1. 2aHawaii
  2. General Topics
  3. Off Topic
  4. Are we consistent with conservative values?
Print
Pages: [1] 2

Are we consistent with conservative values? (Read 15728 times)

eyeeatingfish

Are we consistent with conservative values?
« on: November 17, 2015, 01:37:06 AM »
Paying attention to republicans, both politicians and individuals, it seems that application of conservative values are less than consistent. The constitution is touted as great when it supports their position, the bill of rights is said to not just be a list of rules for the government but a recognition of inherent rights held by humans,  but somewhat ignored when it doesn't. I could give any number of examples both historical and current. The issue did rear its head at one of the republican debates twice, once over marijuana, and once over wire taps.

Do you believe that the bill of rights are merely man made laws that apply to just us and our government or are they a recognition of a greater right inherent to mankind? For example the 2nd amendment is often explained as a right that exists out of an inherent right to defend oneself and exists even if it wasn't included. If this is the case for the bill of rights, that they are inherent to mankind, then should not we be applying them around the world? Many republicans complained about enemy combatants in Guantanamo being given the right to appeal for example but if the bill of rights are a recognition of inherent rights then as a leader of the free world, wouldn't conservatives insist that these enemy combatants have the right to habeas corpus? I am not trying to dig up that issue, I am just using it as a more glaring example. The legality of wiretaps and government surveillance is another example as well as immigration. Even in issues of airport security screening.

This is one of the reasons I find Rand Paul interesting, he seems the most consistent in application.

Logged

Jl808

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2015, 06:54:06 AM »
Please clarify. 

Are you asking about conservative values or are you asking about the bill of rights?

The bill of rights serve to protect all the people of the United States (whether conservative or liberal) against the overreach of its government. The constitution is great for this but becomes just an ideal if they are violated and disregarded by those who swore an oath to uphold it.

Inherent in your question shows that you think the bill of rights is a conservative value only when it fact it is an American value that is unique to America.

No I don't think other nations are ready for the ideals of the US constitution and it's form of government.  It is an ideal that America exemplifies to other nations and one that other nations have to want and to strive for themselves in order to attain.

Remember the famous quote by John Adams. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Logged
I think, therefore I am armed.
NRA Life Patron member, HRA Life member, HiFiCo Life Member, HDF member

The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.

Kuleana

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2015, 07:05:44 AM »
Quote from: Jl808 on November 17, 2015, 06:54:06 AM
Remember the famous quote by John Adams. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Great quote as it explains why Republicans and Democrats in government today go about their business forgetting about the US Constitution, as not all, but many in this country go about their lives without morals or religion.

Kuleana
Logged

Tom_G

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2015, 07:44:08 AM »
Focusing on the bill of rights section of your question, I think they're just man-made laws reflecting noble ideals.  Nothing inherent about them.  Inherent in the definition of inherent is the concept of "permanent and inseparable," and we've no shortage of evidence that these rights can indeed be taken away. 

As far as the original question of "are we consistent with conservative values," my answer is "I sure hope not!"  Things that conservative values have defended over time include owning people as property, denying citizens rights based on skin color, denying citizens rights based on gender, denying citizens rights based on value, etc.  Conservative values shouldn't be entrenched, intractable things; they should provide drag against a progressive momentum, helping to ease a nation through transitions as opposed to stopping transitions from happening. 
Logged
The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

aieahound

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2015, 08:07:50 AM »
I agree with Tom.

We always need to have both sides to balance progress.

Funny that the Democrats used to be the conservatives and the Republicans were the Liberals way back in the day.

The Bill of Rights is not inherent. It's the law of the land, based on ideals, written and debated over by some pretty sharp bastahds.
We can never forget that they can be taken away.
Logged

Jl808

Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2015, 09:00:48 AM »
I disagree with the notion that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are "just man-made laws".

While they are indeed "just" laws, they are inspired, are the supreme law of the land and are the foundation that formed this great nation.

It created a form of government different from any other form of government before it.

It embodies the ideals and has protected the people, guided the formation of this country, and gave way to the prosperity, progress and freedoms that we enjoy now.
Logged
I think, therefore I am armed.
NRA Life Patron member, HRA Life member, HiFiCo Life Member, HDF member

The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.

Heavies

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2015, 09:46:43 AM »
Quote from: Tom_G on November 17, 2015, 07:44:08 AM
Focusing on the bill of rights section of your question, I think they're just man-made laws reflecting noble ideals.  Nothing inherent about them.  Inherent in the definition of inherent is the concept of "permanent and inseparable," and we've no shortage of evidence that these rights can indeed be taken away. 
....

