 06:21 AM
Aren't they? It's why we don't get invaded except by suicidal zealots.

...We can't invade America, because behind every blade of grass would be a gun..

Some Japanese General in WWII, paraphrased (poorly)

Litmus, sure, but no candidate is ever going to be dumb enough to openly admit in a debate that he's for snatching guns, that's 80M of 300M voters that he cannot afford to alienate.

I turned a corner recently with the current administration grabbing so many rights and thought. I need a gun. They're coming, some day, and guns are the only thing that will keep them in check. I'm no cowboy, but I do understand why our revolution for freedom began in the first place and I have a duty to protect my family. I see another turn against that direction from our own government coming within my lifetime. It bothers me, so I'm trying to do something about it before I can't. Like in so many regions across the globe under UN control. It is probably the biggest reason America does not get invaded in my opinion, which is worth nothing, by the way.


jeepmor

Delmar
July 26, 2006, 07:46 AM
Firearms ownership seems to be quite the cunundrum for these lying jackels we send to DC every year. (Hey-why don't we get the bad guys in Gitmo to trade places with our congressmen??) They want to paint themselves as "neo-cons" (does that sound like an ice cream flavor??) but there seems to be more "con" than "neo".

Pretty much nothing more than a John Kennedy democrat, with the important exception that he was an NRA member.

So, firearms ownership has become quite important to me. It generally seems to speak to their sensibilities on both 2A as well as other important issues. I'm sure they are out there, but I have yet to run into anyone who promoted gun rights who wanted to take away habeas corpus and the right to free speech.

We haven't had a real conservative since Barry Goldwater, and these pretenders give me gas.

vito
July 26, 2006, 08:45 AM
Right on! I have used this as a litmus test for many years, and I have very rarely been fooled. While I believe that a responsible voter should try to determine candidates' positions on all key issues, sometimes this information is hard to find. I have written to candidates to ask their position on the 2nd Amendment and have found that pro-2A always write back, but anti 2A folks just ignore the letter. What is really important is determining the candidates true positions, not their vague voiced support of the 2A or all of the rights in the BIll of Rights. Just remember John Kerry trying to appear as a hunter and supporter of our gun rights.

No_Brakes23
July 26, 2006, 10:26 AM
no candidate is ever going to be dumb enough to openly admit in a debate that he's for snatching guns Perhaps not during a debate, true. But more than one candidate has been quoted as supporting gun-grabbing. The first on that comes to mind is Dianne Feistein's comment to the effect that if she could take all of the guns, she would.

orangelo
July 26, 2006, 10:32 AM
Yup. Pro-2A is definitely a plus in my book. Any candidate will get extra points for it. If two competitors are both pro 2A then it's time to look at the strength of their other arguments.

No gungrabber will ever get my vote. Are you listening McInsane and Guiliani?

My favorable-least favorable scale goes like this:

-Pro-2A (zell miller, larry craig, ron paul): I'm willing to compromise on some other things and still toss them the vote.

-Neutral(howard dean): Still has a chance of getting marked on my ballot if the other planks of his platform make sense, unfortunately mad howie hasn't made much sense lately.

-No way in hell will you or anyone remotely related to you ever get my vote (hitlery, ANY living kennedy or kin [including schwarzneggar], kerry, feinstein, guliani, bloomberg, mccain, boxer, jackson, sharpton, etc...)

Justin
July 26, 2006, 11:29 AM
Why did it have to be guns? (http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html)

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith


Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

Norton
July 26, 2006, 11:38 AM
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

Ooh.....I like that statement. I'll have to remember that one.

HankB
July 26, 2006, 11:55 AM
I've found that a "pro-gun" position is going to guide me to a candidate that's right on other issues probably 80%-90% of the time.

The one glaring exception is today's Libertarian party, which has of late embraced what amounts to an "open borders" policy in their platform, which is enough to lose my vote. (Yeah, they're also against government handouts, but if they get in and push for ending those and opening the border, guess which we'll get?)

So, repeating what others have said, a pro-2nd record may get my vote, but an anti-2nd will - most assuredly! - lose it.

BrennanKG
July 26, 2006, 12:01 PM
Justin,


Thanks for posting that article.
I've read it before but I'm happy to reread it.



B.

AJ Dual
July 26, 2006, 12:41 PM
Worst case scenario, if the most devious lying, statist, fascio-communist, theocratic kleptocratic republicrat of a tyrant dosen't interfere with your right to be armed...

