What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[francoHFW]

After 30 years of Voodoo and Rushbo, conservatives are close to bipolar paranoid insanity....LOL

 

[Foxfyre]

Wouldn't that depend on exactly what the hobby is? I know musket enthusiasts who use only one round, and that is plenty for them, but it really doesn't make much sense for skeet shooters to be restricted to one round.

Indeed. I can go though a couple hundreds rounds for each of several rifles in a practice session - if you want to actually compete at NRA-Long Range, you need to practivce a lot, under differeing conditions.

Anyone familiar with any sort of competitve shooting will tell you the same thing.

Or anybody who just enjoys recreational target shooting or wants to be comfortable and competent with the weapons they own.

It makes absolutely no sense to restrict guns and/or ammunition for the vast majority of American citizens who use them carefully and responsibly than it does to restrict cars for the vast majority of American citizens who use them carefully and responsibly. And a hugely disproportionate number of people are injured or killed in accidental or intention automobile crashes than are injured or killed in accidental or intentional gunfire.

Some regulation of both cars and guns in public settings are essential to secure the rights of us all. But ONLY those regulations that secure our rights are tolerable to a 21st Century conservative. Regulations that give government power to assign our rights are not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

After 30 years of Voodoo and Rushbo, conservatives are close to bipolar paranoid insanity....LOL

We just lost another order of magnitude. Great.

 

[Mr.Nick]

After 30 years of Voodoo and Rushbo, conservatives are close to bipolar paranoid insanity....LOL

Of course because those who seek liberty to make their own decisions instead of having government make choices for them are "bipolar, paranoid and insane."

You're a fucking totalitarian freak, you're also extremely ignorant given the amount of totalitarian regimes that have occurred over the past 100 or so years.

Only a fucking retard would sit back and say "it wont happen here" - either that or you know its progressing here but reject the notion that its happening.... But thats the game some on the left play... "I'm not a totalitarian lunatic" "its for your own good and the greater good of humanity."

In theory progressives are nothing more than a bunch of Nazi's, because the Nazi's believed what they were doing was for the "greater good."

 

[M14 Shooter]

That’s not the issue.

At issue is what restrictions or regulations are appropriate in the context of the Constitutional right to self-defense, can the state demonstrate a compelling reason as to why a given regulation or restriction is needed.

If that is the issue the answer is really simple, none are reasonable...

"Reasonable" isn't the issue. Anything is "reasonable" to the person that wants it.

A "compelling state interest" - the standard by which restrictions on fundamenta rights, especially those protected specifically by the constitution - is something different -- it equates to someting that the government -must- have in its power else the government is -incapable- of doing what it is supposed to do.

Note the terms "must" and "incapable", and their meaning.

 

[Foxfyre]

That’s not the issue.

At issue is what restrictions or regulations are appropriate in the context of the Constitutional right to self-defense, can the state demonstrate a compelling reason as to why a given regulation or restriction is needed.

If that is the issue the answer is really simple, none are reasonable...

"Reasonable" isn't the issue. Anything is "reasonable" to the person that wants it.

A "compelling state interest" - the standard by which restrictions on fundamenta rights, especially those protected specifically by the constitution - is something different -- it equates to someting that the government -must- have in its power else the government is -incapable- of doing what it is supposed to do.

Note the terms "must" and "incapable", and their meaning.

And in my opinion as a 21st century American conservative, the ONLY compelling state interest is determined by affirmative answers to:
1) Is it necessary to provide the common defense?
2) Does it promote the general welfare (that is for everybody and not any targeted group)?
3. Does it secure the rights of the people?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Jared Loughner was mentally ill.
The kid should have been put in an institution and had drug treatment.

The absurdity of the left is to outlaw that Glock in which he used.
It takes AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.

The idea that the mentally ill should not be locked up because of their rights is totally opposite of what state and fed government should do.
The criminally insane need to be institutionalized and get treatment, not take away the rights of law abider's and sane citizens.

