search
top

Single Issue Voters

Philip Mulivor in Ohio explains why the Second Amendment is his single issue. Sounds like a persuasive reason to me.

9 Responses to “Single Issue Voters”

  1. Yup…agreed. Anyone who thinks they know what led to “the shot heard around the world” from what they learned in school needs to Google “Powder Alarm”…all of the previous issues the Colonists had with the Crown merely cocked the hammer of the Revolution, the Powder Alarm pulled the trigger

  2. Alpheus says:

    This is a very good reason. I also Like L. Neil Smith’s reasoning (when he wrote “Why did it have to be guns?”): if a politician isn’t willing to trust you with a gun, he isn’t likely willing to trust you with anything else.

    He described it as a “Vulcan mind-meld”, and explained that this is the reason politicians hate the issue so much.

  3. Sebastian says:

    I’m generally of the opinion that most of the grievances we have can be settled peacefully, and that as long as we have a government that stands for election, and is at least following the majority of our constitutional structure, we’re good. But the right to bear arms is one of those things, once they take it, you don’t have much choice other than to submit or be killed or jailed. The colonists understood that, and didn’t much trust the motives of the crown.

    I’m happy the Supreme Court has taken confiscation off the table. You have a right to have a gun. We haven’t worked out the details of this yet, but in large part the details don’t matter as much.

  4. Alpheus says:

    While I’d agree that it’s a good thing that the Supreme Court has taken the policy of gun confiscation off the table, I wouldn’t go so far as to say they’ve taken the possibility of confiscation off the table. By removing the possibility of policy, though, gun confiscation will only likely start under marshal law (which in itself would be a major red flag).

    As for correcting grievances, I think we have a long way to go before we’d have to correct them violently. At this point, even if violence were our only recourse, I don’t see how violence would fix anything. There are too many people who would side with those causing grievances!

  5. Sebastian says:

    There’s always a risk of another New Orleans happening, but now that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, there will be legal remedies for such a violation of civil rights. In a culture that truly respects the Second Amendment, the US Attorney General would have sought an indictment of Nagin and his Police Chief for conspiracy to violate civil rights.

    Someday.

  6. mariner says:

    Except the our single-issue voter was mistaken about Concord.

    What the British troops intended to confiscate was not rifles, but cannon along with powder and shot.

    The modern-day equivalent would be artillery pieces and shells.

    And yes, I believe citizens should be able to own these. In fact I believe citizens should be able to have anything (short of nuclear weapons) that government agents have.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Technically speaking, you can. DD’s aren’t as regulated as machine guns.

  8. mariner @6

    If you get one, let us know how you answer question 15 on the Form 4!

  9. Bram says:

    But he isn’t a single issue voter. The colonists had gun rights in 1775 (maybe not cannon rights). They used those guns to fight for other rights – like a representative government and the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

    Are you advocating a violent revolution? Letting all other rights go while keeping the 2nd Amendment is silly – and will lead to civil war.

top