You've still got the ability to, er, ah... "remove him from office".

Yeah, that's it. :D

When the politican who's "honest" but has you disarmed turns bad, you're screwed.

The notion that we can be deprived of our KRBA untill we "need it" is like saying you can put on your seatbelt just before a car crash.

p.s. I too was once extremely P.O.'ed at the LP's "open border" plank in thier platform. However you've got to look at it in context. That's open borders in a "Libertarian America" with absolutely no "free lunch". No free schooling, no free medical care, no free anything. (we're talking even the roads, which would be privatized toll-ways.) And extremely strong property rights where treaspassers/burglars/robbers can be shot on sight with little repercussion.

So on one hand, non-US nationals would still flood here for the work "others won't do", but on the other, they'd have virtualy no ability to act as squatters, or as a drain on society. Assuming citizenship was required to vote, (and we had strong proof required for voting elegibility) the illegals wouldn't be able to "vote" the LP out of office either.

So assuming there was a "Libertarian Revolution" of some sort, as long as "open borders" was just about the last "reform" the LP implemented, I'd be okay with it. It would be better than what we have now.

It's also possible that a Libertarian America would be such an economic force to be reckoned with, that Mexico could be forced to change so radically to compete, that people might stop leaving it.

Hypnogator
July 26, 2006, 09:07 PM
Beerslurpy, we are totally in accord on this issue. :D

xd9fan
July 27, 2006, 11:39 AM
+1000 see sig below

progunner1957
July 27, 2006, 12:15 PM
+1000, Beerslurpy!!

There is one statement that some gun owners make, one outlook that some gunowners embrace, that is the most pathetic, weak-kneed and cowardly philosophy that a so-called gun owner can espouse. That philosophy is summed up in these words:

"But there are other issues to consider than just guns."

What they are really saying is "There are more important issues to consider than gun rights." This kind of thinking is why, in spite of the victories we gun owners have scored in recent years, our right to arms is still under attack and still in peril.

There are 80 million plus gun owners in America. If all of them voted for only candidates who are solid defenders of the Second Amendment, "gun control" would be a non-issue.

Think about the message the 2004 Presidential election would have sent if Bush had gotten 80 to 100 million votes and Kerry would have gotten 20 to 30 million votes. But that didn't happen, because there were tens of millions of gun owners who voted for Kerry, the most antigun Presidential candidate in history.

As long as so-called gun owners insist on being "enlightened" and "trendy" and voting for antigun candidates - regardless of political party - our right to arms will always be under attack, two steps ahead of the wolves that would devour it - and our birthright as American citizens.

A person has got to have a bottom line. Mine is the Second Amendment. When preparing to vote, I look at all the issues and all the candidates. I look at their past voting records. I make the best choice I can, based on the candidates we are offered.

My bottom line is this: It will be one cold day in Hell before I ever cast a vote for an antigun bigot of a politician.

Wake up, gun owners! Stop voting for the enemy! :fire:

xd9fan
July 27, 2006, 12:25 PM
IMHO any "common sense" compromise means a Compromised Bill of Right.
another good acticle from Smith:

