Originally Posted by MacLeod

Personally I guess I feel like I must simply have different priorities then some people. My personal thoughts on the 2nd Amendment are the same for the majority of the social issues debated currently. I do not know why everyone puts such as huge emphasis on social issues when the economy and other issues are much more important (in my opinion).

When things do not concern you directly, they're often prioritized less. For instance, I imagine you care about the potential availability of contraception or birth control a lot less than the average mid-twenties woman, and so a candidate's stance on contraception is not going to sway your opinion as much. Most of my friends are dependent on Planned Parenthood for birth control options and Ob/Gyn appointments, and so the right's stated desire to destroy PP is incredibly concerning. The PPACA helped, since many of them were put back on their parents' insurance plans, but that, again, is not really a point in favor of not caring about social issues. (I am assuming) that you aren't gay, so gay marriage/other rights don't concern you directly. You aren't in danger of needing an abortion, you aren't concerned about family being able to join you in America after you make enough money, you don't feel dependent on a gun for your safety, etc. You don't have to care about anything but the economy, because nothing else will directly affect you (in broad terms, and I am generalizing). This is why many people don't care about foreign policy currently, even though, IMO, they should.

Alternatively, you don't see the longterm effects of (and these are my opinions) allowing and encouraging half of the political factions in the US to be held captive by a group of people who wish to redefine the world by their specific envisioning of an Abrahamic religion, that explicitly denies the basic tenets of the scientific method, has no concept of mercy or compassion, is unrepentently misogynistic, reactionary, and destructive, and serves to perpetuate a long-term social model that encourages unchecked capitalism and the idea that the world is fundamentally just. Capitalism can be good, definitely, but social policy can guide economic policy in very obvious ways. See: non-discrimination laws for hiring practices. Social policy, no? Huge economic impact, just less obvious than "my taxes went up oh nos!".

And, with respect to Skud, I do not think there will be major challenges to gun control laws placed before the SCotUS for quite some time. As has been stated in many threads, I feel like most liberals feel they either lost the gun control debate, or feel like it has settled in a relatively comfortable place, or feel like it is the least concerning issue and focus on other things. However, that doesn't appear to stop people from trotting out "Obama's going to take your guns" and "Democrats are weak on the international stage", both of which are demonstrably false, at least with regards to our current president. (Answering a debate question about possibly looking at reintroducing an AWB while exploring other options, like the cause of violence in the first place does not count, in my opinion, as being indicative of gun control being a priority, especially when Carney followed up that up with a statement that there would be no explicit changes in policy. And while I, too, feel like this election is primarily important for the potential Justice picks, I obviously fall on the other side of the argument.

So, Obama will not take your guns, he did not take your guns during the last four years, and if, every time there's a Democrat in an election, y'all continue to have heart attacks about it regardless of any facts to the contrary, I'm going to start investing in aspirin and nitroglycerin. And recommend that you maybe see a cardiologist.