I was having a discussion recently about the 2nd Amendment with a liberal friend of mine. She and I have a very different opinion on the issue, naturally. I believe the 2nd Amendment to be absolute, for all weapons (short version: if the military can own it, I, as a private citizen, should be able to own it). I may not be able to afford an M60 machine gun, but if the Army can use it, so, too, should I be able to use it. Even if I'm just using it to shoot up bottles, or keeping it on my mantle as a decorative (if functional) piece.

A lot hay is made about the text of the 2nd ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") referring to a 'militia.' Opponents of gun rights often say the 2nd was only meant to protect a militia's rights to keep and bear arms.

How is one supposed to form a militia without the ability to acquire firearms? Add to that, too, how did the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights define 'militia'?

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
- George Mason, Constitution Convention delegate from Virginia

We are asked, in this modern civilized age, what we're so afraid of, that we need to keep our rights to these weapons.

In the end, arms in the hands of the citizenry are the last resort against an oppressive government. Why did the British confiscate rifles from the American Colonists?

It all comes down to who holds the power. The people? Or the government?

We don't get our rights from the government. We get our rights from our nature as free men. If the government, even an elected government, takes those rights away, they are violating my rights as a human being and a citizen of this country.

This issue is important to me, but it's not the most important. If a Republican's for most of my other issues, but they're a moderate or liberal on gun rights, that's not good, but it doesn't mean I won't vote for them in the face of a Democrat who loves government control of most areas, but is willing to leave gun rights alone.

That liberal friend of mine I wrote about before? She wrote about having the very same stance. She is very much for gun control, but still isn't willing to vote entirely on that issue. Her post? To All NRA Voters.

I would imagine all of us have seen the 'moderates' of whom she speaks. They're for all conservative causes, save the fact that they're pro-gay marriage. Suddenly, they're voting for Democrats, because that's their most important issue.

If you're a one-issue voter, you're doing this whole 'representative government' thing wrong.

Now, don't take that to mean your issues aren't important. They are.

But you have to think of the whole picture. Think of getting half the sandwich instead of all-or-nothing. Think about compromise.

I feel strongly about gun rights. But that just means it gets more weight in my equation when I decide the man or woman for whom I will vote.

If the candidate that's against my gun rights is also against using public money to bail out private corporations, and against raising taxes, they're even in my book.

It's only up from there.

Nine times out of ten, the Republican candidate wins, but that doesn't mean he or she always will. I've seen some Blue Dogs that have tickled my fancy enough to get me to vote for them. Heck, I worked on senior staff of the campaign of a Democrat running for State Superintendent a couple of years ago because he was everything I wanted in that office (if the position was going to exist, I might as well have someone I like in the seat).

The point is, being a one-issue voter means you're not thinking ahead to all the issues that are going to affect you in the coming years. What congressmen, senators, and especially presidents do, directly and indirectly, changes the world we all live in... make sure you've picked the best candidate on all the issues.

I had a political blog once before, more than a year ago. I made it on Wordpress, as I recall, but I don't remember what email I used for it, so it's lost in the vast world that is the internet.

So this is Max's political blog 2.0.

I'll do some kind of mild introduction as to my political leaning, since it is not black and white, and tends to irritate some people because they can't quite figure out where I stand on any number of issues based on what I call myself.

First, we have to distinguish "libertarian" from "Libertarian," or, as folks in those circles distinguish it, "Little-L" and "Big-L" libertarianism. A "libertarian" is someone who believes in individual liberty, voluntary association, and the non-aggression principle (i.e., any unsolicited action or actions that affects an individual's property or person, no matter whether those actions are damaging, beneficial, or neutral, are considered violent when they're against the free will of the individual and interfere with his right of self-ownership); a "Libertarian" is one who believes all those things, but knows the realities of the Party System in which we lives, and so is willing to make compromises to work within that system.

Second, I have to determine what I mean by "Libertarian Light." I understand the Party System is the one we've got, and that if I want any sort of progress (progress: repeal of laws that the government has passed to give us our freedoms back, and the pursuit of laws that set in stone rights that future administrations won't be able to change), then I have to work within that system. I may have to compromise within that system to get what I want, but I'd rather have half a sandwich than no sandwich at all.

Compromise is anathema to the modern Libertarian Party. It's pretty obnoxious. So what did I do to get away from that?

I became a Republican.

This is not an unheard of development, of course. Think of a hardcore libertarian...

Chances are, you didn't think of Nick Gillespie.

More likely, you thought of Ron Paul, the Republican representative from Texas.

I'm no Ron Paul. I don't want to be Ron Paul. He thinks states should be able to ban interracial marriage. That's crazy. I am not in favor of people democratically taking others' rights away.

But still, a Republican.

As you can probably gather, you can't decide what my position on a given issue is going to be based solely on my political identification.

The specifics are too numerous to mention. You might just have to pay attention. Or ask, specifically, in the comments. I am more than willing to engage on any issue for any length of time, unless the debate devolves into fallacies and ad hominem.

Anyway, welcome to the blog. I will endeavor to post on many subjects as they come up in local or national debate, and I welcome any discourse from anyone else in that regard.