Are you a single issue(RKBA) voter?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Are gun issues the only thing you base your vote on?

 

[carnaby]

Almost, but not completely. I usually find, as do many, that a politicians stand on RKBA is a very good indicator of their position on many issues and how they relate to liberty and small government.

 

[Duncan223]

Yes.

Any politician that is "anti-gun" but claims they will support the rights of the unborn, or the undocumented, or lower taxes, is a politician that is untrustworthy.

All the Rights listed are as equally important as the others... the right of free speech, keep arms, search, seizure, et al. Politicians must respect and defend all the rights. If they are willing to waffle on the right to bear arms, when will they stop?

 

[Autolycus]

The 2nd Amendment is not the only thing in the Bill of Rights worth preserving.

I voted for Bush because I thought he believed in the Bill of Rights. Boy was I wrong.

 

[Biker]

In answer to the OP's question, not anymore.

Biker

 

[xd9fan]

no but gun are a great litmus test on how anybody views....liberty.

 

[waynedm]

I'm as moderate as they get. Republicans tend to keep our rights in tact. Neither party has anybody that knows how to run anything else anyway. I have to vote to support the 2a.

 

[Fletchette]

Yup. Aside from being THE most important right in the Bill of Rights (Freedom of Speech doesn't exist if you cannot defend yourself) I have found that politicians that support RKBA also support just about everything else I do. Respecting a citizens rights generally implies upholding and defending the entire Constitution.

Now, there are exceptions, but by and large the Second Amendment is a very good litmus test.

 

[BADUNAME13]

Not the only thing, but I won't vote for a antigunner.

 

[Sylvan-Forge]

No.

Candidate must be:
Pro Constitution & Bill of Rights.

Emphasis on:
Pro 2nd.
Anti abortion.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

They are not the only thing I base my vote on; but I do use RKBA as a litmus test to see whether a candidate deserves further attention. If you don't support RKBA, you don't get my vote.

 

[JLStorm]

Nothing matters to me as much as RKBA. It doesnt matter how great a candidate someone is, if they dont support RKBA they dont get my vote. However if a strong RKBA supporter has a lot of other flaws and issues, I can overlook them.

 

[royh]

In my opinion, you are either for civil rights, or against. All rights are a litmus test, and being against one or another is a serious black mark, more than half as bad as being against all of them.

On the other hand, I vote strategically when necessary, and if I judge a politician to be unlikely to get any of that nonsense done I may overlook it.

 

[chaim]

I am not for two related reasons:

Theoretically, I might vote for someone who wasn't great on guns (but not an outright banner) if he/she was good on most everything else and on the whole was better for me than the other candidates. In real terms, this hasn't happened yet, but I'm sure it could.

I won't automatically vote for someone who was good on guns, or better on guns than the opposition (if both are good, or bad, on guns). If he/she is bad on many/most other issues that are important to me, I'm not voting for him/her just because the candidate is good on guns.

 

[obxned]

There are many important issues, but the gun-hating psychos who would flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet have changed that for me. I would vote for a puppy-killing, football hating, incestuous Martian if I thought he would preserve and protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

 

[SVT93]

I won't vote for an anti, but its not the only thing I look for.

 

[shield20]

Yep - I take it personal. If my chosen rep doesn't trust me with guns, then I can't trust him with the power of representing me (on any issue).

 

[geekWithA.45]

Sorta.

Good on guns is the minimum ante to get my vote.

 

[Crimp]

No, but it's the primary issue that has to be met.

 

[22-rimfire]

The issue is very high on my list; probably No. 1. I try to know as much as I can about national government political candidates prior to voting. State government politicans are important too, but tend to better reflect their district's values.

Harold Ford Jr. was such a candidate in the Nov. 2006 elections in TN. I liked the guy, but I didn't trust his more liberal stance on many issues. He claimed to be pro-gun, but his voting record did not support this. As a Junior Senator, he would likely vote party line and that does not sit well with me. Hence, no vote.

 

[308win]

It is my litmus test; if the candidate is not pro 2A he/she isn't getting my vote.

 

[shaggycat]

By no means. RKBA is very important to me, but so is a candidate's view on economics and free trade, social issues, taxes, OIF and OEF, education, etc.

 

[RealGun]

If it were, I would have a hard time finding a candidate with any prospect of winning. It seems like more a matter of damage control. There aren't any candidates for whom RKBA is first priority, so what does that tell you?

 

[GEM]

It's really a confounded question. Most folks who claim they are single issue voters are usually conservative. The strongest gun advocates are most likely towards the conservative side.

Thus, the voter isn't really faced with a true test of the single issue proposition. Faced with a socially liberal progun candidate vs. some Fudd, pro AWB conservative (who spoke for the other conservative hot buttons like abortion, gay marriage, etc.) - that kind of voter would have a brain melt down.

 

[45Frank]

I will never vote for an Anti no matter what else they stand for!

I vote on what will effect me the day after the election!