[Lone_Gunman]

Does the Second Amendment matter the most to you, at the possible expense of your other opinions?

As a concrete example, lets say a candidate is very pro gun... He wants to get rid of the AWB, machine gun ban, import bans, change the BATF to just the BAT, get rid of licensing for gun dealers, states the second amendment is an individual right, and get rid of state registration processes...

but he has a very liberal agenda otherwise... would you consider voting for him?

[Leatherneck]

Maybe. The fact is, there are darned few pro-gun liberal (as in socialist ) politicians in this country. So RKBA positions serve as a quick touchstone of political ideology for me. Between gun attitude and taxation attitude, most pols can be accurately categorized. :scrutiny:

TC
TFL Survivor

[geekWithA.45]

Issues Enmeshment....ya gotta love/hate it.

Sadly, too many pro gun candidates come packaged with intolerance and insistence on behavioral conformity on issues that the US Const leaves to the 9th Amendment, so all too often you're trading in the 9th for the 2nd.

At the end of the day though, I'll consider that to be the lesser evil, and vote accordingly.

[stevelyn]

Does the Second Amendment matter most to you, at the expense of your other opinions?

Yes! Absolutely. If a politician is that pro-gun then they are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing and guarding our freedoms and just not 2A. Everything else can be negotiated on. A liberal agenda is not necessarily the socialist garbage constantly trying to be foisted up on us.

[Art Eatman]

I'm in accord with Leatherneck. A publicly pro-gun candidate is most likely more responsive to issues like self-reliance and personal responsibility for the quality of one's life, and is not likely to be a Statist enamored of a Big Nanny government. So, it's what being pro-gun says about a person, more than the issue of guns themselves.

Art

[lee n. field]

Gun control is the killer. I let them know, when they ask, that I will not vote for anyone who favors any restrictions of my 2nd ammendment rights, whatsoever.

See also: http://www.lneilsmith.com/whyguns.html .

[Smoke]

I'm with Leatherneck and Art.

but if one cam packaged as you suggest....No, I don't think I'd vote for him.
Would you vote for Hillary if she was 100% on 2A? I'm not willing to sell out myself and America just to have a perfect 2A.

I'd rather have a conservative that is only half right on firearms.

[RangerHAAF]

The 2nd Amendment is absolute. There should not be any constraints imposed by the Federal Government on the sale of firearms, whatsoever. Before all of the regulations that currently exist came into effect, the people of the various states dealt with criminals as they should have; horse thieves, murderers and traitors were hanged or shot. The criminal element of those times knew there would be serious retribution if and when they were caught.

The situation nowadays is the opposite. When they are caught maybe they will be punished with a long jail sentence, maybe not. During the old days violent criminals at least respected the consequences of what their actions might lead to but today there are so many people going through the revolving criminal justice door, only the most aberrant and outrageous acts get noticed and punished.

So, its up to the citizens who are willing to make a stand to defend whats theirs against criminals and in a larger sense, the government, per se; whereby it's abuses are covered by "sovereign immunity".

[Gary H]

Just look through all the discussions of the recent election in California. Lots of "vote for Arnold." Maybe he is a closet good guy.

Myself, I won't vote for an anti, but I do consider other issues.... ie. pro-2nd alone won't do it for me. Anti will automatically disqualify.

[Kaylee]

two issue. the other is taxes.
and what Art said. :)

-K

[toro]

NO, I would not vote liberal just to get a person in office who SAYS he is pro-gun. I have never heard of a liberal who is pro-gun. For example I voted for a governer who I thought was conservative and he will not sign the CCW bill in Ohio. You can't trust any politician they say one thing and then they do another.

I vote mostly Republican because I like their platform. They are mostly pro-gun. You can't get a third party candidate enough votes and they take votes away from the Republican cadidate. But the Republicans DO disappoint me sometimes. I cannot vote Democrat because I don't agree with any of their views.

Mrs. Toro


____________________________________________
1 Chronicles 14: 16,17
David therefore did as God commanded him: and they smote the host of the Philistine from Gibeon even to Gazer. And the fame of David went out into all lands; and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nations.

[foghornl]

No...2 issues

2A & taxes/spending

[Vic303]

No. I am a two-issue voter!

[rock jock]

Pro-gun
Pro-life

[Skunkabilly]

Pretty much a one-issue voter. Pro-2nd Amendment candidates tend to fall more in line with my way of thinking than those that don't.

