Our friend’s at the UK’s Telegraph surveyed the GOP’s seventeen (so far) presidential candidates, asking who owns firearms and how many. Three took the discreet approach, declining to disclose their inventory (assuming they have one). Carly Florina is gunless, but her hubby has a half dozen. Hell, even NRA F-rated George Pataki owns a rifle. And who could have predicted that Jeb!’s and Chris Chistie’s gun cabinets would be empty? . . .
Obviously, the GOP nomination and subsequent election will turn on issues other than just the candidates’ support for the RKBA. Or will they? Is 2A support all you need to know before pulling the lever? Or will you take other issues into account, too, before casting your vote?
[h/t Harter R.]
Absolute 1 issue voter.
If there’s more than one pro-gun politician then I begin the internal discourse, but until then..
Notachance I’d vote for any anti-gun politician for anything ever.
Agreed, though I’ll expand it to the entire Bill of Rights. If I get a sense that a pol doesn’t respect the entirety of the document, preferring a la carte picking and choosing, he or she will not get my vote.
Agreed. I’d settle for someone who was only passively pro-2A if they were vehemently against government surveillance and the prison-system pipeline.
Yep. My process is a lot like this.
Any candidate that doesn’t respect my Second Amendment rights is instantly disqualified. (Which means no Democrat will get my vote for anything, since they all sign on to a platform that explicitly repudiates the 2A).
After that, I start looking at how likely the candidate is to respect the entire Bill of Rights and to adhere to constitutional government. (most Republicans are suspect, but at least they’re likely to respect *one* of my Constitutional civil rights.)
Inherent in all of this are considerations of leadership ability and good character (as far as they go in politicians, which isn’t saying much).
Exactly. Gun rights are the canary in the coal mine. The bleeding edge of civil rights in general.
‘Where do you stand on my gun rights = hoe much do you trust us?’
If the answer is ‘not much’ then keep walking.
Edits broken again. Damn hoe’s..
I am with you guys on this. That is why I was outspoken when the NRA came out and said we need to be looking at movies and video games as source of violence. You don’t attack one amendment for another, we are better than that. They are our first line of defense so I moved past that indiscretion pretty quick.
I’m not a single issue voter, but a single issue will make me want to vote for someone else.
I believe Rick Perry is the only candidate that has used a firearm in self defense. Granted, it was a coyote, but I figure that still counts.
A single issue will never cause me to vote for a candidate, but it can cause me to not vote for a candidate.
Damn right a coyote counts! They’re half the reason I carry while walking my dog. But no I am not single issue. It may disqualify someone for me, but it won’t make me vote for someone by itself, I want to hear how a candidate stands on other freedoms, as well. Such as not imposing his superstitions on me. Or on my daughter.
. . . and the other half is badly trained Pitbulls with idiot owners.
To be fair, I live in a neighborhood with lots of pitbulls, and the only dog bites I’ve ever received were from a boxer and a chihuahua. Pitbull-type dogs are more likely to be dog-aggressive than people-aggressive. The dog-aggression is by no means universal, just a statement that they have a greater tendency than the average breed towards dog aggression in the absence of good socialization early in life. With regards to people, such dogs were considered “nanny” dogs for small children in the not-too-distant past due to their naturally affectionate nature with people.
The key issue is idiot owners that don’t understand their own dogs. That is not isolated to owners of pitbull-type dogs.
Same. Not single issue.
Yes.
A candidate’s position on gun rights is my litmus test. If a candidate won’t trust me with a gun, why should I trust him with a police force or an army?
Once the candidate has established his pro-gun bona fides, then we’re on to the other issues.
I approach this in a similar fashion, but as much as I value my firearms freedoms, that comes in at about 3rd or 4th this time around. Effectively, though, the candidates in my “potentially acceptable if they get the GOP nomination” category are all pretty strong. But I won’t vote for Bush or Kasich, regardless of their NRA A+ ratings.
I ‘m with Ralph which is why I laugh at all the RINO hating so-called Conservatives who all gaga over Trump. He is Hillary clone who can be trusted with protecting Second Amendment rights no matter what he says. Scott Walker is my guy but I can live with Cruz, Fiorina or Rubio.
I don’t trust Trump on guns any more than I trust him on eminent domain.
He wouldn’t be hurt at all by gun bans on the little people (you know, the “losers” and “morons”), because he has a private army of armed security made up of former NYPD.
