I sure didn’t start out my voting life as one but I’m afraid I have to be now.
Took me by surprise, too.
I consider myself an Independent.
Not in the traditional sense of supporting an Independent Party, rather Independent as being non-aligned to a particular party. I vote issues rather than party. It was relatively simple in the past. I would recognize that not every candidate’s position would check all my boxes but I’d focus on the important issues. Compromise. There were a few deal-breakers but by and large I would feel comfortable in voting for a representative that I felt would do a good job fighting for the laws and ideas that I held important.
I admit I tend to trend conservative. I’m a firm believer in small government. As a person who has started a small business in California I can attest that big, “mommy” government with a monopoly on power is a terrible way to govern a state. I haven’t always been this way though. When I was younger I was what you would call liberal (much like most young people today). As I got older, started a family, started a business, my perspective gradually started to change. I have to admit though there have been times where I crossed the aisle and voted for someone a bit more liberal than myself. That’s because I never felt comfortable being a Single Issue voter.
Over the last 20 years I have seen the landscape in this country change very dramatically and not necessarily for the better.
So many polarizing issues (most of which are purely social) have created a not a just a divide but a virtual wall between the two sides. I believe much of this is the result of a number of things.
A news media that has chosen to take a side instead of being non-biased
The importance we place on social media
The unwillingness (or inability) to entertain discourse of differing opinions in the public square.
This social upheaval has resulted in a narcissistic population ruled by emotion and feelings.
We glorify “DIVERSITY” over “UNITY”. The natural by-product of this is narcissistic pride and a sense of superiority of one group over one another.
That superiority breeds a belief in an intellectual “high ground” where one group has decided that their elitism has given them the right to make all other "less enlightened" folks submit to them for the good of the nation and society. I am wary of a group that is convinced they have intellectual superiority. It allows them to justify any action, no matter who they have to step over or who’s voice they feel needs to be silenced.
“I have listened to your opinions and they are obviously wrong because they aren’t in line with mine, therefore I have the right, the RESPONSIBILITY to not only ignore your opinion but to actually prevent you from saying it”.
There’s an App for that.
We wring our hands about problems in our country and look for an easy way out instead of acknowledging we have to do some hard, dirty work to solve them. I call it, “There’s An App For That” mentality. Always looking for the quick and easy single solution to a pressing problem without doing the critical thinking to define the problem then present various solutions. Quick, easy answers that allow you to feel good about yourself but actually don't address the core problem. The masses crave this instant gratification and our politicians are all too eager to provide it because it keeps them in office.
“We're just gonna slap a big enough Band-Aid on this to cover up the shattered bone sticking out of your leg. You'll be fine. Get you outta here in a jiffy!”
It is in this climate that I find myself a ONE ISSUE VOTER.
That issue is Gun Control and 2nd Amendment.
Protection and preservation of the 2nd Amendment is my deal breaker.
Why, for crying out loud, THIS issue?
Where you stand on the 2nd Amendment tells me where you'll stand on anything else. Simply put, a politician that is willing to gut a constitutional right is capable of just about anything.
The general philosophy of a politician that preaches the gun control message is:
"The government knows what’s best for you."
It motivates and drives him or her. It is the basis of everything they fight to support, the laws they pass and the policies they force on the citizens. Taking away a Constitutional Right means that someone in power does not trust you with responsibility of that right. We do that to convicted criminals, not to law abiding citizens.
Now the media, politicians, journalists (if there are any real journalists anymore), commentators, vapid talk show hosts, celebrities, professional athletes and social justice warriors, view me and others like me as narrow-minded people. Unintelligent, evil, downright despicable folks that they are compelled to desperately to save our country from. It is people like me who are preventing the liberal utopia from taking place.
(I feel the need to repeat myself. I live in California. That utopia that they’re talking about is nothing to write home about).
But the one thing I have noticed over the years.
Every one of the important social issues that people deem important: Global Warming, CRT, Gender Norms, Race, Equality, Equity, etc., mandates the government to do something or add something.
Gun control is the only “issue” where government wants to take something away. A Constitutional right, no less.
That’s what makes it a deal breaker for me.
It’s all about TRUST.
No one will teach you how to defend yourself if they intend to attack you later. But someone who forces you to surrender your ability to resist them will ultimately take advantage of that at a later date.
I have a profound lack of trust in a politician that wants to curtail or take away a constitutional right. In their eyes I am guilty until proven innocent. I can’t trust a person like that to make a good decision that benefits the people. Their decisions only benefit the government. Themselves.
I DO trust a candidate that wants to secure my rights. I trust that candidate more with making decisions about just about everything because he or she trusts me. He/she understands personal responsibility. I am innocent until proven guilty.
It is the ultimate litmus test of big government vs. small government.
Big Government can’t seem to get out of its own way to make good decisions.
Go online and get qualified for a $500,000 home loan in less than 3 minutes.
(Private Sector)
Wait 30 freaking days for a background check.
(Big Government)
Most Banks, Office buildings, Shopping Malls, Restaurants, Businesses, Factories, Grocery stores, Stadiums, Sporting events, Hotels, have armed security.
(Private Sector)
Public Schools? No armed security.
(Big Government)
Wealthy People? Bodyguards and Armed Security.
(Private Sector)
The rest of us schmucks… Call 911, wait for the Police to arrive. Be a good witness.
(Big Government)
Yeah, my trust in Big Government is at an all-time low.
The 2nd Amendment ensures that no voice gets silenced.
Everyone gets heard. Neither side may not get everything they want, but we ALL get to freely make those decisions.
Candidates that are overwhelmingly pro-2A believe all law-abiding Americans should have the ability to own guns, even the citizens that don’t agree with them. In most of the world that’s kinda unheard of. It’s as if they are going out of their way to ensure the right of the people to hold them accountable for their actions. They want the people to hold the kill switch.
Candidates that are anti-2A, pro Gun Control,right r vvgx wish to eliminate the fail-safe that the Constitution guarantees. It seems as if they’re afraid of the people holding them accountable. It’s about getting power, staying in power and holding that power “For the safety of the people because we know what’s best for them”. It is power without fear of retribution or consequences. You know who else does this?… Dictators.
Basically it comes down to this:
Pro 2A candidate - Everyone should have a voice, whether I agree with them or not. The 2nd Amendment guarantees that.
Anti 2A candidate - Everyone should have a voice… but only if it agrees with me.
A gutted 2nd Amendment guarantees that.