On Concealed Carry and the NRA

by L. Neil Smith

Many individuals have asked me where I stand on the issue of concealed carry permits -- and whether the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus which I founded several years ago is likely to join in political coalitions with other organizations that concern themselves with Second Amendment issues.
I've put off writing about these matters before now, because it isn't easy, knowing that you're likely to alienate good friends and allies by insisting that they face hard truths. But the press of current events -- the increasingly obvious reluctance of the new Republican majority in Congress to make good on their promises to the gun owners who elected them, along with an insane eagerness on the part of nominally pro-gun organizations like the National Rifle Association to accept utter defeat on the eve of total victory -- make it impossible to put it off any longer.
As Robert A. Heinlein once observed, "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." To take it a step further, there are natural-born Tories in life, who only feel comfortable when they're groveling to some kind of authority, and there are individuals who won't grovel, no matter what it costs them.
This nation, America, was created by the latter sort, while the former ran away to Canada where, for the next eleven generations or so, they could comfortably grovel to kings, queens, and socialist bureaucrats. And just as some Canadians have since learned better than their Tory predecessors -- we'll be hearing more and more from them in the near future -- many descendants of those first Americans have become the very thing their ancestors fought so hard against.
Those who beg permission from the government to exercise a right they already possess are not free men and women. They're Tories; they're grovelers. They'd beg permission from the government to breathe, if they were told it was required of them. If they were told it was required of them, they'd beg permission from the government, even to grovel.
A license -- government permission -- to carry a concealed weapon is nothing but the latest kind of gun control, the latest kind of groveling. There's no way to euphemize it; there's no way to excuse it. It isn't necessary: nobody needs the government's permission to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise. And it's illegal under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution for government, at any level, to require it. That's right, it's illegal; and it's a primary goal of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus to jail those in government, elected or otherwise, who obstruct the Bill of Rights in any way.
It's also dangerous: it converts a fundamental human right into a privilege which the government may see fit to deny to anyone, for any reason, at any time is wishes. How anyone could be aware of history for the last hundred years -- especially the last fifty -- and not acknowledge this basic truth is beyond understanding.
From their public words and actions, it's clear that those who presently control the National Rifle Association -- I don't mean the duly-elected Board of Directors -- are Tories and grovelers, no matter what they claim to the contrary. Just listen to what they say if you doubt it, or read their literature. Half of it is devoted to demonstrating to their masters in the government just what excellent Tories and grovelers they are. Notice, too, the way that some of them claim lately to be "tough" -- but how they invariably reserve their toughness for individuals ostensibly on their own side who happen to disagree with them, rather than for real enemies of individual liberty and the Second Amendment.
Now those who presently control the National Rifle Association want uniform laws from state to state regulating the way Americans will be allowed to carry weapons. To get them, once again they're "wheeling and dealing" in Congress -- with my rights as the stake -- a fool's game they always lose because they're such embarrassingly clumsy amateurs, playing against the pros. Instead, they should simply demand the immediate fulfillment of Republican promises to repeal unconstitutional gun laws which could never have been passed without the cheerful assistance of the likes of "Brady Bill-Bob" Dole and Newt "Suspend the Bill of Rights" Gingrich.
As one who's fought the battle of the Second Amendment for more than 30 years -- all the while watching in unbelieving disgust as the National Rifle Association bargained away my rights through bad tactics, worse strategy, an utter lack of moral principle, and an overpowering urge to grovel to authority -- I challenge those who presently control the National Rifle Association to deny or affirm a principle put forward by the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus as the Atlanta Declaration:

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

If those who presently control the National Rifle Association cannot affirm this principle, then they are enemies of individual liberty who should resign immediately and leave the field forever to those Americans who can manage to remember what their country and its Constitution are all about.
If, on the other hand, they affirm it -- and publicly abandon their advocacy of anything less than stringent and uncompromising enforcement of the Bill of Rights (along with their disgraceful eagerness to accept excuses and "clever" strategies from Republicans instead of decisive and effective action) -- I'll be happy to advise the many friends of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus to join with the National Rifle Association in a coalition to advance the cause of individual liberty.

L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of 19 books including The Probability Broach, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, The Lando Calrissian Adventures, Pallas, and (forthcoming) Bretta Martyn and Lever Action. An NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus, he has been active in the Libertarian movement for 34 years and is its most prolific and widely-published living novelist.

xd9fan
July 27, 2006, 12:40 PM
This is why Indiana's "Lifetime Permits" make NO sense to me. I thought my 2A was my "lifetime Permit"

Ezekiel
July 27, 2006, 02:03 PM
It basically justifies my stance as a single issue voter on the gun issue for now. Thoughts?

Knee-jerk response? There is no justification -- EVER -- for being a "single issue" voter.

The responsibility is too great and the stakes too high. If you cannot see the big picture, you have no picture.

"That's just me." :)

progunner1957
July 27, 2006, 06:22 PM
There is no justification -- EVER -- for being a "single issue" voter.
So, Ezekiel - are you saying that it is better to compromise away our right to arms than to refuse to vote for antigun bigot politicians? It sure sounds like that's what you are saying!

Pardon me, but I don't think so. The road to gun confiscation is paved with compromise - look at England and Australia to confirm this.

As I said above:
There is one statement that some gun owners make, one outlook that some gunowners embrace, that is the most pathetic, weak-kneed and cowardly philosophy that a so-called gun owner can espouse. That philosophy is summed up in these words:

"But there are other issues to consider than just guns."