Only the progressive retard laymen that are too dumb to know anything argue to ban guns because idiots get a hold of them and kill people.

The progressive politicians want to ban guns because guns get in their way of a totalitarian government where they run our lives.

Take a look at the UK....

They banned guns and now they're shoving all sorts of shit down their citizens throats... Now the citizens have no way of protecting their liberty....

Hell, I was reading one case out of the UK where a man (a farmer) killed a home intruder, then wounded his partner in crime. He got life in prison for murder and the wounded criminal (who got 3 years) sued the man (while he was in prison) and won the mans property.

And if I remember correctly the pair of criminals had extensive criminal records, and had been busted for burglary many times.... One of them was busted for burglary like 25-30 times..

The courts explanation on the ruling was: "you should have ran away."

I suppose in the UK when people walk into your home with intent to rob you - you should either run away or offer the criminals tea while they take your shit?

But that's how the progressives think over there across the pond...

They don't believe anyone has the right to protect their property and sanctuary...

Only a liar would write: "Only the progressive retard laymen that are too dumb to know anything argue to ban guns because idiots get a hold of them and kill people."

 

[francoHFW]

If totalitarianism happens here, it'll be wrapped in the flag and the bible and televised live on Fox. Change the channel. LOL!

 

[Foxfyre]

If totalitarianism happens here, it'll be wrapped in the flag and the bible and televised live on Fox. Change the channel. LOL!

Totalitarianism is already more prevalent in modern American society than is freedom as the Founders envisioned it, but it isn't the flag wavers or Bible thumpers that have made it that way. I only hope and pray that modern American conservatism will catch on so we can begin reversing the trend that will make America just another stagnant "European" nation in which nobody has rights other than what the government dictates.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If that is the issue the answer is really simple, none are reasonable...

"Reasonable" isn't the issue. Anything is "reasonable" to the person that wants it.

A "compelling state interest" - the standard by which restrictions on fundamenta rights, especially those protected specifically by the constitution - is something different -- it equates to someting that the government -must- have in its power else the government is -incapable- of doing what it is supposed to do.

Note the terms "must" and "incapable", and their meaning.

And in my opinion as a 21st century American conservative, the ONLY compelling state interest is determined by affirmative answers to:
1) Is it necessary to provide the common defense?
2) Does it promote the general welfare (that is for everybody and not any targeted group)?
3. Does it secure the rights of the people?

That would fall under "doing what it is supposed to do".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That’s not the issue.

At issue is what restrictions or regulations are appropriate in the context of the Constitutional right to self-defense, can the state demonstrate a compelling reason as to why a given regulation or restriction is needed.

If that is the issue the answer is really simple, none are reasonable...

"Reasonable" isn't the issue. Anything is "reasonable" to the person that wants it.

A "compelling state interest" - the standard by which restrictions on fundamenta rights, especially those protected specifically by the constitution - is something different -- it equates to someting that the government -must- have in its power else the government is -incapable- of doing what it is supposed to do.

Note the terms "must" and "incapable", and their meaning.

No restrictions on my right to self defense are reasonable, and no state interest can possibly be compelling enough to limit it. The right to defend life trumps all other considerations. The simple fact that courts arbitrarily created categories and levels of rights in order to make it easier for the government to do its job does not factor into this discussion because Jones tried to make the issue about restrictions on my right to self defense, not compelling state interest in controlling anything. Just because he is an idiot does not mean I am. Even the most ardent gun control advocates never try to argue against the right to self defense, they couch their arguments in terms of the states interest in protecting others from harm.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Foxfyre wrote:

And in my opinion as a 21st century American conservative, the ONLY compelling state interest is determined by affirmative answers to:
1) Is it necessary to provide the common defense?
2) Does it promote the general welfare (that is for everybody and not any targeted group)?
3. Does it secure the rights of the people?

