Must a candidate's view on gun policy agree with your view to obtain your vote?

Gun policy is an important issue to me but it's not the entire picture.

Grand Mal said:

And if you don't like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer vote for any Republican regardless if they are Jack the Ripper or Jesus. Or a sexual predator.

Click to expand...

By Jove you've got it!

You display the understanding of a well informed voter.

Rogue Valley said:

In a recent Poll conducted by CBS/YouGov, prospective US voters were asked if a political candidate's views on gun policy must mirror their own views on gun policy to win their vote. The results were.....

I thought such a poll here may be interesting. Notice the poll question is not either pro-gun or pro-reform, merely if the candidate's view must mesh with your view on gun policy to win your vote.

Click to expand...

Its one of the issues a candidate must have to get my vote.

Rogue Valley said:

In a recent Poll conducted by CBS/YouGov, prospective US voters were asked if a political candidate's views on gun policy must mirror their own views on gun policy to win their vote. The results were.....

I thought such a poll here may be interesting. Notice the poll question is not either pro-gun or pro-reform, merely if the candidate's view must mesh with your view on gun policy to win your vote.

Click to expand...

No, a candidate's views on gun policy doesn't have to mirror mine, but if he takes NRA money that will speak volumes about him. I will assume at that point that his views on gun policy are hopelessly antithetical to my own.

Rogue Valley said:

In a recent Poll conducted by CBS/YouGov, prospective US voters were asked if a political candidate's views on gun policy must mirror their own views on gun policy to win their vote. The results were.....

I thought such a poll here may be interesting. Notice the poll question is not either pro-gun or pro-reform, merely if the candidate's view must mesh with your view on gun policy to win your vote.

Click to expand...

It's an interesting question. Must a candidate have my view on gun control? I'm not sure because those who I vote for tend to have my view on it. I suppose, theoretically speaking, no. So long as they cover far more of my ideals in their political platform, that I feel they are the best and most qualified for the position of all the candidates, then I may vote for them regardless. But it hasn't really come up thus far.

No. Because honestly I doubt they would be able to do this and meet several other of my preferred positions as well, especially since I'm generally mixed in my political positions and pretty middle of the road when it comes to this particular position. There are extreme positions on this that would keep me from likely voting for this candidate, but then such positions would likely not get a candidate that far in the first place.

Glen Contrarian said:

Note who votes for which one. As I type this, the DP liberals who have posted don't require absolute agreement, whereas the conservatives who have posted DID demand absolute agreement. Yet they call us the ones who refuse to compromise.

Click to expand...

OK well you say you want to compromise. First let's define compromise.

compromise (kŏmˈprə-mīzˌ)►
n. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
n. The result of such a settlement.
n. Something that combines qualities or elements of different things: The incongruous design is a compromise between high tech and early American.

OK. So let's go with the accepted definition of "compromise."

#1 I would be willing to support expanded background checks for all weapon sales.
#2 I would be willing to support longer waiting periods.

So if you want to compromise, what are you offering as a concession? Because so far I have seen nothing from the anti gun side in the form of a concession. So if you can point one out to backup your assertion, I would be glad to hear it.

It is all on how much I agree with them on. Seeing as how I am not a single-issue voter, a democrat can support ending illegal unconstitutional wars (which in my view is a form of gun violence far more detrimental to our species as a whole than school and nightclub shootings), regulating Wall Street, supporting LGBTQ and disability rights and protecting the poor yet still have gun reform ideas, but a Republican can support militarizing police, invading Iran and North Korea, banning abortion and criminalizing the use of cannabis, and at that point IDGAF if they want to give everyone a free AR-15, they are not getting my vote.

Rogue Valley said:

In a recent Poll conducted by CBS/YouGov, prospective US voters were asked if a political candidate's views on gun policy must mirror their own views on gun policy to win their vote. The results were.....

I thought such a poll here may be interesting. Notice the poll question is not either pro-gun or pro-reform, merely if the candidate's view must mesh with your view on gun policy to win your vote.

Click to expand...

No. Some issues are more important to me than others, but I have no "litmus test". In fact, I view single issue voters as weak-minded.

