Seems that there is a lot of confusion with liberal Republicans posting on topics. I think we need to ID who are the real conservatives and who the liberals are. The best way is to do that is to post what your conservative beliefs are.
I will go first.
1. Pro gun
2. Pro family values
3. Pro strong military/police
4. Strong foreign policy
Wolfie,
You can try to define conservatism, but it is of no use. I will not allow myself to be labeled and thus pigeon-holed into holding some set of ideals characteristic of the term. The same goes for Upper, Middle, Lower class. Terms are tools used to subjugate.
Those stances that you have listed may be conservative ideals but not believing in one or the other doesn't matter.
How about Liberalism? Liberalism is a mental disorder. Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.
A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity — as liberals do. A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population — as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state — as liberals do.
The roots of liberalism — and its associated madness — can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.
Courtesy of 'Moonbattery'
3 and 4 are not conservatism, they are neoconservatism. 3 and 4 are not small government, they require a big government.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 10 2015 09:38:10 AM MDT
Seems that there is a lot of confusion with liberal Republicans posting on topics. I think we need to ID who are the real conservatives and who the liberals are. The best way is to do that is to post what your conservative beliefs are.
I will go first.
1. Pro gun
2. Pro family values
3. Pro strong military/police
4. Strong foreign policy
Everything you listed as your beliefs is the exact opposite of the democratic platform. If you truly believe those things, you're voting for the wrong party for the wrong reasons.
The political right does not currently want, and to the best of my recollection has never claimed to want, small government. They want limited government, which is not the same thing.
And the idea that modern liberalism is a mental disorder is similarly problematic. In fact, most traditional liberals I know are quite successful and stable economically. They do not qualify for most, if not all, of the programs and subsidies they think the government should be in charge of providing. They do feel that there is a human burden to care for those less fortunate and feel the best way to accomplish that is via a government program.
Personally I espouse the belief that the government exercises delegated power from the people to ensure equal access to the rights of life, liberty and property. This boils down to a couple of simple questions about proposed legislation.
First, in what way does the proposed power or action guarantee equal access for all citizens to the rights of life, liberty and property. To cite an example, the PPACA or "Obamacare" seeks to guarantee all citizens normalized access health care, a right of life.
Second, in the absence of a government would I have the right to commit this course of action as an independent being. The PPACA fails here. As an individual I do not have the right to deprive my fellow humans of their property by force or threat of force to pay for my health care or the health care of a third party.
These then constitute the scrutiny that I believe all legislation should fall under. And I am almost always disappointed.
Quote from: sqlbullet on March 10 2015 12:25:58 PM MDT
And the idea that modern liberalism is a mental disorder is similarly problematic. In fact, most traditional liberals I know are quite successful and stable economically. They do not qualify for most, if not all, of the programs and subsidies they think the government should be in charge of providing. They do feel that there is a human burden to care for those less fortunate and feel the best way to accomplish that is via a government program.
Many of the liberals I know are the same. However, the attributes that you list, and having a mental disorder, such as Liberalism, are not mutually exclusive.
Patriot when was the last time the GOP delivered any of it?
You need to go back to Ike.
Rich, I got bad news for you, since the birth of this country liberals whether they be Republicans or Democrats have been winning every issue they have proposed. In fact, I cannot find any conservative ideas that have ever made it into law.
So if liberalism is a disease, what do you have to stop it?
Electing Establishment "Liberal" Republicans?
Spot on SQ.
I was big time GOP until 2006, then I realized they were just as big spenders as Democrats, but they spend on the rich.
Thus, if my money is going to be wasted, I rather give it to the poor than the rich.
I hate POLITICS! They don't call it that for nothing! Poly meaning "many" and tics meaning "blood suckers"!
I don't even like reading through these political post, whether I agree, mutually agree or disagree, that is our individual right. However it only leads to dissension, bickering and eventually to infighting among the membership here...I have left forums or parts of forums because I got tired of pointing of fingers, name calling and out right personal attacks that have resulted.
For the most part it has been civil, until it becomes more personal and turns from a debate into that attack on ones' person.
There is so much in the government especially in this current administration that has been a lie, covered up by the media and spewed out to brainwash the slaves that we are being conditioned for by our nation going under. The economic collapse is sure to bring American as we know it to her knees and then flat on her ass! The people will be the ones who will suffer even more so that they are at the present.
