Defensive Carry banner

Single Issue Voter

2K views 32 replies 23 participants last post by  mcp1810 
#1 ·
This is an article that I found interesting. Many accuse me of being a "single issue" voter. I have always said that if a candidate is as avidly pro 2A as I am they are usually where I am when it comes to the war, immigration, welfare, abortion and other issues. Not always, but quite often. What do you think?

http://www.lneilsmith.org/

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?
 
See less See more
#5 ·
A lot of the politicians who are more or less with us on guns are not where I am on other issues.

But candor compels me to acknowledge the truth and worth of havegunjoe's "Smith Litmus Test".

He's right. If some dude doesn't think you're entitled or competent to save your own life, he is unworthy of trust.

He (or she) calls into question the value of your vote for him (or her). If I can't be trusted to protect me and mine, I sure as hell shouldn't be trusted with voting.
 
#6 ·
I also think the fact that most strong 2A supporters will vote based primarily on 2A stances of polititians gives us political power beyond our numbers. I know a lot of folks who woud say they are not anti 2A but favor some form of "reasonable gun control" don't vote solely on that issue because it is not a passion for most of them and they may not even know how the candidate they support stands on the issue. Most of us are passionate on 2A issues and it weighs heavily on how we vote and most of us always vote.
 
#8 ·
Ok, I may get flamed for this, but what the heck.......
So, if I am reading this right the author has no problem with convicted violent criminals, children, and the mentally incompetent being able to walk into a hardware store and walk out with automatic weapons, and we should oppose any politician that disagrees with him.
Does no one else have a problem with that?
 
#9 ·
I don't believe that is what he said....



He said, "If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child".. He never metioned crimianls or the metally incompetent. He talks about his "average constituent". Also don't forget under 18 is considered a child, sometimes all the way up to 21 even.
 
#10 ·
Correct HGJ, he did say "any" as in anyone.

As well he made no qualifier at all to take into account the mentally unfit of which there is a large and growing percentage of amongst the population. That's been covered and discussed at length in threads prior and recent never mind the news at large (e.g. Cho Seung Hui). The author made no mention to except criminals either be they past (i.e. felons) or present who are also constituents on the average.
Criminals include not just burglars and carjackers but rapists, child molesters, check kiters, scammers, white collar thieves and other persons who very likely appear on the outside to be and look just like us and are our neighbors as well as those who are already convicted of crime(s) and back on the streets and/or paroled.

He made no exceptions what so ever and said; "If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you."

And what exactly is a "responsible child" anyway?
By wide law a child is a minor and a minor is a person who is 17 or younger. An adult is a person who is 18 and older. The only exceptions to this are toward buying a pistol and purchasing liquor which kicks in at 21.
Otherwise an 18 yr. old young adult is considered just that and can sign durable contracts, will go to big boy prison if they mess up, and is allowed to go off to war too. A few states will allow children to marry at as early as 16 but to this discussion that's not relevant.
I know of not too many responsible children in general and if he's okay with firearms being allowed for sale to them then why not alcohol too and lets do away with provisional licenses and drivers permit rules for teens. Just give out a drivers license to any and all who ask for one and call it okay.

I agree with MCP...this guy the author I could not get behind if he were running for office. Atleast not without some more detail and explanation toward what appears to be a completely simplistic and old world ideal of living.
I fill out roughly the same forms to purchase and go home with a gun as I do a motor vehicle. Folks aren't bellyaching about the forms they have to fill out for their local Ford or Harley dealer that also goes to a state registry.

I don't know too many people in general at large who agree with me on every point toward any and everything even amongst my closest friends and relatives too. That is normal and human and I don't expect as much either.
To imagine locating of all people a politician in specific to do same and/or to vote for one because they _say_ they do on a singular point and to assume/hope/suppose they will do so toward all of my other concerns and views seems to me to be somewhat short sighted and possibly even naive.

- Janq
 
#11 ·
I am sorry but I don't think he was including criminals or the insane when he refereed to a politicians "average constituent". Not unless he happens to be the representative of Devil's Island or some such place. He would be referring to people like you and me who make up the vast majority of his and just about anyones constituency.
 
#30 ·
I am sorry but I don't think he was including criminals or the insane when he refereed to a politicians "average constituent".
Sorry, I could not disagree more. He said "without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper". So how the heck can you "assume" he meant only the good guys. How on earth would you know a good guy from a bad guy if Anyone can buy a gun with no ID?
 
