I am a simplistic one-issue voter

[WESHOOT2]

I (now) vote based on 'gun rights' only.

I don't care about tax policy.
Nor environmental issues.
Nor education spending.
Not even "the War".

I vote my simple single issue because in my now-53-yr-old life I've found folks fall only two ways: "I can take care of myself. I may need help sometimes, but I don't expect the world owes it to me, nor do I demand it"
vs
"Entitled......."

So I stick to voting my simple single issue, suggesting to those who'll listen "If one is unable to grasp the meaning AND intent of the 2nd, how can one be expected to grasp difficult issues (like the War, or taxes, or funding, or the environment)?"

Who will you vote for?
How will you vote?

I'll be voting for my self-evident right to own and wear guns.
Only.

Of course, I'm simple.

 

[Crimp]

Count me as a simple voter too. I have other issues important to me, but when it comes time to vote, the candidate has to first pass through my 2nd Amendment filter.

 

[WESHOOT2]

Other issues are important to me, too.

I admire your simplicity.

 

[DMacLeod]

I too vote that way. About 6 years ago I was on a job in Boston. The Steward (I am a union carpenter) was going around to all the members asking if they had signed the PAC cards. Though it is only 5 cents per hour I refused. He got very uppity and I was right back in his face. Enough so that other carpenters stopped to watch the confrontation. The steward got all red faced and I was kind of smirking.

He then asked what was more important than getting a Dem elected and hopefully more work for the future. My reply was (and rather loudly) "the 2nd Ammendmant and the right to keep and bear arms". His look was one of bewilderment as he walked away shaking his head.

I am registered to vote and do so as an Independant.

 

[Yellowfin]

I am that way as well, but find myself saddened by increasing scarcity of anyone to vote for. I really wish there was a negative vote to where I could simply take a vote away from a candidate I oppose rather than vote for the other one I simply despise less.

 

[madmag]

"If one is unable to grasp the meaning AND intent of the 2nd, how can one be expected to grasp difficult issues (like the War, or taxes, or funding, or the environment)?"

Well said.

From now on the key phrase for me is "I support sportsman & hunters rights to have firearms" Anyone that says that looses my vote instantly.

 

[thallub]

My Second Amendment rights mean more to me than any other political issue. Sadly, we have a choice between two anti-gunners this go round. We all know that Obama is an anti. Many folks do not know about McCain and his anti antics. Read about the McCain-Lieberman-Reed-DeWine "gun show loophole" bill that they tried to ram up our butts.



http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=150

 

[Waitone]

A candidate or party which treats the Second Amendment with respect has a higher probability of treating the rest of the constitution and BoR with similar respect.

I consider the Second Amendment to be the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I (now) vote based on 'gun rights' only.

So, if a candidate says "I will defend your 2A rights" but also supports making it legal for the government to tap your phones without a warrant, to search your home without a warrant, to seize your holdings and property without due process or compensation, to hold you in custody without due process or representation, and to enact laws that apply only to the people and not to members of the government you would still vote for them?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

IMHO - the one issue voter enjoys the correlation of most (not all) progun candidates with social conservative issues that the one issue voter supports.

The test would come when the one issue voter is faced with someone who is antithetical to the social conservative but is strongly progun. If the other candidate is socially conservative but the dread 'Fudd' - what then?

 

[TimRB]

"I really wish there was a negative vote to where I could simply take a vote away from a candidate I oppose rather than vote for the other one I simply despise less."

I think you're being tongue-in-cheek here (maybe not) but I am trying to think of a reason such a system wouldn't work. For one thing, it would be a way that a third party candidate could have a chance. If, for example, half the voters in each of the Big Two parties anti-voted the other party's candidate, the net would be (since the two parties are about even in numbers) zero votes for the Big Two candidates, leaving the third party whatever he would have gotten anyway, since those voters *always* vote their consciences. Huh.

Tim

 

[P5 Guy]

Single Issue Voter

I've been one for quite a while and now I've no one to vote for

 

[zukiphile]

I'll be voting for my self-evident right to own and wear guns.

What do you do when he isn't running?

 

[YukonKid]

+1 to PBP

I do look at what they all say about owning weapons, but the second amendment is second for a reason. I would like my other amendment to be upheld as well and will not vote for a tyrannical or idiotic figure simply because he says its ok for me to own an AK-47.

I just raised a question with no intension of hi-jacking the thread, why is the second amendment second?

 

[kingbubbatruck]

In a 2 party system?

What other choice do you have?

I agree with Waitone.

The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees the rest of the constitution.

I know, it's a simple bumper sticker, but it matters.

I believe that the biggest believers in the first amendment are also the ones that support the second.

The ones who don't support the 2nd, only support the first if you agree with them....

 

[Playboypenguin]

The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees the rest of the constitution.