I am with Shadow, love to read about the load pull-downs, folks favorite loads, etc. As far as I am concerned all politicians are lairs, cheats and thieves - only out for themselves - all about lining their own pockets...
Not my words, but it's my definition.
Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Greg
Liberalism and Conservatism are both mental illness.
1) If two people, or groups of people, do not agree on something, and one of the persons or groups is mentally ill, it doesn't automatically mean that the other person or group that disagrees with the mentally ill person is rational or sane. If the man who believes in men from mars has a mental illness, is the man who doesn't believe in martians, but believes that reptilians are trying to take over the world not mentally ill?
2) Both sides seek complete control over everything and everyone, and hate those that are independent.
3) Both sides need each other. One cannot exist without the other to blame for anything bad that happens.
.
Pro family values can mean a lot different things between different groups.
You would have to define it better for me to consider it.
Quote from: gandog56 on March 11 2015 06:31:21 AM MDT
Pro family values can mean a lot different things between different groups.
You would have to define it better for me to consider it.
It's the same as a teacher asking if you're pro/for education.
Pro Life and Pro Traditional Marriage.
How many here are pro Gay?
Wolfie, that question could be seen several different ways. It has several aspects that people may want to hold personal.
Some may not want to divulge the an answer because doing so could bring about negativity in their personal lives or even their workplace.
Then there are the sexist issues this and that!
Somethings are better left to be a personal opinion, than dragged throughout this traditional gun forum! ???
When I first joined I prefered NOT to talk about non gun issues and I was overruled.
People are questioning my commitment to the Second Amendment.
That means they are questioning my Conservative bona fides, I want to know what I am dealing with. If someone claims to be a Conservative, I want them to prove it and verify that they themselves are Conservatives.
If you are pro Gay or Abortion you are NOT a Conservative no matter how much you love guns.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 09:18:32 AM MDT
People are questioning my commitment to the Second Amendment.
Saying things such as the following, whether or not ignorant of facts, is contrary to the 2A.
"I have no problem with gun control that was under Clinton, whats wrong with background checks?"
"But lets face reality, if you cannot take out your target with SEVEN rounds of 10mm, you should NOT be carrying a gun."
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 09:18:32 AM MDT
If you are pro Gay or Abortion you are NOT a Conservative no matter how much you love guns.
I'm sure many here have Libertarian leanings, or are tea-party like, who are
real independants (not some wishy-washy intellectualist lite liberals who want to look bipartisan and open minded but will vote hardcore pinko lib first chance) and actually are really
pro 2A, not some government regulted version.
Again, if you are allowing yourself to be labeled and put in a box you are giving up power.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 09:18:32 AM MDT
If you are pro Gay or Abortion you are NOT a Conservative no matter how much you love guns.
I disagree. I'm pro-life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I am also Conservative however I also realize that the subject of being Pro Gay is well above my pay grade and is at the discretion of my maker. My responsibility is to be kind and love my fellow man regardless of their beliefs.
As I said in the other thread, the most important issue to me is gun rights and the safety of myself and my family. I see the social changes that are happening in America. We've become more liberal over the years, and it's never going back. Abortion is here to stay. Gays are going to get married. Obamacare was ruled a tax and allowed by the supreme court. Social issues, taxes, wars, the economy are always going to be hot subjects, but are really no different under any president. A few changes here and there but my daily life hasn't changed much with whoever was holding office.
It's not even about conservatives or liberalism any longer. I see what's going on in the world. I see the home invasion robberies on the news. I see the mall shootings. I see the random acts of violence, knockout games, burglaries, rapes, kidnapped children, illegal aliens running around. And the threat of homegrown Islamic terror.
Republicans stand up for my gun rights to protect myself and my family. They at least give me a fighting chance. I have no duty to retreat and run out my back door when someone breaks in or attacks me. Democrats attempt to limit gun rights at every opportunity. A few have said they would ban ALL GUNS if they thought they could.
The choice is easy. I wouldn't vote for a democrat even if they adopted a completely conservative platform but still wanted gun control. They could want to ban abortion, lower taxes, ban gay marriage, fix the deficit, kick the freeloaders off welfare, everything. If they support gun control they won't get my vote. PERIOD.