The common defense is a term open to interpretation; within the context of your writings I infer you interpret that means defending the United States against all (human) enemies, is that correct?

When I read those words, I see the meaning a bit more broadly - hence our different perspective on our Constitution. I see the Federal Government has a role in protecting us from disease; from such a perspective I see the role of government in providing preventative protections to all citizens as part of providing a common defense.

Such preventative protections would be provided to all citizens, high born and the poor meeting the general welfare condition of available to all of the nation.

Finally we get to securing the rights of all citizens. Given the effort by the Republican Party to root out voter fraud, many states are in the process of changing the laws on what ID must be presented by a person who wishes to vote. Everyone - at least every honest person - understands this is an effort to unlevel the playing field and exclude voters who are likely to vote for Obama.

Which leads us back to the beginning. Is not the right to vote an issue worth defending? It is a slippery slope which allows for the disenfranchisement of the few in 2012 to the disenfranchisement of the many in 2016?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If totalitarianism happens here, it'll be wrapped in the flag and the bible and televised live on Fox. Change the channel. LOL!

The idiot speaketh.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When I read those words, I see the meaning a bit more broadly - hence our different perspective on our Constitution. I see the Federal Government has a role in protecting us from disease; from such a perspective I see the role of government in providing preventative protections to all citizens as part of providing a common defense.

Please show that, if the framers were here now, they'd see the current state of affairs, and agree with your interpretation.

Or do such standards only apply when you're discussing what they would have done regarding the 2nd?

Finally we get to securing the rights of all citizens. Given the effort by the Republican Party to root out voter fraud, many states are in the process of changing the laws on what ID must be presented by a person who wishes to vote. Everyone - at least every honest person - understands this is an effort to unlevel the playing field and exclude voters who are likely to vote for Obama.

This is, of course a lie.
But, aside from your brazen dishonesty...
If you agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to buy a gun, you must then agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to vote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Foxfyre wrote:

And in my opinion as a 21st century American conservative, the ONLY compelling state interest is determined by affirmative answers to:
1) Is it necessary to provide the common defense?
2) Does it promote the general welfare (that is for everybody and not any targeted group)?
3. Does it secure the rights of the people?

The common defense is a term open to interpretation; within the context of your writings I infer you interpret that means defending the United States against all (human) enemies, is that correct?

When I read those words, I see the meaning a bit more broadly - hence our different perspective on our Constitution. I see the Federal Government has a role in protecting us from disease; from such a perspective I see the role of government in providing preventative protections to all citizens as part of providing a common defense.

Such preventative protections would be provided to all citizens, high born and the poor meeting the general welfare condition of available to all of the nation.

Finally we get to securing the rights of all citizens. Given the effort by the Republican Party to root out voter fraud, many states are in the process of changing the laws on what ID must be presented by a person who wishes to vote. Everyone - at least every honest person - understands this is an effort to unlevel the playing field and exclude voters who are likely to vote for Obama.

Which leads us back to the beginning. Is not the right to vote an issue worth defending? It is a slippery slope which allows for the disenfranchisement of the few in 2012 to the disenfranchisement of the many in 2016?

Let us test that theory and see who is really being honest here.

Let us look at South Carolina's current law regarding voting.

When any person presents himself to vote, he shall produce his valid South Carolina driver’s license or other form of identification containing a photograph issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, if he is not licensed to drive, or the written notification of registration.

Voter registration certificate
South Carolina driver’s license
South Carolina Dept. of Motor Vehicles photo ID cardVoters without ID may be permitted to vote a provisional ballot. This varies from county to county. Whether the provisional ballot is counted is at the discretion of the county commissioners at the provisional ballot hearing.

The new law, shich the DOJ claims is to restrictive, changes those requirements to this.

When a person presents himself to vote, he shall produce a valid and current ID.