Lutherf said:

Compromise with regard to the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded is not acceptable. Heck, it's not even compromise. It's treason.

Click to expand...

Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution. Someone's simple act of voting against your personal interpretation of that Constitution does not fit that definition of treason.

Gun control isn’t a litmus test issue for me.

Black Dog said:

OK well you say you want to compromise. First let's define compromise.

compromise (kŏmˈprə-mīzˌ)►
n. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
n. The result of such a settlement.
n. Something that combines qualities or elements of different things: The incongruous design is a compromise between high tech and early American.

OK. So let's go with the accepted definition of "compromise."

#1 I would be willing to support expanded background checks for all weapon sales.
#2 I would be willing to support longer waiting periods.

So if you want to compromise, what are you offering as a concession? Because so far I have seen nothing from the anti gun side in the form of a concession. So if you can point one out to backup your assertion, I would be glad to hear it.

Click to expand...

I am willing to support national reciprocity for CCW to get that.

No, I don't really have any key issues I have to agree with someone on. I look at their platform in general and choose the one I agree with the most things on it.

vegas giants said:

I am willing to support national reciprocity for CCW to get that.

Click to expand...

If more people thought like you on this, we could get someplace.

That would be acceptable.

That is compromise. To bad those on either side are unwilling to do this.

Phys251 said:

Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution. Someone's simple act of voting against your personal interpretation of that Constitution does not fit that definition of treason.

Click to expand...

Which article in the Constitution defines treason?

Treason is defined in the US Code -https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Click to expand...

Now, it may be a bit of a stretch to say that an individual citizen voting for an unconstitutional act "adheres to" the enemies of this country but it's less of a stretch for an elected official to be considered to adhere to an enemy by attempting to subvert the Constitution. The people of this nation instituted the Constitution to protect themselves from an abusive government. When an elected official acts to remove any of those protections they become an enemy of the people and are traitors.

I am more of a practical results type of guy. I am less of an ideologue. As a scientist, I look at the data and try to control my emotions, since emotions can cloud rational judgement.

From a practical POV the vast majority of gun related crimes and incidence are performed by criminals. If all lives really do matter, this is where you need to focus your attention for the greatest yield. I do not see how restricting guns, for everyone, changes the way the criminals do business. Criminals are not under the same set of laws as honest people. If we changed the 2A for all, even with the best of intentions, we only change the law for the honest people. This change does not impact the criminals. This approach being suggested is very low yield in terms of saving lives. It is like trying to lower dog bites by restricting poodles instead of the pit bulls.

Look at Chicago, they have some of the strongest gun control laws in the country. Illinois was the last state to allow conceal carry of a firearm. Concealed carry is now possible, but it needs 6 weeks of training, a permit, and a final say by the local police chief. Even with such an antigun legal structure, Chicago had over 3000 shootings last year with over 700 deaths. Police in Chicago also seized over 5000 illegal guns in 2017. Even with strong gun laws, for the honest people, the criminals can still readily find guns in the black market. The guns on the black market are not restricted by the tough guns laws and are sold next to stolen I-phones, prostitutes, drugs, cars and anything else that is taboo by law. Why not address that if all lives matter?

The young people, mean well, but they collectively seem to lack critical thinking skills. For example, ask any high school student if they know someone, or know someone who knows someone, who can get an illegal drug, stolen phone or even a gun. The answer should be no, since there are laws against all these things. The black market has everything that is prohibited. New gun restrictions will not change this anymore, than all the latest restrictions on heroine have helped stopped the availability of heroine. The supply will always be there, since the black market is a tax free wholesale and retail marketplace. The black market is also one the of the largest employers in many of the Democrat controlled inner cities. Democrats don't know how to create real jobs, so the black market jobs is more common since it is driven by entrepreneurs who take advantage of prohibitions.

