It took me years to understand where I fit in. In order to reach that point, I had to obtain a world view (I would even say cosmological view) that gave me solid ground to stand upon. If a philosophy is sound, it will provide the roots from which all other understanding (and action) can branch out. It reveals an absolute framework that is constantly reinforced by any additional knowledge or experience.
Prior to this, I would often arrive at what seemed to be reasonable conclusions, but the conclusions would be reversed by an opposing idea. This means that I have been on both sides of the political fence. The other side would eventually begin to make sense, so I'd slide back over...
This constant tension between the two leads to mental and emotional exhaustion. I had to find something more concrete that would render this constant change stable. I found it in a surprising place: the teachings of Robert Schmidt, who is an expert on Greek thought and philosophy. Plato and his peers saved the day.
@zoidsoft, who has also studied Schmidt's work, integrates some of these philosophical concepts into our current socio-political paradigm, with some pretty astounding consequences. I have to admit that @zoidsoft is one person with one interpretation, but here we see a return to critical analysis using philosophical principles as a guide. If your system is broken, return to the principles that you know govern nature, and you will see why.
In most of our political discussions (or legislation...or screaming matches), we're trying to fix what's broken from inside. You can ask if guns should be legal or not, but can you ask if the debate over the constitution was ever really finished? Does anyone return to the questions the "founding fathers" were asking, or do we take their assumptions and conclusions for granted?
The Constitution forms the bedrock, but do we ever look to see if the material is decaying?
Our political system depends entirely on the inclusion of some, and the exclusion of others. It relies on this tension to function. This was, apparently, not the original intent - James Madison claimed that "the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS." No faction was supposed to win, but quickly we descended into a two-party system...where one of two factions wins.
How's that working out for us?
This failure of representation has tremendous implications for the rest of the population. It also tells you about human nature - perhaps affirming Lord Acton's maxim, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". The ability of a group of human beings to give "rights" or "permissions" to other human beings is, in itself, an affront.
So we have a principle - no one can grant man rights. What does this imply in the debate for gun control, abortion, right to refuse service, etc? If guided by this principle, it renders these arguments obsolete. Opinion is irrelevant; we have decided not to restrain others based on our own convictions.
I cannot fight for legislation that extends my Will into the personal sphere of others. I can only fight for a non-restrictive system that frees us all, but encourages cooperation. The only system that could do such a thing is one that uses natural principles as its guide. Nature, of course, doesn't tolerate violations of personal space for very long.