Open Letter from Duane Liptak, Magpul VP & NRA Board Member

Good points, while I encourage individuals to speak their minds against the political tribal correctness of their perceived group, I do think that organizational leaders have the responsibility to decide if they tie their issue focused group to other issues that weaken their overall position.

Thus, when I was working - I could express my views on political issues but not evoke my institution as implying that it gave some imprimatur to my views on such.

Living in litmus test, tribal purity world is not helpful.
 
Glenn, your approach would be wonderful if it could be implemented.

The problem that I see is that many, perhaps most folks have a "basket" of beliefs. Most anti-gun people tend to be left- liberal on social, moral and political issues.

Most pro-gun folks tend to be individualist/ conservative.

I see no practical way, among average voters, to separate gun control from foreign policy, taxation, abortion, welfare, etc.

A sad situation, but one that I fear we will always have to live with.
 
I grant you that is a problem. We circle around to the idea of the one issue voter screed only works (as I said before) because of the assumed correlation of the one issue with the other issues you agree with.

If there are 'other' one issue topics - what to do? Some assume that this or that issue is paramount and can't see that folks might disagree.

We aren't going to debate the merits of the other 'one issue' items though. That leads to madness and closings.

Can the one issue segment carry the day for that one issue if linked to one political subsection - that is an empirical question.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
...We circle around to the idea of the one issue voter screed only works (as I said before) because of the assumed correlation of the one issue with the other issues you agree with.

If there are 'other' one issue topics - what to do? Some assume that this or that issue is paramount and can't see that folks might disagree....
Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people are not "one issue" voters. Each candidate has a platform -- an assortment of positions on a variety of issues such as gun control, minority rights, welfare, immigration policy, gay rights, women's issues, foreign policy, free trade, etc. To some extent a candidate's platform is defined by the platform of the party with which he's affiliated.

Different voters have different core, or defining, interests. For example, someone might have a very strong interest in minority rights and will favor a candidate whose platform position on minority rights most closely aligns with his own. He will do so even though that candidate's pro-gun control position is inconsistent with the voter's [weak] pro-RKBA view.

In many ways, in a number of States especially, the RKBA community has severe "packaging" problems as far as available candidates go. Too often a pro-RKBA candidate's position on various social issues make him an unacceptable choice for some voters who are pro-RKBA but also more aligned on various social issues. I see that a lot here -- where I know some shooters who just can't seem to bring themselves to go along with the one reasonably pro-RKBA candidate because of his positions on other issues.
 
Glenn, I think "one issue" works or not according to the perceived threat.

With Mrs. Clinton, there was no doubt that ultra repressive, "Gestapo" style gun control would have been a very high priority. Many social conservatives voted for the president regardless of disagreements on social/moral issues.

If conservative "gun people" do not perceive an imminent threat, they will vote "one issue" on some other issue.

And that, IMHO, is the danger.
 
I think that’s right, Frank, and moreso, I think many people are multi-issue “exclusive” voters. What I mean by that is they have multiple, non-negotiable issues. Personally, my positions on several issues are absolutes. Not only is being “pro-gun” not enough, you’d better be able to check at least 4 boxes or you’re an automatic No.

Sometimes, this precludes my voting at all... or (rarely) voting for a fringe candidate who can’t possibly win, because I simply will not vote for either major party candidate.

That situation has gotten worse, and quickly. 25 years ago, I would have at least considered candidates from either party. Probably 15 years ago, one of them became an automatic NO. The other one has gone from, “Hey, I like those guys...” to “Fine, but I’m holding my nose when I pull the lever...” to “Wait... who’s Option C again?...”
 
That situation has gotten worse, and quickly. 25 years ago, I would have at least considered candidates from either party. Probably 15 years ago, one of them became an automatic NO. The other one has gone from, “Hey, I like those guys...” to “Fine, but I’m holding my nose when I pull the lever...” to “Wait... who’s Option C again?...”
Click to expand...
I've always believed that if the Lord had intended for man to vote, he would have given us candidates.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top