What they are really saying is "There are more important issues to consider other than gun rights." This kind of thinking is why, in spite of the victories we gun owners have scored in recent years, our right to arms is still under attack and still in peril.
The Founders didn't compromise on their right to arms. If we are to keep our right to arms, neither should we.
And, as I said above -My bottom line is this: It will be one cold day in Hell before I ever cast a vote for an antigun bigot of a politician.

fallingblock
July 27, 2006, 10:15 PM
Any varmint politician who doesn't trust the people with arms
isn't fit to occupy a position of authority.;)

progunner1957 posts with clarity and veracity:

The road to gun confiscation is paved with compromise - look at England and Australia to confirm this.

As one who presently resides in one of these jurisdictions,
I wholeheartedly concur.

Any proposal of "Commonsense" gun laws from authoritarians translates to:

No guns for anybody but the government.:eek:

American By Blood
July 27, 2006, 10:19 PM
The point of the original post appeals to common sense, but it doesn't stand up to political reality.

Remember, it was Ashcroft's office that gave us both the "2A as individual right" brief and the text of USA PATRIOT.

beerslurpy
July 27, 2006, 10:34 PM
It stands up to political reality if people beleive it and vote it. And I think increasingly large numbers are doing just that.

ksnecktieman
July 27, 2006, 11:01 PM
It is a terrible thing that we have to worry about rights guaranteed to us by the constitution.
Permit to carry, firearm owners permit, nics check, all are "reasonable restrictions" by them selves, but any compromise just leads us to more "reasonable compromise".
I am not a single issue voter,,, but if he does not back the second amendment (by his record, and his deeds, not his campaign promises) I will vote against him,,, other issues are secondary to it.

beerslurpy
July 27, 2006, 11:08 PM
I honestly dont think that any harm will result from entirely rolling back gun control to 1790s levels. Even military hardware isnt the source of the problem, despite the NFA era rhetoric.

Even back in the 20s, 99 percent of the "gun problems" were really prohibition problems, just like most of the "urban gun violence problems" today are really drug war problems. Taking awaythe guns wont fix them and adding more guns wont make the problem any worse than it already is. I mean, it isnt like the gang bangers are having any trouble finding guns already.

Jim March
July 28, 2006, 02:37 AM
I used to think the RKBA is a perfect litmus test for politicians.

I now think it's a GOOD one but not perfect.

The reason it's not perfect is that there are two "flavors" of the RKBA. There's personal defense against crooks (CCW being the poster child) and then there's defense against an out-of-control government...which was mostly blasted apart by the NFA in 1934 and has never recovered.

(The last vestige is our right to own long-range bolt-action scoped guns...lose THAT and we're toast. They're closing in on that, California took the first step by banning single-shot 50BMGs.)

It's possible for a really ghastly politician to support the right to fight off street thugs but realize that the REAL original 2nd Amendment is dead and be glad of it...and therefore perform outright totalitarian actions on that basis.

The guy doing exactly that right now is named "Blackwell" in Ohio :barf:...a supporter of CCW but a guy eager to rig elections.

Eleven Mike
July 28, 2006, 03:17 AM
They want to paint themselves as "neo-cons" No they don't. "Neo-con" is a pejorative that few, if any, would actually claim. I challenge you to find one politican who would so describe himself.


There is no justification -- EVER -- for being a "single issue" voter.

So, Ezekiel - are you saying that it is better to compromise away our right to arms than to refuse to vote for antigun bigot politicians? It sure sounds like that's what you are saying!
That's an absurd interpretation of Ezekiel's words, sir, and I suggest you learn to read. Guns are not the only measure of freedom. You may think they are the most important item in politics, but that is only your opinion and, may I suggest, an incorrect one.

cracked butt
July 28, 2006, 04:08 AM
You may think they are the most important item in politics, but that is only your opinion and, may I suggest, an incorrect one.

I agree.
I think taxes and government spending is far more important. Currently, a person has to spend more time working for the government in the form of taxes than ever before. Having no gun control at all would do no good if you were taxed at 80% of your income and had to work 80 hrs per week just to take care of your minimum needs.



Guns are a dealbreaker for me. If a candidate cannot trust me with guns, then they cannot be trusted with my vote.

No_Brakes23
July 28, 2006, 04:43 AM
"But there are other issues to consider than just guns."