Pro-2nd Amendment candidates that want to:
'not create more laws, but enforce the ones we have' and 'defend sportsmen' are usually too capital C conservative for my tastes and tend to be big government Republicans that are paying lip service to the folks who want to keep their woodstock rifles but don't see why honest citizen need liberty rifles.

[10-Ring]

I am a multi-issue voter.

[MicroBalrog]

Pro-gun
Pro-freedom

Microbalrog (D)

[obiwan1]

Actually I've found that those politicians that are strongly pro-gun are also very strong individual rights advocates. If their tendency tward "the SECOND" is wishy-washy, then they tend to negotiate away everything else. Look at Dole and Bush 41. Hell, look at Clinton/Carter/Johnson (Lyndon for all of you youngsters)!

Based on that, I always vote pro gun because everything else seems to fall in line.

I remember when Hubert Humphrey was considered liberal - He championed the GCA '68. Now he'd be considered ultra conservative.:confused:

[Skunkabilly]

Micro, just curious, are you a US citizen stuck in Israel?? :confused:

[MicroBalrog]

Micro, just curious, are you a US citizen stuck in Israel??

Israeli citizen stuck in Israel.

[tcdrennen]

I've been registered either Decline To State or Libertarian since I started voting and have never missed an election, ever.

That said, I will vote for the most pro RKBA or AGAINST the most anti-RKBA candidate every time. Bush got my vote (in CA, where it didn't matter) NOT because he was more pro-RKBA than Harry Browne, but because there was slim chance Bush could beat Gore, the most anti-RKBA with a chance to win.

As others have said, I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist. If the citizenry is armed, all other issues are subject to reasoned debate; if the citizenry is disarmed, all debates are meaningless - the masters may allow them, but they are still the masters.

See sig line for details :cuss: :cool:

[George Hill]

Being Pro-Gun is the qualifier... after a candidate passes that mark (THIS IS A GO/NO GO mark BTW) then I look at the other issues.

[Silver Bullet]

I agree with George, Leatherneck, and Art.

[Hutch]

Has anyone ever SEEN a 2A absolutist who was also a nanny-state liberal? Note the terms: Absolutist, nanny-state liberal. Just wondering, 'cause I don't think that puppy has ever been whelped. Dean doesn't come close.

Edited to actually answer the question: Yes I am. Until and unless someone can answer the question above in the affirmative, I don't even have to reflect on it. If I choose the candidate who is the most pro-gun-rights, or least anti-gun-rights, then it's a mortal lock that my choice is the correct one.

[MrAcheson]

Pro 2A liberal? Not too common. I am not a one issue voter, so if the candidate is pro 2A and anti everything else then he still will not get my vote. The opposite is also true, anti-2A and pro everything else will get my vote. Flame on but guns are just one important aspect of a candidate for me.

[Molon Labe]

A candidate's stance on gun rights is (obviously) extremely important to me. But their stance on abortion is also important. If they’re not pro-life, they will not get my vote.

Wanna hear something interesting?

I live in Ohio. My representative is Derrick Seaver (http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/MemberDetails.jsp?DISTRICT=78).

He is 21 years old, and is serving his 2nd term in office. (When he was running for office at the ripe old age of 17, he wasn't even allowed to vote!)
He is an NRA member.
He is a member of the local Right to Life chapter.

And… he’s a Democrat.

Talk amongst yourselves…

[444]

Yes

[Quartus]

There are groups, and then there are flyers. We don't adjust our sights to accomodate the flyers.


Someone who is anti-2A is not likely to be someone who is in favor of liberty, and the flip side of liberty which is personal responsibility.


Every election is different, every candidate has to be evaluated carefully, not blindly.


But I will not vote for an anti or a baby killer.

[Bill Hook]

Yes. I assume that many of the other important issues will fall into line with a pro-RKBA stance leading the way. Do agree w/ .45Geek that many pro-RKBA pols talk out of both sides of their mouth with regard to personal freedom, which they interpret only as personal freedoms that don't interfere with their moral beliefs.

[Chris Rhines]

I know of a couple of hard-core leftists who are seriously pro-gun. None of them have ever run for public office, of course.

- Chris

[Hkmp5sd]

I don't vote for a candidate solely on the firearm issue, but I will withhold my vote for a candidate solely on the firearm issue.

If they support any anti-gun legislation, I will not vote for them, no matter how well I agree with their other views.

[greyhound]

Yep: no votes for a leftist.

If a Democrat came along who was truly moderate in all things, especially with guns, I would consider him (I did make the mistake of voting for Clinton as at the time I thought he was moderate).

And though Dean is not as bad as most on guns, other than that he is a true leftist.