With the USA in the state it’s in, I will be a bit disappointed if the best we can do is Trump. But I’m not sure yet whether he’d get my vote if he gets the nomination. Still weighing that. If it seems like he can be trusted to do what he promises on immigration, and really digs in to start eliminating some of the alphabet soup of agencies (particularly reigning in the EPA), then I’ll hold my nose and resign myself to wait on other issues (like imminent domain). On guns, even if Trump isn’t a strong advocate, I don’t think he’ll push to make stricter laws, either. If Obama, a fanatical gun grabber, can’t make any inroads at the federal level, I don’t think we have to fear Trump. Of course, it would be nice to have somebody actually push the ball forward for us on firearms freedom, but lets get the ship pointed away from the ice berg, then worry about the rest.
Cruz would be great, Walker would be acceptable. I don’t think we are likely to see either one get the nomination, though it’s pretty early. If the nomination goes to Kasich, Bush, or someone similar, I pencil in Cruz. Rubio is just on the edge of being in the same category as Bush for me. I’m still considering Fiorina and Carson, but I like them both.
Cruz would he great on guns, maybe. On other issues, not so much.
Yes. This.
I have a similar view as you, Ralph.
First gate is whether a candidate is pro-2A.
However, some pro-2A candidates are way out to lunch on some issues, such as getting their lacy undergarments in a knot over whether or not the government should “allow” gays to marry (Huckabee, for example). I don’t see any purpose in gays marrying, but I hardly see why the government should restrict a free people from anything that doesn’t hurt anybody else. And there are something like 600 sins in the Old Testament – why use the power of the government to enforce your personal pet peeves?
Government permission is different than government validation/recognition. In many places, Gay Marriage didn’t receive the latter, not the former.
The first consideration I have for voting is who is the incumbent. They are automatically off the list for me. Turn them all out and do it again next time and every time after that. They will eventually get the idea they work for us and should give a listen more than occasionally.
The second consideration is the Second. If you don’t support individual rights, including but not limited to, the Second Amendment, you a’int getting my vote.
Yes, because stance on 2A is a barometer on other Constitutional issues.
It’s not a very reliable barometer, though. Plenty of pro-2A politicians out there with A+ NRA ratings who are only too happy to allow the government to spy on everyone, or willing to expand governmental power beyond Constitutional limits, so long as it benefits their team.
It does make an effective coarse filter, though. If someone is anti-2A, there’s almost no chance that they respect the remainder of the Constitution, so they can be ruled out immediately.
Another way to think about what you just said (unless I horribly misunderstood it), is that the 2A check might give you a false positive (it might let some goober through and make him seem worth voting for) but it won’t give you a false negative (it won’t trash a good guy as unworthy of your vote). Of course (as you said), you then apply more tests if the 2A check didn’t result in a reject.
My issue is on free market principles and limited gov’t regulation. Someone who embraces limited regulations tends to be pro-gun.
Nt a one-issue voter but I’d be hard-pressed to vote for any anti, regardless of their other stands.
I am this time around.
Serious need to push things the other way and shore up 2A protections and undo past 2A transgressions.
Cute chart–but I’m not sure what rifle Pataki owns? A Martini? A Lee-Navy repeater? What is that silhouette? đŸ™‚
A Daisy?
Just kidding.
Too late, you already said it!
Whatever it is, Santorum’s got two of ’em…
I’m not a one issue voter but it’s a big enough issue that I might as well be.
I will be until the 2nd amendment again means what it says and no other laws on the subject have standing. Then we can talk about other issues.
I am a single issue voter for one simple reason: anyone who opposes our right to defend ourselves is willing to oppose/infringe anything.
Think of an armed home invader who just demanded something from you. Do you really trust that they are going to let you live after you give them what they want? Why should you trust them? If they are willing to invade your home, take your personal property or body (e.g. rape), and threaten your life, they are willing to do anything. The same applies to a politician. If they are willing to deny your right to defend yourself, they are willing to deny your right to free speech, religion, reasonable searches and seizures, etc. etc. etc.
The only difference between politicians and home invaders is that politicians are mostly up-front about their intentions and mostly interested in taking your personal property (money).
If you don’t own or won’t report you can’t be trusted, think no more about. How NRA rated Bush I find concerning.
