beerslurpy
member
It stands up to political reality if people beleive it and vote it. And I think increasingly large numbers are doing just that.
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.They want to paint themselves as "neo-cons"
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.progunner said:Ezekiel said: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!
You may think they are the most important item in politics, but that is only your opinion and, may I suggest, an incorrect one.
"But there are other issues to consider than just guns."
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.
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.
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.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?)
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.That's an absurd interpretation of Ezekiel's words, sir, and I suggest you learn to read.
And that is your opinion - which has absolutely no more value, relevance, validity or correctness than my opinion or anyone else's here - "sir."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.
+1, Glummer.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?
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,)
but the people we want to elect can all be found on one side of the gun issue.