Whats wrong with background checks?
And I stand by my comment, if you cannot take care of business with 7 rounds you should not be carrying.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 12:15:55 PM MDT
Whats wrong with background checks?
And I stand by my comment, if you cannot take care of business with 7 rounds you should not be carrying.
Background checks are worthless. Someone that wants a gun will get a gun. Recent mass shooters passed background checks or stole from someone that did. Anyone can snap one day after passing a background check. Anyone bent on committing a crime with a gun isn't going to follow the laws anyway. You know who gets background checks? The law abiding citizen, because we follow the law anyway.
And there are plenty of reasons to need more than 7 rounds. Multiple attackers, missed shots, suspect on drugs, etc.
This could help explain what were are seeing...
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/1977022_10206068673656628_8660486164889379204_n.jpg?oh=dccb477d5355fd811cdb745b7a50c5c2&oe=5573ED4D&__gda__=1438462925_98b45644e2ed88873e3b3620eb73680b)
I guess you guys have no problem with felons carrying guns.
We will have to disagree on that.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 12:49:12 PM MDT
I guess you guys have no problem with felons carrying guns.
We will have to disagree on that.
Non-violent felons, sure.
And, as mentioned by others, gun control under Clinton was more than bgc. Either you are unaware or omit that portion for some reason.
I can live with non violent felons getting guns after they finished their terms, I also think they should be able to vote.
I never voted for Clinton, why would I defend him?
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 12:15:55 PM MDT
And I stand by my comment, if you cannot take care of business with 7 rounds you should not be carrying.
So full of fail.
Tell that to Officer Soulis... http://www.lawofficer.com/articles/print/volume-4/issue-12/below-100/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci.html
"Remarkably, Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis' .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired."
Not sure what you mean by pro-gay.
I don't believe the government should have any say in who sleeps with whom. Nor do I think they should have a say in what contracts consenting adults sign. Marriage is a contract. If Johnny and Teddy wanna sign one, I don't care. And I don't care what they do in private with their elbows, ankles or any other part of their anatomy.
You are right, I have no problem with felon's carrying guns. Either they are reformed, in which case they will not do anything intentionally untoward with said gun. Or the are not reformed, in which case they will ignore the restriction on possession of a firearm. The law criminalizes a behavior without a victim. This creates a drain on resources that are meant to provide assistance to people who are being victimized.
What delegation of power allows you or the government to determine how much ammunition I need?
The Officer was working in performance of his duties and should carry as many rounds as he needs.
I am talking civilians.
I carried 46 while on duty and a box of 50 in the car with a loaded long gun.
Off duty one gun one mag and when I saw something I made a call and took notes.
But CZ is looking to engage 24-7. Cops in Texas are the best in the world.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 12:59:57 PM MDT
I never voted for Clinton, why would I defend him?
You said, "I have no problem with gun control that was under Clinton, whats wrong with background checks?", and, "Whats wrong with background checks?".
No one is asking for you to defend Clinton.
This is what is going on-
Quote
[Quote from: Wolfie on Today at 08:18:32 AM]
People are questioning my commitment to the Second Amendment.
quote]
You can carry as much ammo as you want, its none of my business.
All I said if you cannot take care of business with 7 rounds you have a problem. If you are missing and need a 100 rounds to make 2 hits you should not be carrying.
I stand by background checks for gun purchases.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 01:20:49 PM MDT
I stand by background checks for gun purchases.
Ok- obviously something for us to disagree on.
And everything else in Clinton's gun control?
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 01:17:03 PM MDT
The Officer was working in performance of his duties and should carry as many rounds as he needs.
I am talking civilians.
Possible responses to this
1. In a truly free society the guardians do not have privileges the citizens do not.
2. A civilian likely has less training and therefore may require more rounds.
3. A civilian is more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than a police officer.
I am certain I could come up with more.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 01:20:49 PM MDT
I stand by background checks for gun purchases.
And I stand against the state denying anyone access to a tool that can preserve life.
[/quote]
And I stand against the state denying anyone access to a tool that can preserve life.