As are all the Democrat contenders. (Cept for Wesley Clark - he's neither left nor right, just opportunist - "I'll say whatever they want to hear".

:barf: )

[Gordon Fink]

Has anyone ever SEEN a 2A absolutist who was also a nanny-state liberal?

No, but I’ve seen plenty of pro-RKBA, nanny-state “conservatives.” They may let me keep my guns, but they’ll also tell me which books to read, what religion to practice, whom to share my bed with, and what I can or cannot put into or do with my own body.

~G. Fink

[SteelyDan]

This is an issue on which I strongly disagree with the majority of my forum-mates.

When I was younger, and the topic was even more controversial, it used to drive me nuts that so many voters seemed to care about nothing more than which way the candidates would vote on the abortion issue. I mean, there were a whole lot of other issues that were far more important in determining the direction of the country and the level of our day-to-day happiness. But it seemed that for many voters back then, everything else was secondary and all that mattered was the abortion issue.

Now, many of my compadres here are reminding me of the blinders the voters wore way back then. I'll be the first to say that gun rights is an important issue, and that it tends to be a litmus test for other issues, as well. But the posted question assumed the opposite: that some "very liberal" havoc-monger happened to support gun rights. And while that would certainly be a rare animal, I'm disappointed that so many of us would automatically support him or her just for that reason.

There is a whole world of issues out there that will probably affect us and our families more than the gun rights issue: the economy, foreign policy, taxes, social security, terrorism, etc., etc. I think we do ourselves a great disservice if we are able to focus on only one issue.

[Hkmp5sd]

I think we do ourselves a great disservice if we are able to focus on only one issue.
And that is what the politicians are banking on and the reason we keep seeing more and more gun bans and strict regulations. They know they can do what they want on the gun issue because most people are still going to view the candidate as the lesser of two evils and vote for him anyway.

The only way to halt this trend is to make the politicians aware that there are consequences for actions on passing anti-gun legislation.

We have to use the same strategy as other special interest groups. Do you think a politician would state that if elected, he proposes to pass legislation making homosexual acts (sodomy) a felony? No way. Why? Because he knows the voting block they represent would turn against him en masse and he'd never get elected. The same thing can be said of Abortion Rights, Race, Illegal Aliens and currently one of the hottest topics, Islam/Terrorism/Arabs/Racial Profiling. Each of these will vote on a single issue and that gives them great political power.

If gun owners could put the same pressure on politicians these groups do, we would probably see all gun laws since the NFA was passed tossed out.

[clange]

One issue voter? Yes, without a doubt. However, i'm new to the voting thing, and i'm pretty dang close to voting against the fake 2A 'supporters.' If you try and blow smoke up my ??? saying you support the 2nd amendment, but at the same time think an AWB is ok, i'm going to vote agaisnt you. Why the ???? should i vote for you? You support what my enemy does. And like i said before, with the way things are going, i think its best if we get to 'that point' as fast as possible anyway. ???? fakes.
:barf: :cuss:

[geekWithA.45]

fake 2A 'supporters.'

Those who define 2A as meaning that a citizen may have a single barrel non repeating shotgun while duck hunting, or a single barrel non repeating .22 longarm while target shooting, or a crew served machine gun while on active duty with the national guard.

[Hutch]

No, but I’ve seen plenty of pro-RKBA, nanny-state “conservatives.” They may let me keep my guns, but they’ll also tell me which books to read, what religion to practice, whom to share my bed with, and what I can or cannot put into or do with my own body.

~G. Fink

Point well made. I guess that's why every 2A absolutist I've ever encountered was a libertarian. Generally speaking, I take exception to calling big-government right-wingers "conservative". They're not. Just like the Red Queen, I get to choose what the words mean.:p

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Just being pro-2nd won't get you my vote; but being anti-2nd will definitely lose it regardless of what other stances you support.

Like many here, I've noted that politicians who are comfortable with the idea of an armed citizenry generally fall in line with my beliefs on other issues as well.

I'd also add that you can be the most pro-Second candidate in the nation; but if you belong to a party that enshrines the destruction of the Second Amendment in its party platform, you are still going to be treated with suspicion.

[Futo Inu]

Yes, more or less a one issue voter, and yes most certainly I'd vote for that nearly ideal candidate you described, as I am a liberal on social issues, just conservative on fiscal issues. Guns are the most important, because any other screwup can be fixed - gun laws are never repealed, OTOH.

[Don Galt]

IF you're pro-gun and pro-"life" you're very confused.