I'd have to disagree with this part.   In my interpretation, "inherent" means rights as dictated by God or nature(if that is your thing).  Such as or right to self defense.  Sure that right can be made illegal, however, that doesn't and will never remove that right from an individual.  Current laws make you a criminal for defending oneself, that doesn't make it correct thing to do, and it sure doesn't remove your right.

That is in line with Jl's and Kuleana's post...  "moral [and/or] religious"  these things are what keeps the right things right.
Logged

Tom_G

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2015, 10:58:22 AM »
captures my perspective pretty nicely. 

Logged
The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2015, 03:39:36 PM »
When I said conservative values I meant in the context of modern conservatives in America, I should have clarified that since I myself pointed out in another thread that conservative can mean a different thing in a different place.

The reason I associated conservative values and the bill of rights is that conservatives in America often cite the bill of rights and the constitution as a reference about what makes the USA so great. Conservatives in America often espouse smaller constitutional government yet have supported certain big government programs. Conservatives seem to be more in favor of keeping marijuana illegal than liberals but this seems contrary to the conservative idea of smaller government and more freedom.

I brought up this point for discussion because I am somewhat perplexed when people who identify as republicans or conservatives don't extend the values of the constitution they so often praise.  I don't think we can be the leaders of the free world and claim our values superior and then turn around and not apply those values consistently. Going back to the issue of detainees as a good illustration, we hold that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and our bill of rights guarantees people the right to appeal their detention as well as that people cannot be detained indefinitely without being charged or tried for something. Yet republicans tended to be the more vocal against allowing detainees legal representation or the right to appeal. How can we claim the bill of rights is a recognition of inherent rights and then try to deny those rights?

When the Snowden story came out it was interesting that there was a sizable split on the republican side. Some wanted to charge him with treason while others were angry at the government walking over the 4th amendment.


An interesting side question to this specifically on firearm ownership rights: Say we are at war with a country and we are invading them. Do we take the firearms owned by private citizens for the safety of our own soldiers or do we allow the private citizens to keep their weapons because it is an inherent human right?
Logged

Bota-CS1

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2015, 04:12:54 PM »
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on November 17, 2015, 03:39:36 PM



An interesting side question to this specifically on firearm ownership rights: Say we are at war with a country and we are invading them. Do we take the firearms owned by private citizens for the safety of our own soldiers or do we allow the private citizens to keep their weapons because it is an inherent human right?

You already have your answer - see Iraq
Logged
No one is coming, it’s up to us.

Legislation should never be about depriving law abiding citizens of something, but rather taking those things away from criminals.

aieahound

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2015, 04:28:25 PM »
What's the answer ?

  ???

This is interesting..
Not just Iraq, but Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan....
I take it as the right the right to bear arms to ensure a free Democratic, Bill of Rights State.
But that's not inherent.
That's American.

Quote from: Heavies on November 17, 2015, 09:46:43 AM
I'd have to disagree with this part.   In my interpretation, "inherent" means rights as dictated by God or nature(if that is your thing).  Such as or right to self defense.  Sure that right can be made illegal, however, that doesn't and will never remove that right from an individual.  Current laws make you a criminal for defending oneself, that doesn't make it correct thing to do, and it sure doesn't remove your right.

That is in line with Jl's and Kuleana's post...  "moral [and/or] religious"  these things are what keeps the right things right.

And if your religion and morals are the opposite of ours, what then ?
They're still religious and moralistic.
Do they still have the right ?

Interested to hear others responses.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2015, 04:44:37 PM by aieahound »
Logged

Bota-CS1

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2015, 04:41:12 PM »
In Iraq they allowed households to own a weapon - according to this article as far back as 2003.  I don't recall how long ago I heard of them doing this.  There were restrictions as to what the Iraqis could own for self-defense against crime.  The article doesn't spell it out, but I would assume that uncle couldn't keep the PKM, DShK, or RPG next to the front door.  So the answer was Yes we would, but with restrictions.

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/24/world/fg-guns24
Logged
No one is coming, it’s up to us.

Legislation should never be about depriving law abiding citizens of something, but rather taking those things away from criminals.

aieahound

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2015, 04:47:03 PM »
Quote from: Bota-CS1 on November 17, 2015, 04:41:12 PM

So the answer was Yes we would, but with restrictions.

Sounds like gun control ?

And I agree with you on this point.
But where does it end.
Mag limits, no automatic weapons, no suppressors....