South Carolina driver’s license
Other form of photo ID issued by the SC Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Passport
Military ID bearing a photo issued by the federal government
South Carolina voter registration card with a photoIf the elector cannot produce identification, he may cast a provisional ballot that is counted only if the elector brings a valid and current photograph identification to the county board of registration and elections before certification of the election by the county board of canvassers.

If we accept your premise, any honest person that looks at these laws, and sees that the new law actually enables a voter to provide more forms of identification is specifically designed to disenfranchise voters who might vote for Obama.

Sorry, I fail to make that connection. To me it looks like all the hoopla about voter ID is being manufactured by dishonest people to make it look like the other side is trying to prevent people who need ID to cash their checks, get food stamps, be eligible for any type of government aid, and can get IDs for free in most states that require voter IDs from voting. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Now we get to see it you are actually an honest person, or if we can dismiss all your post as coming from an rdean wannabe.

 

[Wry Catcher]

When I read those words, I see the meaning a bit more broadly - hence our different perspective on our Constitution. I see the Federal Government has a role in protecting us from disease; from such a perspective I see the role of government in providing preventative protections to all citizens as part of providing a common defense.

Please show that, if the framers were here now, they'd see the current state of affairs, and agree with your interpretation.

Or do such standards only apply when you're discussing what they would have done regarding the 2nd?

Finally we get to securing the rights of all citizens. Given the effort by the Republican Party to root out voter fraud, many states are in the process of changing the laws on what ID must be presented by a person who wishes to vote. Everyone - at least every honest person - understands this is an effort to unlevel the playing field and exclude voters who are likely to vote for Obama.

This is, of course a lie.
But, aside from your brazen dishonesty...
If you agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to buy a gun, you must then agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to vote.

I have no objection to showing an ID to vote; I simply pointed out the obvious. This is an attempt by the Republican Party to disenfranchise likely Democratic Voters. There must be provisions in the new laws for citizens who do not have a proper ID and cannot get one in time, to vote. Ballots submitted by those without ID may be provisional, and subject to verification of there being legally cast, but no one should be disenfranchised by a part time government employee.

The laws are supposed to be focused on rooting out fraud; they must not be used to disenfranchise legally entitled citizens to exercise their right to vote. I am making an allegation that the Republican Party has conspired to disenfranchise voters in the next election. I don't have to prove it, the evidence that the right to vote has been denied, restricted and made more difficult in our nations past is well known and given the few arrests and convictions from 2008 it's pretty obvious voter fraud is not epidemic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When I read those words, I see the meaning a bit more broadly - hence our different perspective on our Constitution. I see the Federal Government has a role in protecting us from disease; from such a perspective I see the role of government in providing preventative protections to all citizens as part of providing a common defense.

Please show that, if the framers were here now, they'd see the current state of affairs, and agree with your interpretation.

Or do such standards only apply when you're discussing what they would have done regarding the 2nd?

Finally we get to securing the rights of all citizens. Given the effort by the Republican Party to root out voter fraud, many states are in the process of changing the laws on what ID must be presented by a person who wishes to vote. Everyone - at least every honest person - understands this is an effort to unlevel the playing field and exclude voters who are likely to vote for Obama.

This is, of course a lie.
But, aside from your brazen dishonesty...
If you agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to buy a gun, you must then agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to vote.

I have no objection to showing an ID to vote; I simply pointed out the obvious. This is an attempt by the Republican Party to disenfranchise likely Democratic Voters.

Prove it.
Else, youre just spouting more of your usual partisan bigotry.

While you're at it,
Regarding the onus to provide for the common defense and your claim to that effect....
Please show that, if the framers were here now, they'd see the current state of affairs, and agree with your interpretation.

Or do such standards only apply when you're discussing what they would have done regarding the 2nd?

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre wrote:

And in my opinion as a 21st century American conservative, the ONLY compelling state interest is determined by affirmative answers to:
1) Is it necessary to provide the common defense?
2) Does it promote the general welfare (that is for everybody and not any targeted group)?
3. Does it secure the rights of the people?