You can't be pro-freedom and anti-freedom. But apparently you are.

I'll take a liberal mild socialist over a fascist any day.

How many of these pro-life people are pro-gay rights? None?

IOW, you are pro-life, you're pro-shoving your religion down everyone's throat.

A pro-gun liberal is more commonly known as a libertarian. IF you believe in the constitution you are pro-gun, pro-free speech, pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-freedom of religion, etc. etc. etc.

If you work against freedom in one area (say religion) your claims to support freedom in self defense ring hollow.

For me, I refuse to vote for anyone who is:
anti-gay
anti-gun
anti-choice
anti-constitution

And that, unfortunately, rules out more republicans than democrats these days. The democrats may violate the second ammendment, but they respect the rest. A republican that supports the second but none of the rest is worse, not better.

Fortunately, there are libertarians running who support all of the bill of rights, and the rest of the constitution.

[Gordon Fink]

Generally speaking, I take exception to calling big-government right-wingers “conservative.” They’re not.

You’re right, Hutch. They call themselves “compassionate conservatives.”

~G. Fink

[Quartus]

There is a whole world of issues out there that will probably affect us and our families more than the gun rights issue:

In the SHORT term, yes.

[Quartus]

IF you're pro-gun and pro-"life" you're very confused.


Yes, IF you consider the fetus just a blob of tissue. If you consider it a PERSON, you can hold no other position.

It all hinges on how you answer that question.

[WAGCEVP]

as far as I'm concerned , without the 2A, you have no other opinion --- or should I say they don't matter .................

[Hkmp5sd]

IF you're pro-gun and pro-"life" you're very confused.

IOW, you are pro-life, you're pro-shoving your religion down everyone's throat.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Abortion is not a "religion" only issue. Many people, myself included, do not think abortion should be the preferred method of birth control among Americans. There are a wide assortment of effective birth control devices available that prevent pregnancy 99.99% of the time.

Anyone that considers abortion a privacy issue dealing with a woman and her body must approve of any other "it's my body" argument such as drug use.

The viewpoint that anyone that is pro-gun and pro-life is confused while on the flipside, almost every person in America that is anti-gun also tends to be pro-abortion, is an interesting way to look at things. If the pro-gun side is confused, then by definition so must the opposition.

[MicroBalrog]

Anyone that considers abortion a privacy issue dealing with a woman and her body must approve of any other "it's my body" argument such as drug use.

I do.:evil:

[rock jock]

You can't be pro-freedom and anti-freedom.
Well, I guess that's true if you consider murder an expression of freedom.

[commygun]

The last Donk I voted for (in '94) was a very liberal congresswoman
who was also resolutely opposed to the AWB. It cost her alot of support
among less nimble-minded liberals and she lost to a very conservative
women. A win-win situation from my perspective.

[roscoe]

As a concrete example, lets say a candidate is very pro gun... He wants to get rid of the AWB, machine gun ban, import bans, change the BATF to just the BAT, get rid of licensing for gun dealers, states the second amendment is an individual right, and get rid of state registration processes...

but he has a very liberal agenda otherwise... would you consider voting for him?

Oh man, if only . . .

[toro]

I have to say that the Gun Issue is the most important issue to me, although not the only issue. Since some have mentioned pro-life I have to say that this is also a very important issue to me. When public policy is immoral it should be challenged, regardless of who is in office. In my opinion, the liberal media slander any who dare raise their voices, saying they practice the "politics of hatred." It is never hatred to speak the truth. Compromise at the expense of principle is cowardice. Truth is often violated by falsehood but can be equally outraged by silence.


Mrs. Toro



___________________________________________________
1 Peter 4: 18,19
And if the rightous scarely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the deepening of their souls to him, in well doing, as unto a faithful creator.

[Monkeyleg]

Politics is essentially a sales job. And, if the saleman wants to get any further in his pitch to me, his first selling point must be a pro-gun position.

[Zeke Menuar]

Pro-Gun and Anti Tax in equal proportions. If push comes to shove I tend to lean towards 2nd Amendment.

ZM

[SC_shooter]

I punish those who vote against 2nd Amendment issues and reward those who do. That is my sole criteria.

When and if Bush signs the AWB, he can assure that I will vote Democratic. I have send many postcards to the RNC and White House telling them so.

Paul

[tcdrennen]

When the GOP solicitors call me (I'm not a Republican but I do subscribe to various conservative/libertarian magazines and lists), I tell them any money I might consider sending them will go to NRA/GOA/JPFO/KABA until the AWB is dead and/or Bush recants his support for its extension, at a minimum.