The real bottom line is the Democrats have done a very poor job in their inner cities. Crime is high, drugs and violence are extreme and the rate of literacy is very low. They don't wish this bad practical result to be seen as issue, so they set up a distractions, that has no practical legs to change the main problem. They create a faux demon and scapegoat to hide their own incompetence. The NRA runs the black market according to the Democrats. The Democrats are using this as a gimmick to motivate people, who lack practical reasoning skills. They need a gimmick, less rational people look at the real issues and see how bad the Democrats have made gun problems in America due to allowing the black markets to thrive. Defense lawyers contribute heavily to the Democrat party and the black market is a revolving money door for lawyers.

If all lives matter is more than a sales slogan, the rational person will look where the most lives can be saved, so these matter. It would look at Chicago, Baltimore, Los Angels and other Democrat controlled cites and try save those lives. If black lives matter, this also gives the highest yield. Yet, there is a detachment between the slogan and a common sense practical direction. We may need to get the Democrat influence out of education, since it appears to be a mental cancer that prevents common sense.

If we were concerned about guns, what about the members of the FBI, who can carry guns, who targeted American citizens with illegal surveillance? Under Obama and the Democrats, government member, who can carry guns, did crimes. This is scarier that one lone wolf citizen with a gun. This is not addressed by the Democrats. Instead, the new Democrats spend most of their time distracting away. The Democrat will choose to blame a private citizen, but not the government. The left does this backwards to cover their tracks and their crimes.

Say we have the Democrat party, influencing the FBI, to target private citizens, which is against the law all the way to the Constitution. Say the same Democrats can scam people and get rid of the 2nd Amendment. Done this make it easier for them to use corrupts element of the FBI, who have guns, to harass private citizens? This is the main reason for the 2nd Amendment. If government gets corrupt, the citizens needs a way to protect itself, resist and restore order. Criminal in government, like criminals on the streets do not think they are under the same laws.

Captain Adverse said:

As I've stated before and will continue to state in future...my right to keep and bear arms forms the foundation of my liberty. As long as I have that right preserved Constitutionally as an individual one, I can argue and debate for every other right or privilege knowing I can rise up in defense of liberty if push comes to shove.

Click to expand...

Yeah well, let us know when you "rise up" LoL. I can see a Liberal uprising, but cons, you talk, hoard guns, but no real spine. It's no accident that rebellion always comes from the left. Right wingers to fear based.

Must a candidate's view on gun policy agree with your view to obtain your vote?

Click to expand...

Not anymore. My top priority when voting is to put as many opposing party politicians between Trump and disaster as possible. We need a serious buffer there.

Rogue Valley said:

In a recent Poll conducted by CBS/YouGov, prospective US voters were asked if a political candidate's views on gun policy must mirror their own views on gun policy to win their vote. The results were.....

I thought such a poll here may be interesting. Notice the poll question is not either pro-gun or pro-reform, merely if the candidate's view must mesh with your view on gun policy to win your vote.

Click to expand...

My answer is close to you poll choices, but: A politician's stance on gun issues is more of litmus test that can prevent me from voting for them, rather than help me vote for them. IOW, I would never vote for politician that was for banning anything regarding guns, or imposing restrictions that have the same affect as partial or full bans, but I wouldn't have to agree with all their other potential stances on guns as long as I felt the SCOTUS could prevent them from doing harm, or that the Congress wouldn't enact their ideas, or that the President would veto them if they got that far - they'd have be damned impressive in fiscal and tax policy to get me to take that risk though.

Rogue Valley said:

In a recent Poll conducted by CBS/YouGov, prospective US voters were asked if a political candidate's views on gun policy must mirror their own views on gun policy to win their vote. The results were.....

I thought such a poll here may be interesting. Notice the poll question is not either pro-gun or pro-reform, merely if the candidate's view must mesh with your view on gun policy to win your vote.

Click to expand...

Not this year through at least 2020. I am fairly pro gun. I don't think gun bans work or will do anything, however, I am voting all democrat until Trump and those in congress who stood beside him are out of office.

Some years gun control stances have swayed my vote.

No. There is no one single policy issue that would determine my support for or against a candidate

Lutherf said:

Absolutely!

If a candidate does not have a Constitutional view on the 2A then it only makes sense to question what other views they have that are contrary to the document they are going to swear to uphold.

Click to expand...

And that view would be - what exactly?