Why do we continue to elect politicians who do not support Constitutional Carry?

[vooduchikn]

Politition vote were the money is so if you have enough of it you will get what you want.

huh???

 

[vooduchikn]

I agree that being a one-issue voter is not only impractical, but foolish and I'm not advocating that people support Constitutional carry as a single issue, but is it unreasonable to think that a politician who is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment will support the entire Constitution? Is it likely that a politician who strongly supports Constitutional carry would also support the NDAA, or the UN, Agenda-21 or abortion? It seems to me that many issues come bundled as a package and this is a shooting forum. I would expect an anti-gun forum would support politicians who also support a political bundle that we are likely to oppose.

Show me a Constitutional carry supporter and I'll show you someone I see eye to eye on almost everything else.

Good point and well said.

 

[JonDough]

Why do we continue to elect politicians who do not support Constitutional Carry?

Because Politicians are the only ones running.... : )

 

[henschman]

I don't know who this "we" is that you're talking about, but it certainly doesn't include me!

 

[flybeech]

I don't know who this "we" is that you're talking about, but it certainly doesn't include me!

I know that you are hardly in the "we" group I question, henchman.

"We The People" have developed a habit of electing politicians based on a belief that the letter beside their name is some guarantee of their Constitutional stance on just about anything. Romney is a perfect example of a politician who has a long history of being a liberal gun-grabber that superficially morphs into a 2A supporter, to appeal to a conservative base for no other reasons than marketing. Obama is so openly and notoriously anti-gun that is easy for even the most sleepy American to know exactly where he stands. Sure Obama's dangerous, but perhaps the candidate who feigns 2A support is more dangerous, since many might decide it's no longer necessary to remain vigilant.

After 38 years of being a hard-core Republican, it's been tough to accept that it took bi-partisan support to pass legislation like the Patriot Act that destroyed our rights under the 4A and the NDAA that grants the President the ultimate authority to indefinitely detain for life anywhere in the world, torture and assassinate ANY American without ANY due process.

As the "reddest state in the nation", all but Coburn voted for the NDAA. Is it unreasonable to think that a RINO that would vote to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial would then be a supporter of Constitutional carry? Hardly. Perhaps I'm wrong and naive, but given the supercharged nature of Constitutional carry, a politician who openly and notoriously supports Constitutional carry is very likely to defend the rest of our Bill of Rights.