There’s at least one other issue that’s important to me. But they do seem to correlate, usually.
I’m pro-choice, but I’m not a woman. I support gay rights but I’m not gay. Shooting and collecting firearms, however, is my number one hobby ( not to mention my right), so being strongly pro-2A is the number 1 issue for me. The rest is considered and I’ll make the best choice I can, but I’ll never sacrifice my RKBA for anything else.
I can’t be a single issue voter. However, the stances of many politicians make that easy. If they had a more nuanced take on our needs, if they were statesman instead of celebrities, if they truly served the Republic and thought of us as “We the People”, then our Nation could be greater.
Appealing to just this wing or these constituents just hurts us all. Sometimes they have to say, “kids we don’t have enough money to have weekly pizza night and go to Disney this summer. Your choice.”
Yup. My single issue is liberty. Means I’m always throwing my vote away on those pesky lunatic fringe candidates who just want to leave me alone in exchange for my leaving everyone else alone.
Those crazy bastards and their impossible pipe dreams.
I’m a several issue voter, but a “no” on any one of those issues will make me withhold a vote from a candidate. So far no one gets my vote this cycle.
I’m with you on sentiment, but I’m not above holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. I can’t imaging any of these guys being worse for gun rights (or a host of other issues) than Hillary.
Not really, but I have one issue disqualifiers. If you are pro civilian disarmament, I won’t vote for you. If you are trying to defund planned parenthood, I won’t vote for you. If you don’t think the war on drugs needs to end, I won’t vote for you. If you take a shit ton of money from the oil/gas industry, I won’t vote for you. If you are a bigot who doesn’t want gays to have equal right, I won’t vote for you. That pretty much means I never vote for dems or repubs.
‘If you are trying to defund planned parenthood, I won’t vote for you.’
You have no right to insist that my money be taken from me against my will and used to line the pockets of murderers.
Planned Parenthood is a private institution sucking on the government tit so they can make a profit selling baby parts. You rEmin me of those German citizens who didn’t notice the box cars but loved Deutsches Ordnung.
The real facts are that the bulk of the money to Planned Parenthood goes for birth control, not abortions and it is birth control that prevents women from having unwanted pregnancies. Most unwanted pregnancies do not end in abortions but rather the mother and child go on welfare the rest of their lives which in turn raises taxes. All this is exactly what the Conservatives do not want and that is more abortions and higher taxes. In other words a Conservative is often his own worst enemy.
Conservatives have even tried to defund the birth control services of Planned Parent hood with the idiotic argument that only the parents should make the decision as to whether the child should be on birth control which assumes they know if their kids are having sex or not. Of course this is all ridiculous because they do not and that is why there are so many unplanned pregnancies precisely because children are not taking birth control.
First off, a lot of the money Planned Parenthood gets from the federal government is through medicaid, which makes defunding them much harder, but not impossible.
Second, PP makes it look like abortions are a much smaller part of their business by dividing up an abortion into 10 or so ‘services’ like consultation, etc. Some of these other ‘services’ are then billed to medicaid. This also makes it look like only a small part of their profits are from abortion, but you can’t change the fact that every 3 years PP murders another 1,000,000 human children and sells their organs for profit.
Third – ‘Most unwanted pregnancies do not end in abortions but rather the mother and child go on welfare the rest of their lives which in turn raises taxes.’ – This catch 22 was not an accident. You need to remember that the early proponents of progressivism were also racist proponents of eugenics, including Margret Sanger. Before these welfare policies were put into place there was a thing called the ‘nuclear family’. Before women knew they could count on Uncle Sugar to foot the bill they were much pickier about who they let into their vaginas. There simply weren’t nearly as many unwanted pregnancies. Returning to the old ways would result in the same old results. And even if it didn’t, arguing that free taxpayer funded abortions would result in more welfare dependents is a bit like arguing that without Hitler we wouldn’t have Volkswagen. No matter how good a car Volkswagen makes, it just doesn’t make up for Hitler’s crimes.
why on earth SHOULD planned parenthood get a single dime of taxpayer money?
What article of the constitution authorizes spending taxpayer money on it?
Yes.
If a politician is not for the second amendment, he or she can’t be trusted with ANY of the others.
+1
+1000
But to any of them own cannons? I want to know where they stand on cannon ownership!
