One-Issue Voting

It was on his show yesterday, along with a segment where he visited a gunshop, tried out lots of different firearms, and decided on what looked like a Stoner rifle. Anyone else see it?
Click to expand...
yes and if I could get one job in the entertainment industry it would be as a consultant going from show to show making sure people kept their fingers off triggers :p
 
You people ever hear of voting for a candidate based on a broad range of domestic, economic and foreign positions they have? Instead of just what you consider gun attitudes you don't like or like?
Click to expand...

I've heard of it, but if they can't get that one issue right I usually don't agree with them on a host of other issues.


Best way to get a lousy president. Everyone votes on their ISSUE.
Click to expand...

The best way to continue to have your gun rights infringed more than they currently are is to vote for someone who doesn't value them the same as you.;)
 
I vote based on a broad array of issues, many of which are contradictory according to the two party platforms. But there are some issues that I will not budge on.
 
Trust me, I can see where you're coming from. But there is always the option of using your vote strategically to semi-protest. Vote against incumbents. Try to vote such that different parties control different branches or chambers of legislatures. Basically pit them against each other, and maybe keep them from screwing you as hard. Or just consistently vote third party to increase their chances of receiving funding.

Just a thought. There's more than one way to use your vote.
Click to expand...

true.

im just begining to think that working through special interest may be the most effective way to go.

although most of them are almost as manic and all over the map as the politicians.which amazes me,seeing as how their job would seem to be fairly specific....i guess just by the need to "play the game" they're all over the place and cant seem to concentrate on the stated goals.

:o :( :barf: :mad:
 
I have one issue, FREEDOM. The Freedom to speak, to own firearms, to vote, to have a country not full of illegal aliens, peckerheads running the government and so on!
 
I tend to look at where they stand on issues.....

That affect me personally. And then I look at what they have done on those issues (which may be different that what they say), and THEN look at where they are on issues which do not affect me directly and persionally.

If they are in favor of gun control, I am against them. I don't give a rat's backside where they are on other issues, gun control affects me personally.

Maybe the Patriot act is not a good thing, not because of how it is currently being used, but because of what it could allow future politicals to do, I don't really know for sure. What I do know is that it has not affected me in a direct noticable way. Therefore, it is not at the top of my hot button list.

Maybe the former mayor of NYC really doesn't want to take our guns away, or force us to have special licenses in order to keep some of our property. I don't know for sure, but based on what he has said and DONE in the past, I don't think I will support his bid for further govt office.

Hillary's proposals flat scare me to death! Too many people only look at having to pay less out of pocket and so support govt run medicine. You want socialised medicine? You think the Govt will do such a good job, just look at the VA hospitals! And as far as the rest of it is concerned, I just look back at all the wonderful things we had during her husband's reign. Ruby Ridge, Waco, the AWB '94, and who can forget, Monica? etc. I'm sure that if elected, Hillary will not make the same mistakes (again). She will, however, make other ones, and I for one would not care to see that happen, because there is no telling just how many people will get hurt this next time.

I am not entirely a single issue voter, and I do see the point that voting for someone just because they support gun rights should not be done. Supporting gun rights is a minimum requirement, then go on from there and see what they think (and do) on other important issues.

On the other hand, someone actively against gun rights, right there they are disqualified in my book. I don't care if we are in 100% agreement on everything else, if they are working for gun control, they are not for me!
 
A couple of years ago I would have said that I was a liberal through and through. As I've grown up a bit and started shooting on a regular basis I've tended to find myself coming into conflict more and more with friends who would describe themselves in similar a similar fashion to which I once described myself.

Talking to them, admittedly with a focus on firearms, I've come to realise that anyone who doggedly sticks to one point of view is as deluded as the people the define themselves in opposition too.

So I now describe myself as a 'moderate' and take a generally pretty cynical line towards professional politicians and, more broadly, towards people in general. Like lots of people have said on this thread already, very rarely does one candidate or ideology have the correct solution to all of societies problems. There thinking on gun control might be plain dumb, but maybe their healthcare plan is pretty good - or not. It's important we all be chilled about the whole thing.
 
Talking to them, admittedly with a focus on firearms, I've come to realise that anyone who doggedly sticks to one point of view is as deluded as the people the define themselves in opposition too.
Click to expand...

Yes, the country was set up to be non-extremist, everything about the government and it's three branches reliant on each other to govern, gives us a system where extreme positions and dogged commitments to the extreme, all or nothing views, has to become modified thru the political and governmental process, so it became a country of centrists, reinforced by the two-party system which developed quickly. No one is going to appeal to all on every issue, but someone will appeal to a majority of voters, and you will have a stable country, not governed usually by allegiance to one black and white position, but one that reflects many different individuals, in many circumstances, with many different philosophic positions, political bents, religious beliefs. A non-Balkanized nation. This is best for all.
 