#12 ·
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
Ok, so if we don't produce any ID or sign any paper, how does he propose to keep the weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill, convicted felons and irresponsible children? How are we supposed to identify these people?:confused:
 
#13 ·
...What do you think?

http://www.lneilsmith.org/


...Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put...

...They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

...I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?
There is a lot of truth here, and I also find myself being a single-issue voter. The reason is simple, without 2A...you will eventually lose the others...:yup:
 
#14 ·
The single issue is "control"

The gun issue discussed here is a surrogate for the broader question of "control".

Does the politician want the government to control you, or will you be allowed to control yourself? Obviously there is a balance to be struck here, somewhere between anarchy and Orwell's "1984". But where on that scale does the politician stand?

His position on gun control is an indicator.
 
#15 ·
It always amazes me when one politician will trumpet the sanctity of one set of rights, while eagerly casting aside another. As Janq has stated quite well, the simplistic approach doesn't always work when complex issues are on the table. I can't be a single-issue voter.
 
#16 ·
Weapons ownership is the basic definition of self ownership.

If you can own a gun, and you have the right to protect yourself, you are the owner of yourself. You are not a slave.

If you are forced by law to disarm yourself or be registered in a government program/registry in order to defend yourself, you are not a free man.

And his point about anyone going into a store and buying a gun no matter what type, fine. Gun ownership is good. But gun ownership is only half of the cake. What is really the nail in the coffin is the right to self-defense. If you can own a weapon, yet your right to carry this gun within 1000 yards of a school, within your vehicle, under your jacket, whatever, is infringed, it does not matter if you can buy a bazooka at wal-mart. If you are slaughtered in court and your family is bankrupted and has to visit daddy or mommy in jail because you defended yourself and your family it does not matter if you have an auto sear in your AR-15 or not.

The most important bit is the legal climate, that the law sides with the legal gun owner as long as he is in the right.

We can own guns over here. But the right to self-defense doesn't exist. The right, or even the privilege to carry does not exist. Our lives are continued or ended at the whim of the state and whether or not The Man is there at the right time. (and he's not armed either so it won't help much) We are not free. We are serfs.
 
#17 ·
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
excellent quote right there...I like it
 
#18 ·
So Raysheen do I understand correctly that you would have no problem with Charles Manson getting paroled tomorrow and walking into a Hardware store and buying an Uzi or MP-5 and walking the streets of your hometown?
 
#22 ·
Tanksoldier, it seems we understand the following passage a little differently. I will put in bold the parts that jump out at me.

"If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, anyman, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything-- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. "

So we are supposed to oppose any politician that would deny the Charlie Mansons, the other Cho's out there and my six year old son (he is a very responsible six year old) instant and untraceable access to what ever kind of weapon they choose. Should I be able to get off the prison bus and walk into home Depot and walk out with an AT-4 and sit in front of the bank and wait for the truck to pull up?

As far as you or me getting fully automatic weapons, it really is not that hard. I have several friends that own them. The problem with getting them (at least for me) is not the paperwork and the $200 to the feds, it's the purchase price of the weapon itself. I am still kicking myself for not buying twenty years ago. I could have had an Uzi and an MP-5 for $2500! Now that prices are ten times that, I don't see myself getting one anytime soon.
 
#25 · (Edited)
Tanksoldier, it seems we understand the following passage a little differently. I will put in bold the parts that jump out at me.

"If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, anyman, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything-- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. "

So we are supposed to oppose any politician that would deny the Charlie Mansons, the other Cho's out there and my six year old son (he is a very responsible six year old) instant and untraceable access to what ever kind of weapon they choose. Should I be able to get off the prison bus and walk into home Depot and walk out with an AT-4 and sit in front of the bank and wait for the truck to pull up?
Packinnova's Short answer: YES! All these issues would be resolved rather quickly and effectively if the government would keep their grubby hands off. This includes the "just out of prison" issues. If a person is out of prison has his debt not been paid? If not, why is he out? If he never belonged getting out EVER, why was he put in in the first place rather than allowing what should have happened to happen (ie terminal corporal punishment)

As far as you or me getting fully automatic weapons, it really is not that hard. I have several friends that own them. The problem with getting them (at least for me) is not the paperwork and the $200 to the feds, it's the purchase price of the weapon itself. I am still kicking myself for not buying twenty years ago. I could have had an Uzi and an MP-5 for $2500! Now that prices are ten times that, I don't see myself getting one anytime soon.
Packinnova's Second sorta short answer: Ask yourself why those prices are so darn high! The price issue is a basic economics lesson learned in any American High School History or Economics class. It's call supply and demand. Supply goes down...cost goes up. Supply is down due to the unconstitutionally and immorally restrictive laws. Also, why is it that you should have to pay the extra $200? Same goes for alcohol. Why is it illegal to make your own alcohol without a license and payment to the BATFE? For that one, start looking into the history of the ATF. All issues are resolved when you take away the aggressor/transgressor.
Dangit...I was trying really hard not to jump in this thread and just be a good boy...Ain't gonna happen!
I have to be a single issue voter. Without the big one...the rest cease to exist as you cannot adequately guarantee the others. This has been a thought provoking thread.