I am sorry, but that is absurd. If you allow your liberties to be whittled away slowly, having guns in the house will do you little good what-so-ever. This Rambo/John Wayne mentality of "as long as I have my guns I am invincible" is delusional and naive.

Once your other rights have disappeared it would be very easy for the government to pick you off in the middle of the night and make you disappear.

I find it funny that the OP used the word "simplistic" because that is what the politicians see you as when you are a one issue voter...simple. They see you as simple minded, simple to manipulate, and simple to abuse.

 

[JuanCarlos]

A candidate or party which treats the Second Amendment with respect has a higher probability of treating the rest of the constitution and BoR with similar respect.

I consider the Second Amendment to be the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

I'm not sure the probability is really any higher. I think we've seen a lot of unconstitutional crap from a lot of pro-gun politicians over the years. Your canary may still be singing long after the miners are dead.

What other choice do you have?

I agree with Waitone.

The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees the rest of the constitution.

I know, it's a simple bumper sticker, but it matters.

I believe that the biggest believers in the first amendment are also the ones that support the second.

The ones who don't support the 2nd, only support the first if you agree with them....

I believe one of the mods here...might be Antipitas, might be somebody else...made an argument as to why the first amendment is no less important than the second (and possibly more so) in defending freedom. If the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. amendments go, it's probably far too late to try and vote from the rooftops. If you're not already in prison or dead, you will be shortly and nobody who lives outside your neighborhood will ever find out, or care.

And I've found that many of the biggest believers in the second amendment are more than willing to support policies breaching some of the others, provided it furthers their own agenda or beliefs. For instance, I've run into more than a few that think the Establishment clause only applies to those dirty non-Christian religions, and the Free Practice clause only applies to Christians. Or that Search and Seizure goes out the window if you're a dirty druggie. Or that Due Process doesn't apply to them there terr'rists.

Again, the canary would still sing long after the miners are dead.

IMHO - the one issue voter enjoys the correlation of most (not all) progun candidates with social conservative issues that the one issue voter supports.

The test would come when the one issue voter is faced with someone who is antithetical to the social conservative but is strongly progun. If the other candidate is socially conservative but the dread 'Fudd' - what then?

An interesting question indeed. Unfortunately the Democratic Party (the party most likely to put up the more socially liberal candidate) has their head stuck too far up their third point of contact regarding guns to ever let us put this to the test.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The interesting question was my point - that the usual one issue poster doesn't have to deal with this conundrum and ignores the possibility when they say it's only one issue.

As far as the 2nd being the defender of the rest - that works in theory but not in practice. That also depends on the set of defined liberties for you. Many social conservative gun defenders are quite OK with what other folks see as attacke on basic rights.

For example - and not wanting to start a thread hijack - it's quite common to see folks on gun fora argue for a anti-flag burning amendment as an justifiable as the Flag is a totem that is sacred. The right of free expression doesn't extend to its burning. Others would see that burning an item you own in a safe manner is free expression. We would not see a German burning the Nazi flag in 1938 as disloyal but admirable. We see folks here arguing for torture as acceptable given what they define as 'enemy' or exigent circumstances.

So the 2nd might be a backstop for tyranny - I agree that most of the defense of civil liberties in the USA has been through legislation and the courts.

 

[kingbubbatruck]

Well,

To try and bring it back on point. In our 2 party system let's assume we have two choices.

Now let's assume that both candidates support positions that are un-palatable, but one candidate supports the 1 issue most important to you, and the other does not.

I think it's the historical dominance of the 2 parties system that forces people to hold their nose and cast their vote based on the 1 issue that matters most to them.

Of course you always have the option of voting 3rd party, but in the past we've seen that 3rd party candidates usually have little chance of winning, and a better chance of splitting support for one of the candidates.

What are the chances that we would ever see a true independent 3rd party come about with a truly viable candidate that wouldn't just be a fringe candidate and that would appeal to a majority?

I agree that the masses aren't going to grab their guns and pitchforks and storm washington to enact change, but are people going to get fed up with limited choice of candidates enough to make it work with a 3rd party?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As in most decisions - one can go for the sum of the positive or negatives as one decision model - but that is tempered by disqualification rules on a specific issue.

Not an easy answer - there is rational choice and emotional choice.

As far as a third party - haven't we figured out there is really ONE party - the Washington DC party. It has some factions but the structural support for the Dems and GOP against third party challenges makes the notion of democracy interesting.

I (as if anyone cares) would get rid of parties. I think party loyalty is irrelevant to democracy and just brings on party based self-interest to the detriment of the country.

I would prefer to vote for candidates based on their views, not loyalty to some party platform or loyalty to a moronic leader.

Be antiglobal warning, pro gay rights, progun, proabortion, prodrilling in Anwar or whatever and say why you feel this way - rather than because big money and party 'loyalty' drives you.

Ditch the parties.