The sad part....
....is that there are so few candidates that respect all rights/freedoms.
I try to look beyond the stance on an issue, to the reason behind the stance on that issue. In other words, does the candidate take a certain stance because they fundamentally are a collectivist, or becuase they are making a pragmatic exception to a generally individuallist mind set.
In that sense, the RKBA can be just as poor a litmus test as some other issues. A pol can support the 2A just because he grew up hunting like his constituents and enjoys the having the support of the NRA. He may be merely upholding his memories of the good 'ol days when fine young Christian white men grew up with a love of guns, hunting, and apple pie. When push comes to shove, this guy may not really believe in the 2A as a means of overthrowing oppression and as an inalienable individual right; in fact, he's the guy who will likely support "common sense" gun laws, especially if the mostly effect the urban dwelling minorities who aren't his constituency, anyway.
I take the same philosophy with other issues. We seem collectively afraid of discussing the A-word issue here, but the reasons behind a pol's stance on that one can also provide insights on how that pol's views are formed on the RKBA. I can support pol's on either side of that issue, depending on the "why" and how that "why" will effect his philosophy on other issues, such as RKBA. On the No-A-word side, if the pol feels that way because he believes people have inalienble rights to things like life, self-defense, guns, free speech, etc. and that those rights just happen to start at conception, I'll support him; he'll probably be a true, pricipled friend of the RKBA. If a pol takes the same stance, but does so because of religious convictions, I may still vote for him as the lesser of two evils, but I'll never fully trust him becuase he's beholden to his religion, not my freedoms.
On the surface, more pro A-word folks are anti-RKBA, but there are exceptions, and the reasons for those matter, too. If a pol falls on the pro-A-word side because he's a Libertarian thinking dude who doesn't give a rat's hindquarters whether or not you kill your offspring, I can vote for that guy, too--he probably doesn't care what guns I own as long as I don't point them at him. If a pol feels pro-A word because they believe a female has a "right" to escape the consequences of her actions, I won't vote for that guy; he'll try to mug me for money help others escape the consequences of not planning for retirement, planning for ill health, etc. And he'll also try to absolve others of the responsibility for defending themselves by disarming all of us.
Rather than worry about any single contentious issue, I just focus on whether a pol is more concerned with freedom or security. Unfortunately, we have two parties that pander to two sets of insecurities, and (other than maybe Ron Paul) only third parties that are truly worried about freedom:
R's: pander to our fear of Islamists, of eroding family values, of eroding morality, of losing our right/means to defend ourselves, of losing our income to government muggers, of hoards of illegal immigrants, etc.
D's: pander to our fears of losing our Social Security handout, of being "forced" to bear a child, of being bankrupted by medical costs, of having to hear slurs against our particular minority, of having other countries think we're mean, etc.
So, I feel the R's pander to a set of fears that I'm more likely to share (so I tend to side with them), but they''re still trading liberty for safety in such things as music sensorship, the PAtriot Act, etc. Likewise, tehy're support for the 2A may be more based in fear than principle....
That's my rambling quota for the day.:barf:
