Posted: 10/30/2008 10:43:01 AM EDT
|
I know many here are single issue voters, on gun ownership. I'm curious as to how "Single Issue" they are. HYPOTHETICAL: Lets say Obama was pro-gun. He intends to repeal the No new MG rule of 1986, the import ban, and the "Sporting Clause" of GCA '68 and NFA '34. The GCA '68, and NFA '34 would still stand, but stripped of the "loophole sentences" that have allowed more gun laws. The manufacturer protection of the 1986 bill would remain, only the "No New Full Autos" would be removed. The $200 tax Stamp would stay. In addition, he states that he would pass legislation making adding gun control laws much more difficult. Say, a law that legitimizes "assault rifles" as self defense weapons, and shall not be discriminated against. He will have the required majority in Congress to do his bidding (Congress happens to feel the same way as above about guns). ALL other issues regarding Obama are the same. Terrorist ties, Tax ideas, Spreading the Wealth, Healthcare, etc. In that case, would you vote for Obama? |
|
It would be tough, but I'd vote for McCain.
I'm a single issue voter because I believe that a politician who can't trust Americans with weapons isn't one I want to trust to lead. But Obama's other policies dssolve any trust he might gain by protecting the second amendment. |
|
The gun issue is about much more than guns. It is a fundamental issue of where the ultimate political power in this country is held-by the individual citizens. Those who understand this and the 2nd amendment in its fullest form likely wouldn't have a lot of the other socialist views Obama has.
Put the opposite way: If you do not trust the people with guns, what else do you not trust them with and where does it all end (answer: with a totalitarian regime-the only possible end). |
|
I'm not a single issue voter, but I use the 2A as a litmus test for politicians. If they don't trust the citizens enough to own guns, then citizens shouldn't trust them with the reins of leadership.
If they support the 2A, then I'll look at their history on other issues and vote accordingly. And no, I wouldn't vote for Obama. His shadowy background, his questionable citizenship, his horrible choice of friends, his Marxist leanings, the fact that he's steeped in black liberation theology, are all more than enough to over ride any stand he may have on guns. |
|
I must say, the responses so far are interesting. Myself, I could NOT picture somebody as in the hypothetical candidate above. I guess I could be called a "Single Issue Judge". Of all the beliefs any candidate can have, I personally feel that their views on privately armed citizens tell the most about them, more than ANY other single metric. One can be Pro-Life and anti-gun, or pro-abortion and anti-gun. There are people who support unions that are pro gun, there are people who represent corporations that are pro-gun. If a candidate trusts "his people", who aren't criminally disposed and have a bit of responsibility, to keep and bear arms, all the time, in any setting, most All other issues we care about tend to follow. The truely pro-gun candidate respects his constituents and the consititution, rather than rule and change them. The problem is, the number of Absolute pro-gun candidates is dwindling. I'm sure we all don't trust some people to be armed, especially those with anger/violence/drug problems, gangs, etc. Those people are already breaking the law or have broken the law, and are only on the street because the jail was full, it was illegal to kill them, or they had a crafty lawyer and a technicality. How do you filter out the pro-gun from the "lip-service pro-gun"? That is the question. I used Obama as an example, since he's a hot topic right now. Other issues, McCain and Obama aren't as far apart as one would wish, on a few key issues, they are worlds apart. Remember Daschle? He was pro-gun. Until he was in Washington over 10 years, then he was "pro hunting", which, in far too many people's eyes, is NOT "pro-gun" by the way I look at it above. The one thing that rule of thumb is good for is how Anti-Gun somebody is. Very few that have been around for over 40 years can seriously believe that guns cause crime. They are lying to themselves when they want all guns banned to reduce crime. They know most of the same facts we do, but play ignorant. Those anti-gun candidates DO know that every individual's dependence on the government increases with every weapon type (firearm or not) restricted. Anti-gun candidates are paradoxically the same ones wanting reduced sentencing for for murder, aboloshiment of the death penalty, pro-abortion, anti-religion, and pro-Hate. Look how violent some of the "campaigning" for a certain party has been these past few weeks. Would you trust guns to those people, those who think the first step in a disagreement is to get in your face, then have a group help? Have the "Goals of communism" from the 60's gotten so far that baiting somebody verbally is still "Free Speech"? They are like Internet Trolls, pushing the limits of rules and laws, to cheer when a decent member gets banned by responding. They practiced on the internet, and now are using it in real life or something. This turned into a rant.. What I guess I was looking for was a lot more responses to the point of "It would take a moral acrobat to be a candidate like described above, and most likely a lying one, about one of the issues". I can't think of many other things to look at which give you a very quick summary of the overal "Value" of a candidate. If you can, post below! I'm curious as to what "Other Single Issues" could be so telling, since "Single Issue Voter" is brought up as much as "independent/undecided voter". |
|
I was raised to believe that if I work hard and do good then good things happen for me. Not by a president or someone like that but by my father that dedicated his life to The Military. He served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. He was correct My wife wanted me to add that the only reason I should have my hand out is to shake anothers hand or help friend. |