Be a one issue voter

R

Roybean

New member
I agree the the following written in a recent issue of "Dillon Blue Press" by Peter Caroline in an article titled: "Why I am a one-issue voter"

He says: "The Declaration of Independence stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The most important of these rights is life, without which there is logically enough, no liberty nor pursuit of happiness. How exactly does one protect one's life? You must have the means of self-defense, which may include firearms. In 1776, there were no police and no 911. TOday, although we have both, the police have no legal obligation to protect you as an individual, and 911 may not provide a timely response. There is also the possibility that you may one day have to protect yourself against your own government. A 1980 Oregon Supreme Court decision ruled that there were three reason to for Consititutional "Right to keep and bear arms" provisions: (1) As a deterrent against governmental oppression, (2) To make the right of personal defense meaningful, and (3) a preference for home-grown militia over a standing army."

"Regardless of his or her position on any other issue, the candidate who is not one hundred percent actively in facor of my right to keep and bear arms does not respect my God given right to life. The candidate is basicallly saying to me, "I do not trust you with the means of self-defense;l I do not recognize your ritht to live." It is very significant that the most egregious anti-gun proponents are themselves either armed or surrounded by armed bodyguards."

Thanks Mr. Caroline, I too am a one issue voter and the issue is always the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS and which candidate best supports my right.

Most politicians who say they believe in the right to bear arms are really saying, "I believe you should have the right to bear the kinds and types of arms I believe you should bear.
 
I am a two-issue voter.

Perhaps not suprisingly, both my issues are variations on protecting the "God given right to life" that Roybean spoke about.
 
I am now a one-issue voter because the loss of the Second Amendment (the Keystone Amendment) will mean the total loss of the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, the loss of the Second Amendment will make all our other opinions irrelevant.

The government will be totally in charge of us: our actions, our paychecks, our schools, our hospitals, our medical care, etc. etc.


------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Roybean,

Do you have more info on that OR supreme court case? I'd love to have it for reference in my local efforts.

Thanks!

------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our only "No compromise" gun lobby. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
 
Longshot see http://www.2ndlawlib.com/journals/kch-3cit.html for a good article by Kates regarding State SC cases. Mostly deals with the OR SC. Will also give you the sites to look up these cases so that you can read the full opinions for yourself.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
As to the one issue vote, In CA I have a delima maybe someone can give me some insights to. Feindstein (SP intentional) is running against Tom Cambell for the Senate race. Don't need to tell you about Feindstein's stance on gun control.... Now Cambell on the other hand believes that the 2nd means individuals, but that 'Well-regulated' means that the gov should regulate guns. He is for the ban on assault weapons, trigger locks, etc. He just falls short of a ban on all guns.

Now here is the delima, Dr. Fendsteen is so evil that I will do anything within my power to get her voted out... But, replace her with who? Cambell? He's the only one with a shot at the title. Guess it's going to be the lesser of the two evils again.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Incrementalism is OK if it goes your way.

Once the dude gets in, be sure to communicate that you voted for him because he is better than Diane by a little bit and he should get even better.

Called Shaping by the Skinnerians.
 
Bookie, if at this time I were in your shoes, I think I'd check to see if there were a third-party candidate on the ballot and vote for him/her. If not, vote for Campbell. I'd love to see her flipping burgers.

I've been a single-issue voter for well over a decade, and it sometimes pains me to do so.
There have been candidates with whom I've agreed on a number of issues, but they were lacking on the 2nd. So, I vote for someone else or none of the above. For me, the 2nd is the only issue that is on the very front of the front burner.

Dick
Want to send Bush a message? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
For those interested the Oregon Supreme Court case on the right to keep and bear arms based on the Oregon Constitution is:
Oregon -vs- Kessler and is found in 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94. It was decided July 15, 1980 by the Oregon Supreme Court. It is an excellent decision on the right to keep and bear arms. It also should be persuasive for those who have a similar constitutional provision in Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylania, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. The Oregon constitutional provision was taken verbatim from the Indiana Constitution drafted in 1816. It included an excellent discussion on the history of the right to keep and bear arms. Article I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution states: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."

Citing J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. 3, pa.746 (1833) the court said, "Defense of themselves" has also been said to include an individual's right to bear arms to protect his person and home.

"Self-defense has been recognized as a privilege in both civil and criminal law since about 1400 in England and at all times in the United States. Although the right to bear arms for self protection does not appear to have been an important development in England, the justification for a right to bear arms in defense of person and home probably reflects the exigencies of the rural American experience."

You should be able to obtain a copy of this case at your local county law library or from most any lawyer in Oregon. Most county law libraries have cases from all 50 states so those who do not live in Oregon can also easily obtain a copy from the law library in most county seats in the United States.
 
Are you REALLY a one issue voter? I'm not, it only looks that way http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html

Read "Why did it have to be ...guns"




------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bad Kiki! No karaoke in the house!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Flynt is right. You guys stink!!!
 
It's not only a matter of voting for a pro-2nd Amendment type (or variations thereof) -- you should volunteer to support his/her campaign.

It only takes one anti vote to negate yours, but if you can get a couple of on-our-side-no-voters to the polls, the impact is far greater.
 
Originally posted by Roybean:
I agree the the following written in a recent issue of "Dillon Blue Press" by Peter Caroline in an article titled: "Why I am a one-issue voter"

I have been a one issue voter for many years, but the major parties refuse to give us candidates!
Click to expand...
 
I have always voted against any one who seemed to have no respect for the 1st amendment, freedom of speech and religion, as it has always been a struggle to maintain this.
During the mid 90's, as it became clear that the current administration is seriously attacking the the 2nd amendment, support for the right to keep and bare arms has become a true litmus test for me. As noted in other posts, the other amendments are mere pieces of paper without the 2nd.
I am slowly tracking down the politicans outrages against the others as well. Violations of our other rights (warrants, siezures, trials) have proceeded at an alarming rate in the 20 years, but are less well publicized and less protested.
I want politicans who understand and protect the full Bill of Rights now. I am less interested in issues of left and right in what I see as the current crisis of the break down of basic democratic principles.
 
Herodotus: The constitution is not democratic - democracy is the politicians elected by MAJORITY WILL able to do whatever they want.

The constitution represents a limitation on what the majority want.

Sorry to have to break this to you but if you tell the majority of people (including most gunowners) that the second means (as it does) that anyone can own a fullauto then they are anti-second-amendment.

Battler.
 
What Erik said.

pax

"A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you." -- Ramsey Clark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top