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.