Talking to them, admittedly with a focus on firearms, I've come to realise that anyone who doggedly sticks to one point of view is as deluded as the people the define themselves in opposition too.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that someone who is a die-hard pro 2nd Amendment supporter is just as deluded as a die-hard Brady anti-gunner?

Thats an odd point of view for someone posting on a gun forum.
 
I'll go along with that. You have to understand the nuances of all sides of an argument if you wish to convince anybody of anything. All too often the argument comes down to "you disagree with me, therefore you hate America". While it may be emotionally satisfying at times, it's horribly counterproductive.
 
Yes.
Click to expand...

IMO, your entire "theory" is wrong. This country was set up exactly so people could have extreme views. Compare our rights and freedoms to any other country and they are pretty extreme.
The centrist stuff has evolved as the PC crowd pounded their views into the heads of people with weak minds and people began to believe that they had to agree or at least compromise their views so everyone felt useful/loved/their feelings wouldn't be hurt etc. It has weakened the nation morally and physically.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to BluesMan for the very pleasant welcome.

So you are saying that someone who is a die-hard pro 2nd Amendment supporter is just as deluded as a die-hard Brady anti-gunner?
Click to expand...

I suppose that would depend on what you mean by 'die-hard'. I love shooting, but I would say that there ought to be some limits on the kind of fire-power individuals are allowed to posses and the circumstances under which their are allowed to posses it. That said I would oppose anyone who tried to push these limits too far.

What do I mean by 'too far'? I have no idea, I'm 19, I don't got all this stuff figured out yet.:cool:
 
Welcome Malexander

A lot of the debate over gun control centers on the differing view points of what constitutes "too far". We have a segment in this country that apparently believes more than 10 round capacity, folding stocks, pistol grips, and flash suppessors are too much firepower. Others would only draw the line at nuclear weapons. I believe we should be somewhere in between.

We have speed limit laws, which don't make it a crime to own a car that can do 190mph, only a crime to drive that fast on a public road. Personally I don't think there should be laws about what you own, only about what you do that involves others. My personal definition of "reasonable rules" is "and ye harm no one, do as ye will".

On the other hand, I also believe that if you harm someone, the hammer chould come down! I just object to those who believe that because of what I own (or want to own) that 'if" is not an "if" but a "when", and therefore I should not be allowed to own such things.

Welcome to the forum, hope you enjoy it here.
 
IMO, your entire "theory" is wrong. This country was set up exactly so people could have extreme views. Compare our rights and freedoms to any other country and they are pretty extreme.
Click to expand...

It's not a theory: checks and balances in the 3 branches, the 2 two party system etc., all of it will function to keep one narrow spectrum of political opinion on one issue from "kidnapping" the country. It can't, because too many people involved in too many governmental functions and who represent the whole spectrum of political thought on a huge variety of issues are involved, and must either directly or indirectly pass on any law or candidate: so the swing is always towards discourse, compromise: and the center. That's how we govern, ACT in passing laws and choosing officials.

Views are another topic. And you're right. Any view is freely available to anyone and so is the right to express it. But one view that is extreme will not be able to ACT to establish itself as a governing determinant: it's in the minority. Except if the entire country has become markedly extreme. Still, then the Supreme Court is there to brake that temporary phenomena.

The problem is the attempt to choose a candidate, based on a narrow choice centered around one issue, and one side of one issue: "special-interest" voting. It splinters the voting public into factions that are islands of one-note interests, and introduces what many have referred to as a polarized political process that does not represent the actuality of a presently non-polarized populace. It removes discourse since voting interests are separate, polarizes the discourse regarding any one issue, and removes wise communal judgment on choice of leaders - since that goal is replaced by the goal of advancing only an individual interest on an individual issue.

It is not healthy and we would have no constitution had our founders engaged in the same. But they gave wise cuts to their differences and fashioned a country based on the same - their interest lay in the general good.
 
I wouldn't say that there are more than a handfull of true "one issue" voters. There are however plenty of people that would choose not to vote for a particular candidate based on their stance on one issue.

The candidate I vote for may not be the MOST supportive of my views, but they need to be PRO-GUN and PRO-LIFE!

I'll be voting for Huckabee in the primary but may well vote third party in the general.
 
I wouldn't say that there are more than a handfull of true "one issue" voters. There are however plenty of people that would choose not to vote for a particular candidate based on their stance on one issue.
Click to expand...

That's one-issue voting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top