NOTE: This is the third installment on my Examining The Issues series.
The issue of gun rights brings up the third and final issue that I consider to be non-negotiable, and by that in this case what I mean is, in order to get my vote a candidate must not only believe in the Second Amendment, but understand the reason for it as well.
When politicians begin the long road toward running for President, many of them hold personal views that they know won’t play well in a campaign. Anyone who has ever had aspirations of running for the GOP nomination has had to recognize the need to support the Second Amendment, or at least pretend to. Unfortunately it is far too easy to talk about that support without genuinely understanding the issue and many politicians have fallen into that trap.
For instance, when a candidate assures potential voters that he or she will support their gun rights and then launches into a discussion about having the right to hunt and target shoot, I know they are brand new to the issue and have not even bothered to do basic research on it. I will give them some credit if they also bring up the right to self-defense, but that would still only be partial credit. If, and only if, a candidate expresses a clear understanding of the fact that the Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms for the purpose of defending liberty will I believe they have a genuine grasp of the subject. Occasionally a candidate will even go so far as to acknowledge that the Second Amendment was written to protect our right to overthrow the government when it gets out of control, and at that point they have my full confidence.
But wait, there’s more.
Once I am sure a candidate has a clue about gun rights, I need to be sure he or she understands and appreciates the phrase “shall not be infringed” as it is used in the Second Amendment. Regardless of how well a candidate understands the reasons for the Second Amendment (I truly believe Obama understands the reason for it, he just doesn’t like it), at the first mention of “…but we can all agree that we need some common sense laws to reduce gun violence”, they go down in flames. One recent example of this is when Dr. Ben Carson, who I admire and respect, tried to claim support for the Second Amendment and immediately went off the deep end by excluding those who live in cities. This country does not have ‘Second Amendment zones’ any more than we have “First Amendment Zones”. To his credit Dr. Carson recognized that he had blown it and attempted to “clarify” his position, but the damage was done.
The reason this particular issue is non-negotiable is more than just the obvious, it also serves as a litmus test for a candidate’s grasp of Constitutional principles. A person who seeks the highest office of this land does so with the full knowledge that it requires taking an oath to uphold and defend the very Constitution that created the office, and set the rules by which it must operate. This requires a deep and abiding knowledge of and respect for the Constitution. If that candidate does not demonstrate a genuine understanding of the Second Amendment and appreciate all that it entails, what assurance would we have of a better grasp of the rest of the Constitution?
The post Examining The Issues That Matter: Gun Rights appeared first on Dispatches From The Conservative Underground.