[HTML1]
I never was smart enough to avoid bar discussions about politics, religion, abortion or other hot topics. Something about arguing for the sport of arguing…
Tastes Great – Less-Filling.
This is beer, not medicine – taste is everything!
I like beer, but I don’t want to increase my gravitational pull!Pro-Choice – Pro-Life.
You can’t take way my choice! It’s MY choice!
If you aren’t Pro-Life, you must be against life!Gun Rights – Gun Control.
I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
Enacting and enforcing sensible regulations reduces gun violence!
I notice that recently I have just as many gun-rights discussions as I do politics . . .
Now that another annoying election season is ramping back up, I spend time researching a candidate’s position on things that are important to me. And then I look for any history of backing their position. And then I remember why I dislike politicians.
What matters most to me? Who will have the most affect on the economy? Social Values? World Police? Executive/Legislative balance? Future SCOTUS influence? 2nd Amendment stance? Fell for that Global Warming crap?
I’ll let on to my 2A stance with a quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
How much weight do you place on a politician’s 2A actions?
Enough but I also look at the other issues as well. Typically a candidate is either pro-gun or not no real middle ground.
At this time in our history, gun rights are very important.
No way I trust a candidate that doesn’t trust the population.
Important but not the only consideration. The generally less anti-gun major party is radioactive to me for a variety of other reasons, so I usually hate my choices on election day.
It’s not everything. It’s the only thing.
Any man or woman who does not trust a law-abiding American to keep and bear arms is not to be trusted with political power.
Period.
I would trade a national id card to get back to “shall not be abridged”.
Absolutely – If a man doesn’t trust us with guns, they are not worth my time or vote. If both candidates are Pro 2A (a very ambiguous meaning to some – they can say they are pro 2A but still favor “the good” gun restrictive laws). Then you can look at other policies, but first and foremost, if they want to disarm you, they want to control you.
The NRA sends me a list of our local candidates who support the 2nd amendment, and also the commie lovers who want to take away all of our rights. Anyone who hates our country and the 2nd amendment will never get my vote.
As I’m a rather hard-core libertarian, the more libertarian a politician is, the more likely they are to be pro-2A anyway. The only stance that I consider more important is getting a balanced budget before the markets kill the Treasury and/or dollar (but no one but the Pauls seem to really care about that).
I’m also lucky to be in a state (guess which 🙂 ) that has strong preemption laws and enough pro-2A Democrats that significant state restrictions just aren’t occurring. At the federal level, we have a Blue Dog representative (Chandler), and a mannequin and a Paul as senators. I worry more about Mitch selling us out on 2A issues than Paul or Chandler.
KentuckyPackRat – What state are you from?
It depends on the office.
For a legislative office I will not vote for anyone that’s not on the gun-rights side of the debate.
For an executive position though I’m less hardline. If the legislature is such that no gun control bills are going to make it to his desk (like Congress now) I’ll settle for someone who’s less enthusiastic about guns if I think they can balance the budget, control our Southern border and do something to shrink the government.
Realistically though the sort of guy who’s in favor of those things is probably pro-2A anyway.
Generally, being against the Second Amendment is a good barometer that the candidate is wrong on most other things, too.
Lol. “Fell for that global warming crap”. High carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere present during warm periods cause massive increase in photosynthetic organism populations. These life forms die and sometimes they’re buried by geologic processes. If the conditions are right, they’ll form fossil fuels over the eons. You then burn those sources of fuel and release the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.
Really not much to fall for there. It’s just science. I know science is seen as some mystical, unexplainable system by those that don’t understand it, but it really isn’t. It’s just logic. Plain and simple. That people don’t accept AGW, or evolution by natural and sexual selection, or that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, is just a sign of how truly awful the education system is in this country.
I also find it funny how ridiculous the political system is in this country. All the Tea Baggers out and about, crying about their freedom, didn’t say a word when George W. Bush gutted the 4th and 5th Amendments. The more liberal population of the country is crying for the government to take scary guns away from law abiding citizens because they think it will make them safer. Anyone who is serious about their Constitutional rights couldn’t in good conscience vote for either party.
Amen
Comments are closed.