The common defense is a term open to interpretation; within the context of your writings I infer you interpret that means defending the United States against all (human) enemies, is that correct?

When I read those words, I see the meaning a bit more broadly - hence our different perspective on our Constitution. I see the Federal Government has a role in protecting us from disease; from such a perspective I see the role of government in providing preventative protections to all citizens as part of providing a common defense.

Such preventative protections would be provided to all citizens, high born and the poor meeting the general welfare condition of available to all of the nation.

Finally we get to securing the rights of all citizens. Given the effort by the Republican Party to root out voter fraud, many states are in the process of changing the laws on what ID must be presented by a person who wishes to vote. Everyone - at least every honest person - understands this is an effort to unlevel the playing field and exclude voters who are likely to vote for Obama.

Which leads us back to the beginning. Is not the right to vote an issue worth defending? It is a slippery slope which allows for the disenfranchisement of the few in 2012 to the disenfranchisement of the many in 2016?

The only interpretation necessary for interpretation of conservative principles related to the intent of the Constitution is to look to what the Founders intended when they wrote it.

The Founders interpreted the 'common defense' to mean all enemies, within and from outside the country, who would seek to harm or overthrow the lawful government and/or violate unalienable rights of the people and/or the federal laws that secured the rights and property of the people.

Preventative protections that would be outside the ability of the states and local communities to provide such as shared air, airspace, water, coastline, international trade, unrestricted communications, etc. would fall within the Founders' interpretation of the 'general welfare' rather than the 'common defense'.

To maintain integrity of the voting process is absolutely within the realm of the Federal government for federal elective offices, at the State level for state elective offices, and at the Community level for local elective offices. Whatever necessary system is used to determine that a person is eligible to vote and ensure that each person votes only once should be approved and a priority of every citizen who values decency, honesty, and integrity in government.

If a requirement to ensure integrity of the voting system "disenfranchises" only Obama voters, that is a really pathetic commentary on Obama and his constituency don't you think? (Disenfranchises is definitely a subjective term in this case.)

 

[Wry Catcher]

Please show that, if the framers were here now, they'd see the current state of affairs, and agree with your interpretation.

Or do such standards only apply when you're discussing what they would have done regarding the 2nd?


This is, of course a lie.
But, aside from your brazen dishonesty...
If you agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to buy a gun, you must then agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to vote.

I have no objection to showing an ID to vote; I simply pointed out the obvious. This is an attempt by the Republican Party to disenfranchise likely Democratic Voters.

Prove it.
Else, youre just spouting more of your usual partisan bigotry.

While you're at it,
Regarding the onus to provide for the common defense and your claim to that effect....
Please show that, if the framers were here now, they'd see the current state of affairs, and agree with your interpretation.

Or do such standards only apply when you're discussing what they would have done regarding the 2nd?

Well, the framers are all dead but it's pretty clear that not all of them would agree with me, or you for that matter. In fact they had trouble agreeing amongst themselves on most issues.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no objection to showing an ID to vote; I simply pointed out the obvious. This is an attempt by the Republican Party to disenfranchise likely Democratic Voters.

Prove it.
Else, youre just spouting more of your usual partisan bigotry.

While you're at it,
Regarding the onus to provide for the common defense and your claim to that effect....
Please show that, if the framers were here now, they'd see the current state of affairs, and agree with your interpretation.

Or do such standards only apply when you're discussing what they would have done regarding the 2nd?

Well, the framers are all dead but it's pretty clear that not all of them would agree with me, or you for that matter. In fact they had trouble agreeing amongst themselves on most issues.

But whether or not it was entirely to their individual liking, they DID come to an agreement on what they were all consenting to when they signed the Constitution into law and cast their vote to ratify it. The modern American conservative looks to that agreement in defending the constitution. The modern American liberal seeks to amend the constitution not by the stated lawful means but by reinterpreting it. We have a wealth of writing describing in painstaking detail what the Founders intended.