Is 2A inherent ?
« Last Edit: November 17, 2015, 04:52:23 PM by aieahound »
Logged

Heavies

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2015, 05:05:27 PM »
Quote from: aieahound on November 17, 2015, 04:47:03 PM
Sounds like gun control ?

And I agree with you on this point.
But where does it end.
Mag limits, no automatic weapons, no suppressors....

Is 2A inherent ?


I would say 2A, the right to defend yourself, is inherent.  They may make it illegal, but it is still a right you are born with.   In nature, a momma bear will protect her cubs to the death if need be, no one tells her she needs to do this, no one gives special permission or permits for this,  she is born with that instinct.... it is the bear's right to defend herself and her family.
Logged

aieahound

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2015, 05:14:43 PM »
In my opinion, 2A goes beyond the right to defend yourself and your brood,which I agree is inherent.

It is the right to defend your country against tyranny, whether from within or without.
That's strictly American. IMO.

Dammit I might be on a list now.  8)
Logged

Tom_G

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2015, 05:31:58 PM »
Quote from: Heavies on November 17, 2015, 05:05:27 PM
In nature, a momma bear will protect her cubs to the death if need be, no one tells her she needs to do this, no one gives special permission or permits for this,  she is born with that instinct.... it is the bear's right to defend herself and her family.

Ok, setting aside the question of whether bears have rights...

This in no way whatsoever supports either the Constitution or the second amendment.  If you want to cite bears as the justification for your argument, then we are born with all of the defensive weaponry we're entitled to.  We have fists, feet, teeth, nails.  Bigger, healthier, more aggressive specimens can intimidate, hurt, even kill others with impunity simply because they are bigger, healthier, and more aggressive.  It's their right to take what they want, live as they choose. 
Logged
The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

Heavies

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2015, 05:47:47 PM »
Quote from: Tom_G on November 17, 2015, 05:31:58 PM
Ok, setting aside the question of whether bears have rights...

This in no way whatsoever supports either the Constitution or the second amendment.  If you want to cite bears as the justification for your argument, then we are born with all of the defensive weaponry we're entitled to.  We have fists, feet, teeth, nails.  Bigger, healthier, more aggressive specimens can intimidate, hurt, even kill others with impunity simply because they are bigger, healthier, and more aggressive.  It's their right to take what they want, live as they choose. 

The second amendment specifically says  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ,  so we have a right to self defense using fists, feet teeth ,nails...etc., and the right to have and use firearms for defense of self, others, and country.
Logged

Heavies

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2015, 06:03:41 PM »
Not being able to express my idea succinctly,   This is the interpretation I subscribe to.....

Logged

edster48

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2015, 06:30:17 PM »
Quote from: Tom_G on November 17, 2015, 05:31:58 PM
Ok, setting aside the question of whether bears have rights...

This in no way whatsoever supports either the Constitution or the second amendment.  If you want to cite bears as the justification for your argument, then we are born with all of the defensive weaponry we're entitled to. We have fists, feet, teeth, nails.  Bigger, healthier, more aggressive specimens can intimidate, hurt, even kill others with impunity simply because they are bigger, healthier, and more aggressive.  It's their right to take what they want, live as they choose. 

I think you're wrong here. If bears had the intellectual and physical capacity to use firearms to protect themselves they would. Let's look at apes instead. It's well documented that they will use sticks and rocks to defend themselves and even to "make war" on rival groups of apes. The difference between them is only intellect and physical capability. Those species capable of using tools will do so.

Not to mention that you're taking his example of a mother defending her cubs out of context.

Any being { or animal } has an innate, natural { God given if you prefer } right to defend itself against aggression. The 2nd Amendment merely codifies this into law, in order to protect the citizens living under said law from their own government abusing them. The same is true of all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights. The reason we're having so much trouble with this is the continual, incessant encroachment by our government. Primarily due to politicians and bureaucrats innate tendency to want more and more control over the populace, and their money.

Are we consistent with conservative values? We would need an absolute definition of "conservative values" to be sure. I think that in this thread, the OP has confused "conservative values" with "Republican political positions". The two are not mutually inclusive.
Logged
Always be yourself.
Unless you can be a pirate.
Then always be a pirate.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Are we consistent with conservative values?
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2015, 06:36:34 PM »
So do we extend this right we see as inherent to the civilians of enemy nations? I absolutely want to see our soldiers safe but if we confiscate civilian arms we are being hypocrites at a certain level. This is true among other rights we recognize including search and seizure.

We can be the leader of the world by force, but we can also be the leader of the world by example. The balance seems difficult.

Bill whittle does have some very good videos and this one is one of his best.
Logged
Print
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »