Conservatives, fear not

Fear not? Somehow, I don't think so

Sure, we will survive, but at what cost for individual liberty? As others have noted, the pendulum swings, but every so often, the outside boundaries are reset, and for the past three quarters of a century, all the resets have been to the left.

The social "advances" brought about by the New Deal and the Great Society were not repealed, nor was it even attempted. Probably because while there was much bad, there was also some good, and we are unwilling to give up the good in order to repeal the bad. And because the good and bad are dependant (largely) on one's point of view.

We have made great advances toward true equality for the social and sexual underclasses, but we have done so by turning some of the our rights into privileges. Since the underclasses did not enjoy full exercise of these rights (generally), they didn't really miss them when they became privileges. Unrestricted gun ownership is just one of these rights. A big one, to be sure, but not the only one. Federal, state, and local laws, rules, ordinances and the unwritten "code" of conduct considered proper by society in general have restricted and channeled our behavior into an ever narrowing range of behavior that is "allowed" without punishment, or payment for the privilege of doing what we wish. What our grandfathers could do on their own land, we can no longer do, without permits, licenses, permission from govt and often many others, and face punishment and fines if we do not obtain permission and pay, before we act. This kind of situation is not yet universal, but it is very wide spread. And I can only see it getting worse.

On a different (but related note), is it any wonder that the Republican party, and by extension the conservative political philosophy has been discredited in the eyes of much of the populace? We have been exposed to a constant media blitz for the past few years, with the single theme of Bush = bad. Everything wrong was blamed on the Bush administration, either overtly or by inference. Not since the days of yellow journalism leading us into the Spanish American War has the media been so relentless in their driving home a message to the people, and that message is that everything wrong with our nation, and its place in the world is the result of either intent or incompetence on the part of Bush, the Republicans, the conservative philosophy, etc. expanding to include anyone who disagrees with this pronouncement. Even talk radio has come under fire, simply because, for some reason unfathomable to the left, their message does not do well there.

I say there is plenty of good reason to fear, because if Obama leads a Democratic congress, we will have more burdens to bear than ever in the past. And once in place, they will not be lifted, to any significant degree, ever. Each new generation matures believing that the limits and restrictions they grew up with are right and proper. It is the way it is. It is what ought to be. And while they may fight new restrictions (which they will view as tyranny), it takes rare individuals to fight against the status quo. They do exist, but only rarely can enough of them get together, and sway the public enough to effect any real change.

There are only a handful of people still living who could remember when one could walk into a store and buy either a machine gun or opium over the counter, with no questions asked. Or when there were shooting galleries (with real guns) in major urban areas, open to anyone who stepped up the the counter and paid their nickel or dime. Or when women were not allowed to vote. Soon there will be none left with these kinds of things in living memory. As more time goes on, many will do their best to convince us that these things were never common, or even important. And many will believe them.

Many things have definately changed for the better, but some have not. Some of the things we lost, we would have been better off keeping, at least as I see it. And if Obama and company win, we stand to lose some more. We may even gain some things of real value to our society, but I can't help but wonder if the price we will wind up paying for them will be too high.
 
I think what's actually happening is this:


There are two principal political parties in the US and they're both run by white people. One of those parties has exploited racial minorities for a couple of generations to get power over the other party. Now, those racial minorities want to drive the bus. They've already got power inside the party and increasingly they have the numbers nationwide.


The Democratic party has been in the process of throwing out the white people for a while. This continues.


The next 100 years will be interesting. If Obama takes the general election, I predict there will never be another white Democratic Presidential candidate. I suspect he's half a generation early, but I could be wrong.


Once the Democratic Party stops running white candidates for national and statewide office, I think white people will still control the Democratic Party in an invisible hand fashion (kingmakers and cash sources) for a couple of generations--for as long as blacks are influential at the state and national level in the Democratic Party. But before the century is out, I think blacks will get much the same treatment as whites and the Democratic Party will become the de facto hispanic party.


As that transformation occurs, I suspect the George Soros types will lose their grip on the Democratic Party. What will happen then is unknown but I suspect that that Absolut Vodka billboard will look like a bestcase scenario.


