The Great Hippo wrote:I completely understand someone who sees gun control as a serious issue. What I don't understand is how it could be a deal-breaker.
Like, am I missing something? Guns are a hobby. You're allowed to be passionate about your hobbies; hell, you're allowed to make them central to who you are. But I sure as shit wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker if a politician was pushing for tighter regulations on the content of comic books or video-games. I'd think that's stupid, and consider it an extremely big point against them -- but a deal-breaker? Of course not.
It might be because I live in a blue state, where we're constantly getting this kind of thing pushed. It's always "We need magazine limits", or "We need to restrict accessories" or "Assault-rifle sounds scary we should ban them". I'll not get any further into it than that (as there is a thread for that sort of thing), but suffice to say that I agree with none of it. I'm sick of it, all of it. I don't want my state to be like California. I don't want the nation to be like California. I don't lie when I say that I would side with the left on so many issues, but when it comes at the expense of (what I believe to be) my natural rights, I'm stuck with an unfortunate choice. Like I said before, if it's down to supporting myself or people I've never met, I'm going to be selfish.
Okay; I can understand being deeply frustrated with the dialogue, and not even wanting to look
at the candidate who's pushing in the wrong direction. I sometimes feel the same way with candidates on issues like evolution versus creationism -- an issue that is extremely
important to me (as education was actually the field I initially tried to enter). The moment a candidate starts talking about compromise, I'm usually already rolling my eyes as I make my way out of the room.
But there's a point where I'm going to stop rolling my eyes -- and that point depends on how bad the other candidate is. If Joe Schmoe thinks we need a real dialogue about creationism in the classroom, I'm going to really
hate him... but if Jill Schlub wants to literally light half the country on fire, I'm going to sigh, put aside one of my core issues, and try to work with Joe Schmoe. Because yeah, he's bad, but at least he's not a lunatic.
I guess that's what confounds me about this? There is no issue so dear to me that I'm not willing to put it aside for the sake of dealing with a larger problem. I understand it's exhausting to compromise with people who are clearly out of touch with everything you care about -- good grief
, I understand that. But compromise is the lifeblood of society; it's the lifeblood of our government. If you can't compromise on this, I feel like there's no possibility of moving forward; you're always going to just support whichever candidate is anti-gun-control. Which means you're not a voter anymore: You're a demographic
(Which is weirdly parallel to the situation black people are in with Democrats; Democrats rely on their votes, because what else are black people going to do? Vote Republican
Like -- from my POV, it doesn't look like you're being selfish -- it looks like you're being self-destructive. Part of this might be because I've never owned a gun; part of it might be that there are a lot of things I consider to be my 'core' issue (it sounds like this is your one main core issue).
I realize this is a very tricky question, and you don't need to answer, but: How bad would an anti-gun control candidate have to be before you decided you weren't going to vote for them?EDIT:
Beg your pardon, I see only now you edited an answer into your previous post!