Maybe, beerslurpy, what they mean, is that people like David Duke won't get their vote, just for paying lip service to RKBA. I won't vote for a candidate who talks a good game about the 2nd, but strips away the 4th or the 1st. Freedom haters are freedom haters, and if they are using one amendment for bird cage liner, I bet it won't be too long before they show their true colors and disregard the 2nd as well.

Or do you really think that people should vote for a someone they honestly believe will ruin the country just because that politician SAYS they are pro-RKBA?

Here in San Diego County we are dealing with a Sheriff who claimed he would be pro-CCW, but in practice, only issues to cronies and the like. (Maybe he just got "forgetful" about his promise.) Anyone who voted for him just on the basis of his apparent RKBA stance got a raw deal.

Perhaps more than a candidate's supposed position on one issue should be taken into account when juding his character.

I still half-agree with you though. Being anti-RKBA should definitely be a deal breaker.

beerslurpy
July 28, 2006, 06:44 AM
Obviously I'm assuming that voters will be smart enough to realize when they have been lied to and stop voting for the same bastards again and again.

As for taxes, a government that beleives it can do everything without limitation is going to have a much stronger inclination to tax the subjects than one that beleives that citizens are fundamentally capable of solving their own problems. Again, guns arent the answer themselves, but the people we want to elect can all be found on one side of the gun issue.

glummer
July 28, 2006, 08:44 AM
Ezekiel,

Knee-jerk response? There is no justification -- EVER -- for being a "single issue" voter.

The responsibility is too great and the stakes too high. If you cannot see the big picture, you have no picture.


That's not as obvious as you suggest; virtually every time you decide how to vote, it will be one "single issue" that tips the balance. If you vote against a 2A candidate because of, say, his position on press censorship, aren't you being a "single issue" voter in that instance?

Unless, maybe, you're into some sort of Constitutional Calculus: one 2A < (1A+4A), but > 5A, unless Budget Deficit > (7%GNP/#Innocence Project released prisoners.) :D

strambo
July 28, 2006, 09:27 AM
You shouldn't vote for any candidate that doesn't support the 2nd Amendment...and you shouldn't vote for just any 'ol candidate because they do.

Vote for the good, (well maybe not "good" in an absolute sense...they are politicians), ones out of the support the 2nd Amendment crop.

Deathrider1579
July 28, 2006, 12:04 PM
AJ-Dual,

The two things that keep me from being a full fledged Libertarian are:

Open borders thing, I think that the government's single responsibility is the defense of the borders of the country (this includes any aggressor anywhere in the world) but to allow open borders increases the chance of an aggressor infiltrating operatives into our country, but it also degrades our society. I guess the later is my biggest problem. I see many of these people who come from where ever not becoming Americans, adopting English as their language and the US as their home. But rather they try to make the US turn into wherever they came from in language, culture and their behavior.


Abortion, I know its "reproductive freedom" and all that I just think they are ignoring the freedoms inherent to the infant citizen.

But considering we have in effect if not law both of these right now I would love to live in a Libertarian America.

I would never vote for an anti-gunner, I would like to see a NFA abolitionist get into some real power.

-DR

xd9fan
July 28, 2006, 12:52 PM
I honestly dont think that any harm will result from entirely rolling back gun control to 1790s levels. Even military hardware isnt the source of the problem, despite the NFA era rhetoric.

Even back in the 20s, 99 percent of the "gun problems" were really prohibition problems, just like most of the "urban gun violence problems" today are really drug war problems. Taking awaythe guns wont fix them and adding more guns wont make the problem any worse than it already is. I mean, it isnt like the gang bangers are having any trouble finding guns already.


+1
But I think they (the Govt) already knows this. The Govt wants control. Guns are a roadblock.

DRZinn
July 28, 2006, 02:10 PM
today's Libertarian party, which has of late embraced what amounts to an "open borders" policy in their platform, which is enough to lose my vote. (Yeah, they're also against government handouts, but if they get in and push for ending those and opening the border, guess which we'll get?)That's my biggest beef with many Libertarians today. They have no sense of priorities. I would agree with open borders, after the welfare state is nothing but a bad memory, and non-interventionism has been policy for at least a decade.

DRZinn
July 28, 2006, 02:20 PM
A perfect analogy for compromise:

Imagine a man arrives at your door, tells you that your landlord (or the mortgage company) sent him, and orders you to give him all your dishes. You, of course, refuse. After much bluster, finally arriving at threats, he says he's willing to compromise. Just give him the plastic dishes, and you can keep the fine china. You comply, just to get him off your back. After all, you'll still have dishes, right?

What will you do the next week when he demands the large serving platters, but lets you keep the dinner plates?

My point is that "compromise," far from being the panacea the left makes it sound like, only works when it is a proposition somewhere between two reasonable positions. When one position is the complete abrogation of your right to self defense, any compromise is a failure. Then, when that becomes normal, you'll have to "compromise" more.

You could also say it's like that old saw about traveling half the distance from you to to another person. No matter how many times you do so, you'll never get all the way there. But how long will it take to be so close they can reach out and strangle you?

pete f
July 28, 2006, 02:42 PM
I have only voted against one strong 2A candidate. I hated to do it, his opposition was not terrible but not great, but he was a complete whack job on almost all other issues. Mr 2A was for 100% percent ban of all abortions, INCLUDING rape victims and incest and abuse victims, as well as seeing that most birth control pills were active at post conception, he wanted them banned too. He was for a complete dismantling of all social welfare programs calling them socialism (including social security and SSSI,) He was for the Isolationalist view that American should divorce it self from all other conctacts with the rest of the world....and more that made it impossible for me to justify voting for him.

progunner1957
July 29, 2006, 10:34 PM
Eleven Mike, I merely asked a question. I asked it of Ezekiel, not of you.

Exactly what do you think justifies you jumping in with your snide commentary when you weren't even the person I directed my question to in the first place?
That's an absurd interpretation of Ezekiel's words, sir, and I suggest you learn to read. Oh, but I can read - I thought that fact would be obvious to even the most casual observer, given the fact that I can also write.
Guns are not the only measure of freedom. You may think they are the most important item in politics, but that is only your opinion and, may I suggest, an incorrect one.And that is your opinion - which has absolutely no more value, relevance, validity or correctness than my opinion or anyone else's here - "sir."

progunner1957
July 29, 2006, 10:48 PM
That's not as obvious as you suggest; virtually every time you decide how to vote, it will be one "single issue" that tips the balance. If you vote against a 2A candidate because of, say, his position on press censorship, aren't you being a "single issue" voter in that instance?
+1, Glummer.

By your logic - which makes sense - we are all single issue voters.

It seems like that's okay though, as long as the single issue is not our right to arms. God forbid we gun owners should take a stand.:fire:

Eleven Mike
July 30, 2006, 01:13 AM
progunner, Ezekiel was responding to beerslurpy, so I guess you'd better justify your own "jumping in." For heaven's sake, this is an internet discussion forum. Anything you say will be picked apart and used against you in a court of dialogue, by people you've never heard of. Deal with it.

If you know how to read, why do Ezekiel's words bear so little relationship to your response? In what way did he propose that we give up any rights or compromise our beliefs? Ezekiel advised that we not let gun issues blind us to the compromises we might unwittingly make in other areas. I.e., Candidate Smith is progun, so I won't even look at his votes on other civil liberties issues. And until you start making more sense, my opinion will have quite a bit more value, relevance, validity and correctness than yours.

Thank you and good night.

Eleven Mike
July 30, 2006, 01:48 AM
I have only voted against one strong 2A candidate. I hated to do it, his opposition was not terrible but not great, but he was a complete whack job on almost all other issues. Mr 2A was for 100% percent ban of all abortions, INCLUDING rape victims and incest and abuse victims, as well as seeing that most birth control pills were active at post conception, he wanted them banned too. He was for a complete dismantling of all social welfare programs calling them socialism (including social security and SSSI,)

Dismantling them at the national level? Why on earth not? Keeping some sort of welfare system at a local or state level? Maybe.

Regarding abortion and birth control, he simply has a consistent position. If one believes that abortion is murder, then the circumstances of the conception do not justify such a murder. If one believes that human beings are deserving of legal protection from the moment of conception, then one must oppose abortifacients, many of which are sold as birth control. Of course, that would still leave room for other methods of contraception. Those ideas are not extremism, just obvious implications of that point of view.

No_Brakes23
July 30, 2006, 03:29 AM
but the people we want to elect can all be found on one side of the gun issue.

Well, beerslurpy, you and I are definitely in agreement on that one.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns as a litmus test" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!