Um, I think I might have voted for Perry in his first Gubernatorial election. Then he cut education spending. After that, I voted for his opponents in every Primary, then didn’t cast a vote for Governor in the elections.
My personal opinion is that we have more gun toting Democrats than will admit it. I didn’t vote for Obama, but he’s been the best thing yet, for gun sales.
Lets not forget the greatest destroyer of the 2nd Amendment was a Republican called President Ronald Reagan who banned the sale of new full auto weapons.
One should also remember that there are many Liberal pro-gun people but they are often better educated than the Conservative voting pro-gun people. The population of the U.S. is one of an ageing population who have to worry about being forced into bankruptcy because of the tremendous expense of necessary medications they must take to stay alive. In the more advanced civilized industrial societies medications are much cheaper and often paid for by National Health Care Systems which is not being done here in the U.S. This is a result of the super rich Republican Congressmen that are prostitutes of the crooked Drug Companies who continue to rape all Americans with their overpriced drugs. This results in a real dilemma for the pro-gun voter and when it comes to your guns or becoming bankrupt paying for medications guess which candidate gets their vote. It is the candidate that fights for lower medical costs for all Americans and you will not ever find a Republican doing that or and educated voter giving them their vote.
Even Obama Care which is in no way a civilized National Health Care System, it still has many advantages to detailed to go into here but when John “Bone Head” Boehner was asked what he would replace it with on “Meet The Press” he had nothing to replace it with and he unashamedly stated he did not like it because Business people had to pay into the system and he wonders why working people by the millions vote against people like him.
Nixon hated guns and supported banning handguns outright, but never implemented any gun control because Vietnam and Watergate kept him too busy. Reagan signed the FOPA bill in 86, which ostensibly helped gun owners but banned a whole class of firearms. He also made the infamous AK47 speech in 89. He went on to champion Clintons AWB in 93. Bush the Elder in 1989 said “Our problem has been that, while fully automatic AK47s are banned in this country, semiautomatic ones present another whole set of issues. ATF has decided to ban temporarily the importation of more than 110,000 semiautomatic rifles, pending a ruling on whether such guns are suited to sporting purposes.” Bush I also tore up his NRA card in 1995. His son GW Bush WOULD have signed the sunsetting AWB but it never made it out of Congress. He did however sign the Patriot Act which took more privacy and liberty away than any gun control act could. Republicans have their share of anti gun actions and cannot be automatically trusted to be pro RKBA because of a large R next to their name.
You’ve just laid out the reason why I’m not an entirely “single issue” voter. I’m interested in two things: RKBA and who they might nominate to the SCOTUS.
After that, I’m most interested in border security issues. Flood this country with low-IQ voters who come from dysfunctional political systems and you have a growing bloc of gun-control voters on your hands.
No, because 1A and 4A are just as important.
You can’t cherry pick freedoms, doesn’t work that way. Does anyone posting here believe that an election or 2 can really turn things around?
Yes… I am a single issue voter. If you are a candidate that wants to expand the power of government, I will not vote for you.
So you haven’t voted since the 19th century?
More like late 18th.
My one issue is strict Constitutional adherence. Whichever regime is closest to this usually gets my vote.
I gotta know what guns Elizabeth Warren owns before I can make my choice;-)
We already know that Joe Biden owns/favors a double barrel shotgun with anti-aircraft sights and that doing her own shooting is beneath Hillary.
I think Lyin’ Lizzie is more of a bow & arrow type of gal…
If voting mattered, the GOP Senate and Congress would do what they promised to do before they got elected, which is oppose all of Obamas BS and block it at every opportunity. Instead they rolled over and actually abetted the implementation of his commie plans. Tell me again how much voting matters. The Diebold machines are already pre programmed for Hitlery.
“The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” Joseph Stalin
I am a two issue voter. U.S. Military and 2nd Amendment are my personal issues.
Being a Veteran and having served under both Clinton and Bush between 1997 and 2005 I am all too familiar with how each “side” takes care of the troops.
Muh welfare. đŸ™‚
Thanks for your service. You guys have been sold down the river by both parties. The VA is an abomination, that should be disbanded, and every veteran given a simple ID card that admits them to any doctor/clinic/hospital anywhere in the country. The VA hospitals are a complete waste of resources that could fund such a simple system. Obamacare is VA care for the civilians and everybody should be more concerned with its repeal than any other issue.
Yes, let’s force privately owned hospitals and privately employed doctors and nurses to give free care to people just because they work for the government.
We fought for your freedom… um, actually, my free healthcare and benefits. đŸ™‚
How is providing contracted healthcare “forcing” anything? I am not going to explain anything to a commie fool like you. You are a complete idiot. You should stick with the Hillary web forums.
Passing a law mandating healthcare for veterans then begging for compensation from the government would be the definition of “force”.
How do you think laws are enforced? Because they are all just? đŸ™‚
Why not? Your exhalted, glorious leader is forcing private hospitals/doctors to provide service for people flooding across our borders illegally….. along with countless thousands of useless eaters born here who refuse to contribute anything to our society, and the rest of us are expected to foot the bill.
Absolutely brilliant, deny medical care to people who in turn would spread disease throughout the population of the U.S. In civilized industrial nations medical care has been free for well over 75 years.
VA is not an abomination by any means. Beyond just healthcare, VA provides education, disability compensation and pension, home loans, etc. I’d go so far as to say we take better care of our Vets here than any other country, especially given the size of the U.S. Veteran population in comparison to other countries. Are you aware that about half the VA workforce are Veterans themselves?
Excellent reply on the true work of the VA. With any organization they can and do make mistakes but trashing the whole institution is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I wonder why the NRA graded Jim Gilmore only an “A” when he owns the most firearms and sits on the NRA board, but graded Jeb! an “A+” when the article states that “Jeb Bush is one of the only Republican candidates who does not own a gun and seems to have little personal interest in firearms.”
It might be that Gilmore’s “A” grade may have been a bit of a stretch itself. He sure seems to make use of firearms himself and doesn’t sneak around looking for chances to snatch yours from you. Still, ratings include how much you’ve done to defend and extend firearms rights. His record seems thin there.
Jeb may not be much of gun guy personally, but he signed Florida’s Stand Your Ground bill into law, plus about half a dozen other pro-2A bills. Even so, that might be overstating his commitment, as he would have needed to appear very pro-2A, anyway, as Governor of Florida in his run-up to the presidential race. He could be faking.
It’s that on the job performance that matters, not whether someone owns guns personally. After all, Senator Feinstein owns and carries a sidearm. Unfortunately, she doesn’t want regular people to do so.
The grading system for legislators is based on their voting records. For governors, it’s usually how many bills they either signed or vetoed, pertaining to gun rights. As well as how forcefully they advocated the position either way. If a candidate has judicial experience, his rulings and opinions would be used for the rating grade.
The NRA rating system is far from perfect. Harry Reid kept his A rating by doing the dirty work behind the scenes, and then casting pro gun votes when it didn’t matter.
Virginia used to have a “one gun per month law”, which has since been repealed. Gilmore was elected Attorney General a year after its passage, and would have been obligated by virtue of his office to defend the law in court. That could be a factor as to why he’s A, not A+. Just a guess on my part. That + is a pretty hard grade to maintain unless you’re in a bright red state.
Jeb Bush, on the other hand, never held elected office or any government position before being elected Governor of Florida, and all pro-gun related legislation that crossed his desk, he signed. That includes the 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law. Bush was fortunate that he didn’t have a gun-hostile legislature to deal with.
Interestingly enough, the Gun Owners of America will be factoring in the candidates stands on illegal immigration, along with the gun positions, which doesn’t bode well Jeb, or Lindsey.
Trump, Carson, & Fiorina don’t have ratings for the reasons stated above. Trump’s sons are big game hunters and gun owners, and Trump credits them for his evolution on 2A rights. Carly’s hubby has half a dozen, and I’ll bet she’s fired at least one of them at some point in their marriage.
As for Bobby Jindal, well it didn’t take much googling to find this pic of him being given what looks like a Henry Big Boy…
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/bobby-jindal-gun-control/399683/
One small fact check: Jeb Bush did hold a government position prior to becoming Florida governor. He was Florida’s Secretary of Commerce from 1987 to 1988. You’re right, though, it’s not an elective office, but rather an appointed position. Still, it’s a government position with substantial budget, staff, responsibility, and public profile.
Not that I wasn’t already suspicious but this chart just devalued NRA ratings a little more.
Where I gauge the sincerity of a candidate’s support for guns rights is a critical qualifying factor, beyond that it is a matter of choosing the one with least amount of douchiness. There is still a chance for somebody to impress me (I’m hoping Paul will rise to the occasion) but I may have to sit this one out if the best we can do is another Bush.
I wouldn’t call myself a single issue voter, except on the immensely broad topic of freedom. How do you measure a candidate on this? Well, you could cobble together an index of his or her positions on the top one hundred freedom-related issues, weighting them by relative importance and strength of the evidence supporting them. Then you’d end up with an index, a composite score indicating the candidate’s commitment to and effectiveness in advancing freedom.
Or you could identify a single issue that serves as a proxy for all of the rest. For me, that’s firearms freedom. A candidate’s proven track record there is a sure sign of their numerous other positions. Firearms freedom more closely and succinctly defines the nature of the relationship between citizen and state.
It’s not enough just to vote the right way on gun bills. You must provide a full throated defense of firearms freedom and work to extend our freedom. Get guns right, and it’s extremely unlikely you’ll screw up the other issues.
NOPE- not a one issue guy. It’s in my top 4-baby murder, giving our national security away, gun rights, idiotic climate change socialism. Border security is there too. Where I live (Illinois) my state is about to go bankrupt(it’s already bankrupt-Bruce Rauner is trying to fix the unfixable). Happy marriage is way down my list.
I do think that a candidate’s stance on 2A is a great test of where they stand on personal freedom and trust in the citizens vs government control of our lives. So, I would place a high value on that. However, life is not as simple as that. If the Repubs pick far out VP candidates like the last 2 presidential votes then I may be tempted to vote the other side. And if someone like Trump goes Independent and starts splitting off votes then the whole election could be a disaster and a crap shoot. Same on the other side if Bernie Sanders would decide to go Independent. Could end up a 3 ring circus. OTOH having the Dems in for one more term with the chance to pick more Supreme Court Justices could, potentially, be a HUGE disaster. So, I would take that into account also. That would push me more towards a Repub even if their VP candidate was a bit wacko.
How was Paul Ryan a wacko and I think you have bought off on the MSM smears of Palin
Wait, you place that much weight on the running mate selection?
I’m not quite sure what you mean by way out there. Nevertheless, you think that applies Governor Palin and Congressman Ryan?
Not a single person there can shoot a 3 gun match from what I see.
Gun rights is my gateway issue. If you properly support gun rights your other views are worth looking into.
I’m looking at more than one issue before making my decision, but an anti-gunner or someone with less than a B rating (if they have one) from the NRA will never get my vote in any election. Bonus points are awarded for owning guns but declining to answer how many or what kind they are. (Even more bonus points will be awarded for answering by bragging on owning rare or just plain cool ones; or being a stamp collector.)
Well, rational anarchist, so not a voter so much, but this would be my most important issue if I were because it dominoes into everything else. Well, this and ending the property tax.
Oh and what I mean is, does the candidate know anything about federal gun laws? If you say NFA34, CGA68, AWB94, do they know what you’re talking about? Near as I can tell the only one that might have was Ron Paul.
I see Christie got a ‘C’ for Churro? I think he deserves a well-earned, solid D-. I’m not sure if I trust those high ratings of any candidate who is not a gun owner. And there’s no way I’d trust Trump with anything. He’s obviously a smart guy who will do or say anything to get elected, and he knows exactly what people want to hear. No wonder he leads the polls (the Poles?). Haha, I make joke. Anyway, Rand Paul 2016!
Gun rights are very important to me, but I don’t vote in a 2A vacuum. Lindsey Graham talks about how much he loves his AR-15, and then votes to confirm Loretta Lynch, who’s just as anti-gun as Holder, and a whole lot sneakier..
Dr. Suzanna Hupp, who survived the 1991 Luby’s massacre and went on to be a Texas legislator, and authored the TX concealed carry law passed 19 years ago said it best. I’ve never found another quote that sums it up better than hers…
“How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.”
Rubio only owns a Taurus?
I almost feel like giving him a campaign donation out of pity.
Right now immigration is the only issue that matters. Closing the border and deporting all non citizens is the only chance we have to save this nation. It should have happened back in 1800, would have saved much heartache and many headaches.
I don’t vote period. Nobody has my permission to rule over me. All politicians and the bureaucrats are parasites living off of the productive class.
If you vote, you get what you deserve. Don’t blame me for your stupidity.
A simple algorithm
if(politician.pro_gun() && politician.pro_life())
{
this.vote_for(politician);
}else{
this.complain_about(politician);
}
Those are the 2 most important domestic issues for me too. I look into other things as well, but being pro 2A and anti-tax funded medically elective abortion tells me most of what I need to know about how a politician views citizens.
Pro-birth, not pro-life. If you / they gave a single fuck about the quality of life, you wouldn’t try to force people to have kids that they don’t want. You’re just fine with the being beaten, molested, or killed – you just want them born so that the woman is punished for having sex.
A lot of truth in your post. You must be a product of higher education.
Or will you take other issues into account, too, before casting your vote?
Not a single issue voter.
I am not a single issue voter. But the first test of are you a Republican or a RINO is do you own firearms and honor the phrase “Shall Not Be Infringed.” Bush + Christie = Super RINO. If the RNC tries to shove one or the other of them down my throat, I will vote Independent.
I am a single issue voter. I will not vote for any one that is anti gun. Which is a shame because I identify more with the democrats than I do halliburton/gop.
I will not vote third party, that’s just helping the next barry or slow joe get in.
I respectfully disagree. You live in California. In the end, voting for a 3rd party candidate (or “none of the above”) is same as voting for a republican when it comes to the electoral college. The only difference is you get to voice your displeasure with the ballot choices.
A superficial survey.
– how long have you been a member of the NRA (or other). + for life member ++ if membership dates from before 1st run for any office.
– what branch of the military service? + for Army/USMC ++ for combat arms
– ++ for answering “what firearms do you own?” with “none of your damn business” (is this Carson, Paul, Jindal?)
– + for has given firearms/ammunition/accessories for birthday/wedding/anniv gifts
Can someone explain or link to Pataki’s NRA rating? I know it’s from 2002, but I
Can someone explain or link to Pataki’s NRA rating? I know it’s from 2002, but I can’t find anything that explains why it’s so bad. Only thing on NRA’s site is a blurb from 2003 about how Pataki vetoed an anti-hunting bill, which one would think would earn him some points. I don’t get it.
If the single issue is defending the Constitution….
If you ever had any doubt about the NRA being nothing but shills for the Republican party, Chris Christie having a rating higher than F- should be solid proof.
I’m pretty much a one-issue gun rights voter, although I do “scan” at other issues that will affect gun rights down the road, like immigration, health care, etc., but it’s still all about gun rights. My reasoning is that gun rights are our most vulnerable right and the singular public issue that requires the most character for a politician to support. If a politician does the correct things with gun rights and related issues, I think they are more likely to do the right things elsewhere.
I’m always hearing “I vote my pocketbook.” As someone who has taught college macro-economics, I know that the government doesn’t really have much control of over prosperity. Heck, if the could they would, it’s an instant vote-getter. They pretend to do things that will improve the economy, but it’s a shell game. As they say in Vegas, “the house always wins.” And both parties have shown they make pretty much the same mistakes. The only difference is that with the Dems, the poor get more handouts and with the Reps, big business gets more breaks. Those of us in the middle always get screwed. So I take care of my own pocketbook. I don’t depend on the government for that, and heaven help you if you do.
Years ago I attended a speech by the late, great conservative writer William F. Buckley Jr. He said, “The only intelligent vote for a conservative is for the most conservative candiddate who has a real chance of winning.” I go a step further. None fo the candidates are squeaky clean on gun rights. But I will vote for the most gun-friendly candidate who has a real chance of winning.
I also agree with other posters that the research above show how flawed the NRA’s rating system is. I know some of the reasons first hand. I was personally close to a deal they made too give a blatant anti-gun candidate an A+ to appease a crony of that candidate who had sponsored a bill for the NRA. I also know they don’t listen to, or cooperate with, many state gun organizations, who often have better data on the gun rights records of candidates from their states.
No, because there are a huge amount of things that are important in terms of governmental policy. 2A rights are hugely important, but would I vote for someone who was staunchly 2A, but completely opposed to everything else I supported, even if all of the other candidates were less-enthusiastic about 2A rights? Absolutely not. My ideal candidate unfortunately does not exist, but I’ll do my best to find them. Come election day, if no candidates have won my vote, I’ll just have to bite the bullet and choose the least-shitty one. Not voting is also not an option.
Comments are closed.