Mods: If you feel my post is off topic, please feel free to remove my post and NOT the entire thread. I think it's on, but it's not up to me is it? It's a good thread with some good responses and should remain.
 
#23 ·
The references to the abortion issue that was brought up has now been removed. It's never has been a topic for this forum and never will be. Abortion issue discussions, along with other off topic social issues, will be removed. Please keep it on topic to keep this thread from being closed.
 
#24 ·
First, PLEASE HEED BUMPER'S CAUTIONARY DIRECTION. This thread seems to be very thought provoking, there is no sense in ruining it.

I do not consider my self a single issue voter, in fact, I categorize my issues. I have a Holy Grail of issues that contain guns and some of the issues we don't discuss here. I have important issues, that I consider pretty steadfast but not necessarily deal breakers like the Holy Grail. Then I have personal preferences, those issues that I have an opinion but aren't so important that I would spend anytime fighting for them.

With that said I do consider myself a Constitutionalist (Pro Freedom, Pro Bill of Rights) and if a candidate or officer holder does not have the self-restraint to avoid alienating my constitutional rights, then I will have no restraint in my legal efforts to see him removed from office.

I agree wholeheartedly that if a politician doesn't trust the people, why should he be trusted.
 
#27 ·
Packinnova, do I understand correctly that you would have no problem with my six year old, or my mentally handicapped twelve year old walking into a store and walking out with shiny new pistol? Or that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold should have been able to walk into the local ACE Hardware and walk out with automatic weapons?
 
#28 ·
Everything but the six year old. It's pretty clear we limit rights to priviledges already in just about all aspects of "underage" life anyway at this point(my big question though is at what point do we decide a person is an adult). In most legal aspects we(through our "elected" government) decide that the age is either 18 or 21, even though it really may be quite younger in reality for some folks or MUCH older than 21 for others.

Most wouldn't even think of handing a gun to a six year old on their own to begin with because at that age they may not well be able to fully comprehend the complexity and reality of the issues and they are not fully thinking on their own, but I can think of a handful of 15 and 16 year olds that I would have trusted with my life(because they were taught and raised to adhere to personal responsibility and they subsequently lead their lives in such fashion). As for the Harris and Klebold situation...that would be resolved via natural selection/citizen intervention. Problem is we've "delegated" too much of our lives to the government for our "protection". I'm a firm believer in both Personal Responsibility and M.A.D. (not to be mistaken for M.A.D.D.). Without the hampering of us delegating the control and responsibility of our lives to the government, folks would be forced to take it upon themselves, which is the way it should be. In that circumstance, it's highly probable that the harris/klebold incident would have either A) never taken place, or B) been stopped before they were fully engaged. Trying to prevent a Harris or Klebold from access to a firearm isn't going to stop them if they're determined to complete their master plan and willing to suffer the consequences.

I suspect I'll have to agree to disagree before I get the thread shutdown.:bier:
 
#29 ·
Here's an idea - write the author and ask him to qualify his statement. I read the passage, then re-read it. I didn't come out thinking that any person can walk in and buy a gun. The piece was well-written, but it will not pass for an "A" on an undergraduate or graduate English paper. Seek clarification before taking each word for its literal meaning.

That said, I agree with the author's underlying point. If a politician thinks your ability to defend yourself should be limited to primative weapons (fists, rocks, etc.) or given to the Government, he or she isn't worth holding the office.

Then again....ever wonder who is surveyed for the answers to the questions on "Family Feud?" My Mother (a very liberal 75 year old) watches that show waaaaaaay too much. The answer is: they are "average" Americans! Go figure....
 
#31 ·
Sniper58,
Based solely on what was written, if the author didn't intend for any person to be able to acquire "anything" how do we reconcile that with his statement that we should be able to make the purchase without showing any ID or signing any papers? Without those steps how would he differentiate between those of us he deems "OK" to have weapons, and those he doesn't?

Sorry for the kind of dupe, Puppy beat me to the mouse!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top