[/quote]
The founding fathers couldn't have said it better
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 01:17:03 PM MDT
Off duty one gun one mag and when I saw something I made a call and took notes.
Right.... great strategy.
7 rounds huh? That SAFE Act Kool-Aid tasty?
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 01:17:03 PM MDT
Cops in Texas are the best in the world.
I don't know if I would go quite that far but thanks for the acknowledgement.
Yep, the 2 NYPD cops earlier this year. Were killed by a gun that was acquired from a state that did not require background checks.
Just collateral damage, nothing more.
CZ I cannot stand the GOP/Democrat SAFE Act, I hope the USSC overturns it.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 02:52:02 PM MDT
Yep, the 2 NYPD cops earlier this year. Were killed by a gun that was acquired from a state that did not require background checks.
This assertion presumes that Mr. Brinsley would have had no recourse or method to access a handgun had a background check been required. That is patently false. There are multiple alternate avenues to acquire a handgun, not the least of which (although among the harder) would have been to take a class at the community college in metal mill operation and make his own. We cannot assume Mr. Brinsley would have been deterred.
I prefer facts to assumptions.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 02:52:02 PM MDT
Yep, the 2 NYPD cops earlier this year. Were killed by a gun that was acquired from a state that did not require background checks.
Just collateral damage, nothing more.
Collateral damage?? I'm not sure?? However, in a free society there is risk. In life itself there is presumed risk and danger. Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 03:20:59 PM MDT
I prefer facts to assumptions.
Yes, and the fact is there are multiple ways to get a gun.
It seem the easiest way to get a gun is to just steal it! But then there are those who steal food just to survive these days! ???
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 03:20:59 PM MDT
I prefer facts to assumptions.
Noted. I have corrected my post's vocabulary to note your presumption, where I had previously called it an assumption.
In either event, your statement:
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 02:52:02 PM MDT
Yep, the 2 NYPD cops earlier this year. Were killed by a gun that was acquired from a state that did not require background checks.
Still implies a presumption on your part that a background check would have averted the killings. Your above retort doesn't change the fact that the facts surrounding the acquisition of the gun are not a causation of the killing.
The fact is the sun rose in the east on Dec 20 2014, and there was nitrogen in the air the killer breathed that day. The fact is we allow free interstate travel, and if we had personal searches every time you crossed a state boundary it may have been a deterrent to this crime.
You made the above citation in support of your argument for background checks because YOU are asserting a presumption that stronger background checks would have stopped this crime. And that by extension they will have a reductive effect on overall crime rates.
However, given that far more draconian measures have been shown to fail, and that the data correlating the current background checks system with crime reduction are nebulous at best, this is a reach.
In other words, we are paying, lots, for a system that has no clear effect on violent crime rates. If I have overlooked a statistically normalized, peer reviewed study that shows something different, please let me know.
Nothing wrong with background checks, you guys disagree and thats your opinion.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 06:13:17 PM MDT
Nothing wrong with background checks,
Infringe legal descriptions include:
advance stealthily
meddle
interfere
take liberties
frustrate
Shall NOT be infringed!!!
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 06:13:17 PM MDT
you guys disagree and thats your opinion
Take a good look at all the contracts that are signed when purchasing a firearm, including the background check. I say its government exceeding their bounds. My opinion is that its just another infringement, soon to be followed by another, then another....
Greg
Its not a infringement you're good to go you get your gun.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 07:14:30 PM MDT
Its not a infringement you're good to go you get your gun.
ANY delay IS an infringement. Signing a contract under duress in order to get a fire arm IS an infringement. A government choosing what disqualifies an applicant is an infringement.
Government seeks power over us. Anyone fully understand what a "citizen" is? The word picked up it legal definition when the slaves were liberated from personal ownership, thus being subject to the government instead. Then they began teaching that it was a good thing for the rest of us too. BTW, that's one of those check boxes on that application.
Greg
A infringement is what Republicans and Democrats did in NY, when they banned all Assault Weapons.
A 5 minute background check is not a infringement.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 07:45:52 PM MDT
A infringement is what Republicans and Democrats did in NY, when they banned all Assault Weapons.
A 5 minute background check is not a infringement.
Five minutes would be nice, I always get delayed I've been able to pick it up next day up to 11 days.