Meanwhile, the Republican Party will be the party of everybody else.
 
i wish people would stop blindly beleiving that one party is going to give more gun rights over the other.what is promissed by a party is not a garrantee their going to do it.this is in no way against the rep party nor the dem.if you keep an open mind and really watch whats going on,they all want your guns.all.i'm no expert but did'nt reagan and bush list guns they wanted outlawed for that brady bill?they listed mountains of guns they did'nt want us to have.i wish i could buy a steyr but they listed it.they also listed my cetme but while clinton was in office people found a way to legalize it by changing parts around.beleave me,i'm not one sided.after 2 republican presidents listed all the guns we can't have,clinton signed the bill and i think he did it just cause dems are supposed to be less into gun rights but that bill was gonna get signed no matter who was in power.i no longer support the nra because they blindly and radically supported a president who did not do one thing for gun rights.i remember them having an hour long show to support bush.they used money from the nra supporters including my donations,to finance that show and he did nothing for us gun owners.if people want to vote for gun supporters,great,but its time our presidents do something in return.they need to do more than agree to get filmed while on a bird hunt.all that did was give me the impression that he feels that he should be able to have guns but not anyone else.i'm going to steel a fraze now.showwwww me the moneyyyy.if we go on supporting presidents that say their for gun rights and then do nothing then yes,its a matter of time before our guns go byebye.if our troops can go door to door collecting guns in a war zone then it will be twice as easy for them to do it in peaceful good ol usa and their all trained and practiced up on it from their experience over there.when they come to your door,i don't care how many times you say they can pry your guns from your cold dead hands.you will hand them over.
 
Yes it is...how long do you want to play?
No it isn't. The second Amendment from the conservative position is a "civil rights" issue (as well it should be). The suggestion that the Republican party would not be pro-gun if not for the social conservatives is laughable.
They were pro-gun long before that crew showed up.
 
No it isn't. The second Amendment from the conservative position is a "civil rights" issue (as well it should be). The suggestion that the Republican party would not be pro-gun if not for the social conservatives is laughable.
They were pro-gun long before that crew showed up.

You don't know what you're talking about. Getting the pro-gun vote for Republicans was part of the social conservative coalition that Reagan formed after the anti-gun position had become an increasing part of the Dem platform during the '70's. Everybody thinks that their pet concern is the sacred "civil rights" ox, everybody, but, hate to break it to you, gun owners are just another interest group jockeying for position. Pro-life from the conservative position is a "civil rights" issue (as well it should be); Pro-religion from the conservative position is a "civil rights" issue (as well it should be); Pro-whatevertheelseyoucanthinkof from the conservative position is a "civil rights" issue (as well it should be). Get the point?
 
HKuser
All laws are a legislation of someone's morality. There are some who would argue that outlawing guns fits your definition.

If I remember correctly, a "right" as defined by the D of I, and protected by the US Constitution, is "unalienable". Meaning that the founders believed that no Government could pass a law to deny that right. "Morality" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
+1 while some claim Conservatives are for social issues and 2nd admendment rights, what about the first amendment and the seperation of church and state? Conservatism is OK if your Christian and you don't like anything dirty. Bush and the conservatives in his party should have spent more time looking for Bin Laden and less time going after Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunctions and getting Howard Stern off of the radio.

I personally like the fact that McCain is the republican candidate and does not goosestep with the conservative leadership.
rushnazi.jpg


Obama on the other hand is a hard core liberal democrat, and will march to their socialist drum.
che_obama_1.jpg
 
while some claim Conservatives are for 2nd admendment rights, what about the first amendment and the seperation of church and state?

As far as I know, no conservative Senator has advocated establishing a national religion, such as England has. Are you aware of any?
 
If I remember correctly, a "right" as defined by the D of I, and protected by the US Constitution, is "unalienable"..."Morality" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And someone had to decide that was the moral thing to do somewhere along the way, therefore, morality has everything to do with it. Others think owning guns is immoral, thankfully the founders thought differently.
 
HKuser,
Sorry, but you ain't gonna get any mileage outta that. :)

You see, a "civil rights" issue is one that is identified by the Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights.
Guns= civil rights
Abortion = social
Religion = anti-civil rights

So nice try and all.
 
You see, a "civil rights" issue is one that is identified by the Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights.

Huh?

So, do the citizens of say, France and Great Britain, have civil rights?
 
TBM,
I know what they've got to say and I'm not embarrassing myself at all.
Just because a right is not recognized by the government, does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Could not be further from the truth. A right exists only as long as the government is forced to recognize it.
 
Back
Top