[DFBonnett]

Are you really a one issue voter?

Yes. Firearms rights are about freedom and justice. Politically there is nothing else. Politicians who don't support firearms rights have no concept of freedom or justice.

[Molon Labe]

Originally posted by Don Galt
IF you're pro-gun and pro-"life" you're very confused.

You can't be pro-freedom and anti-freedom. But apparently you are.

I'll take a liberal mild socialist over a fascist any day.

How many of these pro-life people are pro-gay rights? None?

IOW, you are pro-life, you're pro-shoving your religion down everyone's throat.

A pro-gun liberal is more commonly known as a libertarian. IF you believe in the constitution you are pro-gun, pro-free speech, pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-freedom of religion, etc. etc. etc.

If you work against freedom in one area (say religion) your claims to support freedom in self defense ring hollow.

For me, I refuse to vote for anyone who is:
anti-gay
anti-gun
anti-choice
anti-constitution

And that, unfortunately, rules out more republicans than democrats these days. The democrats may violate the second ammendment, but they respect the rest. A republican that supports the second but none of the rest is worse, not better.

Fortunately, there are libertarians running who support all of the bill of rights, and the rest of the constitution.

Let me ask you something, Don: Do you think a person should have the freedom to kill an innocent person? For example, do you think I should have the freedom to kill my neighbor while he’s out cutting the grass?

No? But why not? I though you were pro-freedom!!

So I have just proven that you are not pro-freedom. Hypocrite. :scrutiny:

[Kaylee]

This is, however, a one-issue forum.

*hint hint*

-K

[Quartus]

IOW, folks, drop the abortion argument. At the risk of sounding egotistical here, all the needs to be said on the issue as it relates to freedom is what I already said.

If you regard the fetus as a person, you must take a different view than if you do NOT regard the fetus as a person.



To claim to be pro freedom and against abortion is not hypocritical if you regard them as innocent people.

To claim to be pro freedom and FOR abortion is not hypocritical if you DO NOT regard them as innocent people.

So there's not any reason to be throwing the word HYPOCRITE around here.


THAT question is the starting and ending point of the abortion debate (though many do not realize it), and is OT for this forum.




There, Kaylee, did I do okay? ;)

[Kaylee]

Q- ya took the words out of my mouth. :)

[MeekandMild]

RKBA is the most important shibboleth to identify friend from foe. There is no such thing as an RKBA lie-beral, pardon me, I mean an RKBA purg-ressive.

[Don Galt]

I apologize for bringing up abortion... I should have just stuck with bringing up gays. :)

For instance, I've seen a lot of hatred of the Pink Pistols on firearms forums, and I think its silly.

The argument regarding abortion is that if the fetus is a person, it doesn't have more rights to the woman's body than the woman does. Thus you can be pro-human rights, and pro-abortion choice and still consider the fetus might be a person. (I don't consider it one until birth.)

I'm saying that just to clarify the apparent inconsistency in my previous post-- not to get the debate going. I believe I understand the position taken by the people who posted in response to me-- they believe the fetuses right to life exceeds the womans' rights to her body. I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree on this matter, and I'd rather this thread continue back on topic!

So, sorry for causing the tangent-- my point was to say that I am a single issue voter.

I'm pro-human rights. That's my issue... and that means I'm

pro-gay rights (real rights, not right to a job, or right to live in a house owned by someone who doesn't like them.. same with racial and religious differences-- the property owner's rights over their property exceed the tenant's rights)...

pro-free speech (which makes me anti-campaign reform as it was recently enacted)

pro-free movement
pro-free association (Even if you want to have a club that excludes me)
pro-freedom of choice regarding drugs (perscription, voodoo, recreational, or improperly imported... its your body, your choice)

pro-Right To Keep And Bear Shoulder Fired Rocket Propelled Arms (and others too)
etc.


I'm proud to be a single issue voter-- I'm pro freedom.

[Quartus]

the property owner's rights over their property exceed the tenant's rights)...


Interesting... That would NOT set well with the leftists! I saw this carried out in Germany in '77. Many bars & clubs had signs (in English) that said "No blacks." :what:

Yeah, that DID cause some upset in my outfit - we had been flown over for a NATO gig, and there we were - dumped into the local environment without any warning about such things. It didn't set well. We left a few boys in German prisons when we came back to the states.


But it seemed to me they had fewer race problems. I'm not sure how much we gain by forcing equality down people's throats.



pro-Right To Keep And Bear Shoulder Fired Rocket Propelled Arms


Works for me! :D