Conservatives of the board, what amendment would you be an 'activist for'?

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: gopunk

I see "Under god" as "In God we trust" as "In X we trust" X = God, Allah, Budda, Yaweh, Zeus, or, just the Human Spirit (secular humanism). I see it as meaning "We believe in something"

i think then, we should replace "God" with "something".

Under a higher power, powers or no power we trust does not have the same ring to it.

 

Originally posted by: Yosoce

no, wako's from idoho arn't going to change a thing, but the fact that everyone CAN get a gun is esental to making it so that everyone dosn't NEED a gun. I also think that if the majority of adults had rifles with them streat crime would fall to nill.

I actually agree that guns should not be restricted, however the argument that mass gun ownership would reduce crime is so ridiculous I am surprised conservatives like to use it. Lets take a simple comparison: Britain, no guns, low violent crime. Uganda, lots of guns, high violent crime.
Do you really want that socially maladapted thug that beat you up in 7th grade to have instant death on hand for his every whim?
The argument that "if guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns" completely misses the point that restricting gun ownership is targeted at the kind of violent crime that is BY FAR the most prevalent, which is the spur-of-the-moment crime where Billy grabs a shotgun out of the closet because its there.

Switzerland - Almost every single household has a machine gun, and they deal with 1-2 murders related to guns a year. Britain has a rising crime rate, and it has been proven that concealed carry has reduced crime in certain catagories, such as retail store robberies, assaults on a person, things of that nature.

 

[Yosoce]

Switzerland is hardly your typical country. Its history, system or morals, government, everything is different enough from the USA that a comparison just doesnt work.

I am sure that everyone having guns reduces petty theft (robbing from people with guns is not safe, duh) however what I am concerned about is violent crime, which I think most people would agree is the worst kind of crime. Most violent crimes are impulsive and the people that do them regret it later. If they had not had their gun on hand and instead were forced to spend even a few hours procuring one, they would have cooled off and not done the crime.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

For me, abortion is THE make or break issue. Sitting around while the murder of babies is permitted is equivalent to sitting by in Nazi Germany while Jews were murdered. Coincidentally, both unborn babies and Jews were dehumanized to justify the massacre in their respective nations.

Every other issue is an insignificant joke compared to this matter of life or death and the defense of the defenseless.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
[Switzerland - Almost every single household has a machine gun, and they deal with 1-2 murders related to guns a year. Britain has a rising crime rate, and it has been proven that concealed carry has reduced crime in certain catagories, such as retail store robberies, assaults on a person, things of that nature.

If you are saying that gun ownership should not be blamed for violent crime etc, as it is not the main factor, then I very much agree with you. Local cultural and economic characterists have much more to do with it that gun control legislation. However, I don't believe that deregulating gun ownership in Britain would be a net good. Gun related crime is already rising - making guns easier to obtain would just make it worse.

I've been called a conservative by some for being, in general, in favour of limited government, and allowing people to make their own decisions. I think people should have the right to decide who they want to marry, what they want to worship, whether they want to have an abortion etc. But I dont think that should be taken to the "there is no such thing as society" extreme. We are members of society, and we do owe duties to the other members. (I'd better stop before I ramble any further OT).

I'm well aware that to many members of this board I'm nothing but a European pinko commie liberal though I'd disagree with both descriptions.

 

[Jzero]

This conservative says: Keep your dirty paws out of the constitution. The constitution is purposely hard to amend - it wasn't meant to be a national zeit geist barometer.

 

[Dedpuhl]

Oh man. I thought of 10 VERY good quotes from South Park that fit this thread, but I don't feel like pissing anyone off today.


Balanced budget amendment - sounds good

Abortion restrictions - Sometimes I think it's wrong and that the only reason for an abortion would be in a life-or-death situation. Then again, I'd rather a woman go to a professional than to a back alley w/ a coat hanger.

Affirmation of gun rights - 2nd amendments - England and Australia are proof that banning of firearms only makes matters worse.

End of quotas - American should be WAY beyond this. Sure there is racism, but groups like the NAACP make it sound like it's the #1 problem.

No gay marriages - They can do what they want. They should have equal rights, but no special treatment.

Freedom of religious expression - Sounds good, but conservatives are the biggest band of bible thumpers. I'd probably call myself a conservative IF it wasn't for their views on religion.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: gopunk

I see "Under god" as "In God we trust" as "In X we trust" X = God, Allah, Budda, Yaweh, Zeus, or, just the Human Spirit (secular humanism). I see it as meaning "We believe in something"

i think then, we should replace "God" with "something".

Under a higher power, powers or no power we trust does not have the same ring to it.

well i was thinking more along the lines of "under something we trust"

honestly, i don't see it as meaning "we believe in something". i believe in science, do you really think that is encapsulated by "in God we trust"? no, it's not even close.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Did you ever stop to think that, as a religious person they may feel one way, but that freedom and respect is part of the party platform and religious grandstanding won't change the fact that Republicans stand for equal treatment of everyone under the law. No special privledges, no excuses for your background.

Amen my athist brother

This made me laugh out loud. You seriously think that you and your buddies with hunting rifles are going to militarily defeat the United States Government if it does something you dislike? HA!

no, but i think that the threat of a well-armed population is esental to keeping a democracy. I don't think that if the majority of the country all over was trying to remove bush, if he became a tyrant, from power the patriots of the US army would fire on the people they are serving.

no, wako's from idoho arn't going to change a thing, but the fact that everyone CAN get a gun is esental to making it so that everyone dosn't NEED a gun. I also think that if the majority of adults had rifles with them streat crime would fall to nill.

Couldnt religious expression be used to bring people to Judaism, or Islam, or something else? Or did you mean "CHRISTIAN religious expression?" Why not outlaw all other religions while youre at it?

sure, why not, i wouldn't want to stop'm from knocking on doors, or handing out pamphlets about their religion. I just don't like bias for or against any religion *atheism included*.

But how could you force feed your values to people without funding?

when the market place of ideas isn't subsidized by the government the most utilitarian ideas come to the top. It's what makes America so wonderful.. we just need to end legislation from the bench that disagrees with that idea.

you do realize that gay people cannot biologically have children and therefore would not be running around getting abortions and/or wanting them legal?

The same libertine view that allows for the social acceptance of sexual immorality *from homosexual acts to adultery* allows for the state to have no interest in the taking of a soon-to-be baby's life.

i think my atheist bro may disagree with the last point *maybe not*, but we're a big-tent group and have lots of stuff we need to get done.

hey SO:
I've spent a lot of time arguing with atheists, i never thought i would have to.. but they out-right attacked me. I've got plenty of respect for people who honestly disagree with my faith, because faith is just that! but I'd gotten quite single minded in my view of atheists, but when someone like you, honestly not trying to actively destroy the Christian faith, comes forth; you allow me to have understanding for the view once more.

I guess just as their are zealous Christians who will yell at those who disagree because they feel in-adequate in their beliefs, so to are their some atheists and I've just had the poor fortune of encountering those.

If I understand your last point, you are making an argument for legal abortions, in which case I agree with you. My position is that so long as a fetus cannot survive outside the woumb, it is logically a part of the mother's body, and as such, whatever she wants to do with her body is her business (so abortion is okay as long as it isn't in, say, the last week of the pregnancy).

And thank you for your respect. I'm glad that I was able to show you that there are reasonable atheists out there.

Edit: Typo.

 

[shimsham]

more moderate than conservative. i chose balanced budget. the rest are personal decisions/social issues that the government shouldnt dictate.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Conservatives don't really want freedom of religious expression. They want freedom of religious expression just so long as it's Christian in nature.

 

[freakflag]

I would be an activist for any plan that would completely abolish any religion that makes people stupid, while simultaneously balancing the budget.

 

[thomsbrain]

the constitution protects our rights, not our values. there is a difference.

 

[FoBoT]

"Affirmation of gun rights."

none of that other stuff is important enough for constitutional change