Giving the government a say as to when its OK to allow an individual to have a gun, and dictate the terms which apply
transforms the "right" into a "privilege"
AKA an infringement.
Greg
Quote from: Wolfie on March 11 2015 07:45:52 PM MDT
A infringement is what Republicans and Democrats did in NY, when they banned all Assault Weapons.
A 5 minute background check is not a infringement.
And did it to weapons that are not by definition, "assault" weapons.
Concur gandog, they could have made those weapons at the very least licensable like handguns. (That stinks too, but at least I could get something)
Quote from: Wolfie on March 10 2015 09:38:10 AM MDT
Seems that there is a lot of confusion with liberal Republicans posting on topics. I think we need to ID who are the real conservatives and who the liberals are. The best way is to do that is to post what your conservative beliefs are.
I will go first.
1. Pro gun
2. Pro family values
3. Pro strong military/police
4. Strong foreign policy
That seems like a definition of a USA conservative by a liberal or maybe a statist. Basically wrong on several levels. Conservatism is rooted in the US Constitution. Let's back into this: Anyone who is against ANY of the Constitution (ie the 2nd counts as well) is not a conservative and anyone for an unbounded government in any form at any level is not a conservative.
Pablo of course its wrong, today's conservative is just being pro gun and anti Obama without offering a alternative to anything.
Unless of course if you have money and then the more you have the more conservative you are.
Plus never mind that the GOP trampled over the Constitution with the Patriot Act.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 12 2015 08:30:46 AM MDT
Pablo of course its wrong, today's conservative is just being pro gun and anti Obama without offering a alternative to anything.
Unless of course if you have money and then the more you have the more conservative you are.
Plus never mind that the GOP trampled over the Constitution with the Patriot Act.
There certainly are big gov hack republicans out there. There are conservatives offering plans. It doesn't even matter as long as Obama is president.
You are using the wrong language. Conservative is not a synonym for Republican. Unfortunately, due to only having two viable parties right now, conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalist, independents (teaparty'ers), etc, are often forced to vote Republican.
I, for one, have to hold my nose each time I vote due to my distrust for my fellow man.
What are you thoughts on this "New World Order" that is always being mentioned?
Truth? or Fabrication?
I have to suspect there is some truth to the matter. How can it be so secretive and yet so controlling? Look at Obama's own documents being privatized for example!
All of us can see the small changes and feel the affects that are happening. But there is a broader controlling factor no matter who we try to elect to the office!
Quote from: The_Shadow on March 12 2015 09:31:02 AM MDT
What are you thoughts on this "New World Order" that is always being mentioned?
Truth? or Fabrication?
Truth.
If you understand what it is and who is behind it, you can clearly see what is happening.
.
Rich, they are offering no plans.
They run the House and Senate.
As for the NWO, GHW Bush called it when president and yes I read Pat Robertsons "The New World Order" when it first came out. In fact I may still have the book.
The answer to your question is affirmative.
Quote from: Wolfie on March 12 2015 01:04:22 PM MDT
Rich, they are offering no plans.
I think we found your fundamental problem. Conservatives do offer solutions. They don't offer pie in the sky magic "plans". I think the way out of mess is to not keep doing the same stupid thing over and over again.
And if you don't think there are alternatives to the losing ways of Obama and Hilary then you are just closed minded.
Quote from: Pablo on March 12 2015 05:48:34 PM MDT
Quote from: Wolfie on March 12 2015 01:04:22 PM MDT
Rich, they are offering no plans.
I think we found your fundamental problem. Conservatives do offer solutions. They don't offer pie in the sky magic "plans". I think the way out of mess is to not keep doing the same stupid thing over and over again.
And if you don't think there are alternatives to the losing ways of Obama and Hilary then you are just closed minded.
Con-men also offer solutions. The solutions are promises of good fortune that are never delivered. No different than Republicans/Conservatives.
Quote
con man; confidence man
a person who swindles others by means of a confidence game; swindler.
a swindler who exploits the confidence of his victim
If you think you haven't been swindled, look at this. http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Take a look at the "US Unfunded Liabilities (GAAP)" at the bottom in the center. That is what you owe ($811,xxx).
.
Worse than that M O G
States, Counties and Locals are right behind.