Would you vote for a presidential candidate based on their stance on Guns?

[MicroBalrog]

They will be hardcore liberals.

TBH, that has advantages.

[freakazoid]

The second amendment is the "break glass in case of dictatorship" one that can be used if all the others are taken, to get the others back again.

That gives me an idea, lol

[Green Lantern]

Those results were depressing - among the minority of "Yes" votes, quite a few of them stated that they said yes because they would not vote for a candidate that pushed gun control! 

[Don't care]

I know more than a few Pro 2A guys that consistently vote for the Dem / liberal, regardless of the candidate's / incumbent's position on firearms.

Why? They're pissed off at the Republican party for something that happened XX years ago.

One guy was a union member of PATCO, when he was fired by Reagan, and vowed to never vote GOP again.

[RaspberrySurprise]

TBH, that has advantages.

Such as?

[MicroBalrog]

Such as?

Liberal judges have more expansive interpretations of 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment freedoms. That's a good thing in my book.

[TommyGunn]

I would wish some conservative judges (not all) would have a more "expansive" view of the first, forth, fifth & ninth (and tenth) amendments, but I must admit I am particularly concerned with the second, and that's where liberals chiefly hurt themselves IMHO. 
I know some conservative (AKA republican) politicians aren't good on 2A issues, but over the past few decades is's been chiefly the liberal wing that has been leading the way in gun control legislation.
Also, it should be noted that a more "expansive" outlook is not necessarily a good thing.  Many people tend to automatically think it is, but that doesn't make it so.  The concept of "separation of church and state," for example, has IMHO been taken beyond what the founders intended in many instances.  And when we see religious icons in some places, the idea they may "offend" some people has become far too accepted of an excuse.  At some point I think we should tell people who become offended at seeing  religious icons to simply grow a thicker skin.
I  don't support theocracies .... OTOH secularism is also not the way to go either.

[gunsmith]

they wouldn't let me comment.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

[esheato]

I'm just tagging it so I can make my wife read it later.

[MicroBalrog]

I would wish some conservative judges (not all) would have a more "expansive" view of the first, forth, fifth & ninth (and tenth) amendments, but I must admit I am particularly concerned with the second, and that's where liberals chiefly hurt themselves IMHO.

I am sorry to say, but I think that is a mistake. I think the Amendments are an interlocking system. Privacy in your home is just as important as the right to own a gun for self-defense or for militia purposes, and preserving proper trial by jury is in and of itself a key feature to preserving an individual liberty. And I won't even talk about Gonzales v. Raich here, I'm liable to start throwing objects on par with LadySmith.

Also, it should be noted that a more "expansive" outlook is not necessarily a good thing.  Many people tend to automatically think it is, but that doesn't make it so.  The concept of "separation of church and state," for example, has IMHO been taken beyond what the founders intended in many instances.  And when we see religious icons in some places, the idea they may "offend" some people has become far too accepted of an

I agree with you. I think the real purpose of secularism is not just to achieve a separation of church and state, but to eliminate religion from public life.

[TommyGunn]

I would wish some conservative judges (not all) would have a more "expansive" view of the first, forth, fifth & ninth (and tenth) amendments, but I must admit I am particularly concerned with the second, and that's where liberals chiefly hurt themselves IMHO.

I am sorry to say, but I think that is a mistake. I think the Amendments are an interlocking system. Privacy in your home is just as important as the right to own a gun for self-defense or for militia purposes, and preserving proper trial by jury is in and of itself a key feature to preserving an individual liberty.

I am not saying the others are not important.
IMHO the second is what we will need when the others fail.  It is the ultimate, last bulward against tyranny.  Once that goes, what fear would their be on the part of politicians of destroying the others?
McCain-Feingold attacked the first amendment, and I was as against that as anything.  Yes, there's dirt and ugliness in politics.  Our founders never promised us that political campaigning would be a nice, well-mannered gentlemanly endeaver.  And even back then politics was dirty a lot of times. 

I will freely admit that one reason why I am prejudiced in favor of the second amendment is that I am a gun owner, and value my possessions.  I have purchased several firearms that are valuable, and -- atleast to me -- inherited some from my father which aside from whatever their monetary value is, have a lot of sentimental value, and atleast one of these is of a model that has fallen under the eyes of real or potential gunbanners in some states atleast, if not federally.  Maybe some of those bans are doomed, or have failed (such as HR. 1022) but the fact they have been proposed still concerns me.

But, certainly the entire Bill of Rights is absolutly important as a whole.

[slingshot]

I'm pretty prejudiced against voting for a candidate who supports gun control legislation.  So, Obama is out; no mater what.  McCain has supported essentially running all gun sales through a FFL dealer so the paper work can be completed and NICs check done.  We have enough laws.  Guns aren't the problem.  It is the people who don't respect human life who are the problem.  Guess we need some people control and maybe we should start at the border.

[Tuco]

Yes.
Have.
Will.

[Harold Tuttle]

Obama: Well, Joe Biden, I think, is one of the finest public servants that has served in this country. It's not just that he has some of the best foreign policy credentials of anybody. And Democrats and Republicans alike, I think, acknowledge his expertise there.

But it's also that his entire life he has never forgotten where he came from, coming from Scranton, fighting on behalf of working families, remembering what it's like to see his father lose his job and go through a downward spiral economically.

And, as a consequence, his consistent pattern throughout his career is to fight for the little guy. That's what he's done when it comes to economic policies that will help working families get a leg up.

That's what he's done when it comes to, for example, passing the landmark 1994 crime bill, the Violence Against Women's Act. Joe has always made sure that he is fighting on behalf of working families, and I think he shares my core values and my sense of where the country needs to go.

[BlueStarLizzard]

do you think i didn't puke enough the first time i heard that?

anyway, i hate mccain on one fundmental level. but when i have to choose between that and guns, i'll take the guns everyday.

so yeah, i vote for guns. 

[Manedwolf]

Funny, I though the best way for a woman to defend herself against violence was to have a handgun in her purse that she knows how to use.

[ArmedBear]

Sure.

However, it's probably not going to happen.

Someone who truly believes in the individual right to self-defense, and in limiting government interference with purchasing and owning a gun, probably also supports a lot of other things I value.

Conversely, someone who believes it's better for a woman to be helpless in the face of a rapist, to make sure that the state has more power by having the only guns around, probably also supports a lot of other things I detest.

[Physics]

When it comes down to the fact that neither of the candidates support me on any issues, yes, I turn to guns.  Sort of a "When in doubt, cling to guns." type of mentality. 

Actually, I think it's more cling to our rights.

[Nitrogen]

I think single issue voters are silly.

Issues for me are weighted, and the gun issue has a LOT of weight, as compared to other issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) which have very little weight.

So, for instance, if a candidate came around that I felt was right on the gun issue, taxes, immigration, shrinking of government/expansion of freedoms and energy (an example of highly weighted topics) , but was wrong on abortion, gay marriage, gays in the military, drug policy (an example of lowly weighted topics for me), then I could probably vote for that candidate.