AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES...on the wrong side of everything!

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank: Were the Anti-Federalists conservatives or liberals? They wanted a weak central government, frequent elections, and term limits. They distrusted the power of federal government, accusing it of fostering an "aristocracy" rather than a true democracy. They favored protection of native industries. They were the ones pressing for a Bill of Rights. They said things like: "A republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided; in such a government the people are the sovereign and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure; for when this ceases to be the case, the nature of the government is changed, and an aristocracy, monarchy or despotism will rise on its ruin."

Were those positions conservative in the 1780s? Are they conservative now?

(For links to Anti-Federalist literature, check here).

Joe

The only people I am calling conservatives...are people who call themselves conservatives.

Should be no trouble with that.

There were people who referred to themselves as "conservatives" in each of the instances of major issues that I mentioned.

And in my opinion, those people were on the wrong side of the issues.

Why bring anti-federalists in here?

Why bring Republican and Democrats in here?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The only people I am calling conservatives...are people who call themselves conservatives.

Should be no trouble with that.

Now you're absolutely right, Frank, there is no trouble at all. You've just demonstrated that your thesis is false--no one in 1776 referred to themselves as conservative.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

The only people I am calling conservatives...are people who call themselves conservatives.

Should be no trouble with that.

Now you're absolutely right, Frank, there is no trouble at all. You've just demonstrated that your thesis is false--no one in 1776 referred to themselves as conservative.

No, but they did refer to themselves as Tories...and if you consult a dictionary, you'll see that Tory means conservative.

Jeez, try to get up to speed.

0 Replies

Given that the term Tory in America was used differently than the term Tory in England, your remark about Tories being conservatives now and then is specious. Tory meant monarchist, and, as such it was applied to anyone opposing the revolution. As i've already noted, the mercantile class (from whom most Tories came) were considered Whigs in England, and by anachronistic definition, Liberal.

But the tenor of the rest of your response shows the basis and strenghth of your rebuttal. I've reported it to the moderator.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

I can't speak for all conservatives. There are many reasonable ones like John McCain.

But I do know that the NRA and the republicans in congress strongly opposed a rule requiring that people atleast present an ID before purchasing guns at a gun show. They blocked the rule from passing.

Is it possible that they simply do not believe this is a proper role for the FEDERAL government?

You have to remember that there are at least two very common reasons for opposing legislation:

1) You think the legislation is a bad idea.

2) You don't think the federal government should be or is supposed to be doing what the legislation intends to do.

There are lots of "good ideas" and reasonable, rational, logical rules by which we might expect people to live that may not be things the FEDERAL government should do, but might be excellent things for state or local governments to do.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Let's take the major issues one at a time...and just see where the conservatives were.

#1....the war of Independence.

As I see it, the conservatives...the tories...were arguing that we were vassels of a liege lord, George III of England...and that he and his parliament could tax us as they wished.

The conservatives argued that we should stay a colony of England.

In my opinion...the conservatives were on the wrong side of that issue.

Does anyone want to challenge that?

I'd love to challenge your assertion that the Tories were conservatives and those who were pro-independence were liberals, yes.

As I wrote before, you seem to want to first define the term conservative to mean those that were on the wrong side, and then ask whether anyone disagrees that conservatives--as you've defined them--were on the wrong side.

What is a conservative? To me they are for a small, limited federal government... which is what the men who fought for independence created, right? Conservatives are pro-capitalism, which the founding fathers clearly also were. Conservatives favor a black-letter reading of the law, which also appears evident in the writings of the framers and founders.

Consider who it is that supports the war to liberate Iraqis from the tyranny under which they lived... CONSERVATIVES. Seems to me that we ought to call those who supported liberating the colonies from England's tyranny by the same name. :wink:

So, I disagree with your assertion that the Tories of that time were analogues of conservatives of today. I would consider the founding fathers, the framers of the constitution, and the men who stood up to the Kind the forefathers of today's conservatives.

Next historical example? Cool

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

The only people I am calling conservatives...are people who call themselves conservatives.

Should be no trouble with that.

Now you're absolutely right, Frank, there is no trouble at all. You've just demonstrated that your thesis is false--no one in 1776 referred to themselves as conservative.

Setanta is right: in Britain, "the word 'Conservative' was first used in its modern sense in an article in the Quarterly Review in January 1830." Presumably, American usage of the terms "conservative" and "liberal" likewise would not have pre-dated 1830. So to speak of any "self-identified" conservatives prior to 1830 is to speak of a phantom.

I would further add that today many conservatives of a libertarian persuasion refer to themselves as "classical liberals." Does their self-identification as "liberals" make them "liberal"?

0 Replies

Tory also means "Loyalist" and "Convervative." We're dealing with interpretations of history and I can see where the envelope is being pushed out in defining political stances of the past but find the discussion fascinating.

0 Replies

The entire problem really boils down to an anachronistic application of late-20th and early 21st century terms of a dichotimous political polarization to our history. I specifically identified Democrats and Republicans to point to the fluid nature of political agendae. By the naive assumption of this thesis, Jefferson and Madison and Monroe all supported the revolution, and were therefore not conservative. In the generation from 1801 to 1825 in which these men occupied the White House, and Jefferson's Republican Party was the only political party, is one to then assume that there was no one of a political persuasion in the United States whom we would call conservative? I would not think so. I refer again to my contention that in many respects, the move toward revolution arose from alarm at Parliamentary "innovation," and a desire to preserve or return to the status quo ante.

In our own times, much of the rest of the world--might i not say most?--consider that there are no liberal political organizations in the United States, and that any distinction is only in degree of conservatism.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

The only people I am calling conservatives...are people who call themselves conservatives.

Should be no trouble with that.

Now you're absolutely right, Frank, there is no trouble at all. You've just demonstrated that your thesis is false--no one in 1776 referred to themselves as conservative.

Setanta is right: in Britain, "the word 'Conservative' was first used in its modern sense in an article in the Quarterly Review in January 1830." Presumably, American usage of the terms "conservative" and "liberal" likewise would not have pre-dated 1830. So to speak of any "self-identified" conservatives prior to 1830 is to speak of a phantom.

I would further add that today many conservatives of a libertarian persuasion refer to themselves as "classical liberals." Does their self-identification as "liberals" make them "liberal"?

As I wrote, Frank wants to stack the terminological deck and then challenge us to prove him wrong using his definition of terms. Sorry Frank, but that's not exactly cricket, ol' boy. :wink:

0 Replies

You're citation about "conservative" has raised an interesting thought for me, Joe. Given that the term arises in 1830, when Lord Grey's ministry was proposing to the new King, William IV, the need for parliamentary electoral reform, i would surmise (and haven't the time right now to go look for a citation) that the term "liberal" was contemporaneously coined, at least roughly. Grey's Whigs are usually referred to as Liberals in history texts, and so i think a citation would be needed to establish when the term originated. The passage of the 1832 reform bill was also accomplished by a political trick which the Tories greatly resented-Grey gave Tories the committee to determine which "rotten" and "pocket" boroughs to eliminate, and where new boroughs would need to be created. In effect, he put them in the position of digging at least a few of their own political graves. I would suspect that this, combined with William's abortive effort to have Wellington form a government, tended to harden political animosities. It is certain that this was the case with Palmerston, who took an "over my dead body" attitude toward further electoral reform; in fact, no new reform bill was passed until after Palmerston's death in 1865.

0 Replies

Actually, this is the gun proposal I was referring to.

Centroles wrote:

What if the record book burns down in a fire, or gets stolen. What if the shop owner dies. What if the shop closes down. Frankly if the local police station is trying to track down a killer or a terrorist, i would want them to be able to do it as fast as possible. I wouldn't want to risk that the shop might be closed for the week, the records burned down in a fire, the guy never bothered to keep a record and a host of other scenarios that would make it impossible or very very slow in linking a gun used in a murder or an act of terrorism to it's owner.

(The only way to avoid this is by making it a law to report the name of the person to the local police station or FBI station anytime you sell a gun to someone. You already have to fill out a form to purchase a gun. All I am proposing is that the form be forwarded to a database where it is safe from fire damage, loss etc. Essentially a national database. But one with restriced access to protect the rights of gun owners.)

Quote:

Make it a rule so that you can only use it to track down a gun found in the scene of a crime or something. Make it accessible only to check the records of a guy you already have enough evidence to have put in custody as a suspect for a crime. Make it a rule that whenever someone reports a gun as stolen, the police are require to update the status of the gun in the database, similar to how the database is updated when a vehicle is stolen. But atleast let there be one, if at the very least as an emergency back up.

This is what I was referring to. Being able to track any gun back to it's owner or any suspect in custody back to the guns they own. From a forensics perspective, this would make law enforcement a lot easier.

And in cases where a wanted terrorist or criminal buys a gun, it immediately sets up a red flag so that he can be tracke down asap. I am certain that a wanted criminal or terrorist would be vary to identify themselves if that's what it takes for them to purchase a gun.

I ask you again, how does this restrict a person's ability to buy a gun, unless that person is a wanted criminal or terrorist? The second amendment protects the rights of LEGAL RESIDENTS, wanted criminals and wanted terrorists aren't protected by it.

So I reiterate, this proposal would not restrict a person's freedom to purchase a gun. Hence your slippery slope analogy is invalid. Because this law doesn't erode a legal resident's right to own a gun, hence it doesn't take us down any slope.

So I ask you again, what is a valid reason to not implement such a proposal.

0 Replies

Wasn't his answer basically that this is what already happens and therefor this would just be a costly and redundant effort the benefits of which are already realized by the fact that this is what already happens? Or did I read that wrong?

0 Replies

were you refering to my post scrat.

If so, then that's not correct.

This isn't what already happens.

Currently, the person who sold the gun is expected to keep a record of the people they sold it to (essentially the form that you fill out when you buy a gun). They might not keep it, or keep it safe. They could misplace it, it could burn down in a fire, they could die not having told anyone where the records were.

As a result, right now, if the police have a suspect for a murder commited with a specific gun. They have no way to check if the person actually bought the specific type of gun used in the murders. They might get lucky and stumble onto the place or the person who sold them the gun. But that's very unlikely and time consuming.

As a result, the person could go free with insufficent evidence and released to do it again.

Currently, if they have a murder weapon, the only way to find out the owner is to contact the gun manufacturer with te serial number. The gun manufacturer would tell them what shop they sold the gun to. And then they would have to contact the shop and hope and pray that they kept a record and didn't lose it, have it destroyed in a fire etc. if the shop even still exists.

All this to find out who the owner is. Time is critical in a murder. If they can't get a suspect within 24 hrs, odds are, the guy will disappear by then. And they might never find out who the owner is if they can't track down the records.

With a national database, they would be able to find out the owner is seconds.

And to protect gun owners, we add the stipulation that you can only access the database to find the owner of a gun used in a crime and you can only the guns owned by a person already suspected of commiting a crime.

So I ask again, how is this an erosion of gun owners right to own a gun? This doesn't restrict whether or not someone can buy a gun, just ensures that there is a record of the purchase somewhere, anywhere.

0 Replies

Okay, I can't resist anymore. Scrat - you are correct. Basically there are already records of guns being kept. As for having to show ID at a gun show, since I have to do that at a gun store, that makes no never mind to me. Again, if the liberals or whomever were to finally get this inacted, all of the law abiding citizens that want to own guns will go through whatever measures it takes to get them. It won't help with crime to much because criminals will still purchase guns on the street. As long as that was the only thing on the bill I would be okay with having the database created. But as soon as you slap on there the caveats of but the gun can't have a folding stock, or have a magazine outside or hold more than 10 bullets or anything like that we have a problem.

Can anyone show me where a LEGALLY owned machine gun has been used to kill some one OTHER THAN THE REFRENCE TO THE POLICE OFFICER THAT KILLED THE INFORMANT?

Can anyone show me why an AK47 or an M16 is a bad weapon to own?

And Centroles - I hate to tell you this but Gun Stores are required by law to keep a record of who they sell weapons to. If the ATF ever comes in there and asks for the records, they must turn them over or go to jail for a very, very long time. I don't know any owners that would want to do that. And they have huge fireproof safes that they keep them in along with the weapons usually. There are huge liabilities if they don't.

0 Replies

well first of all the m-16 is junk IMHO

0 Replies

dys - It may be junk but if I want one why shouldn't I be allowed to have one? That is the question, not what do you think about it.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

well first of all the m-16 is junk IMHO

Too true. "M" was for "Mattel". ;-)

The M-14. Now that was a solid, reliable weapon.

0 Replies

According to our local Vietnam vets, the M-16 was positively awful in the beginning but they did improve it.

0 Replies

did you just ignore my post setenta.

Centroles wrote:

Currently, the person who sold the gun is expected to keep a record of the people they sold it to (essentially the form that you fill out when you buy a gun). They might not keep it, or keep it safe. They could misplace it, it could burn down in a fire, they could die not having told anyone where the records were.

As a result, right now, if the police have a suspect for a murder commited with a specific gun. They have no way to check if the person actually bought the specific type of gun used in the murders. They might get lucky and stumble onto the place or the person who sold them the gun. But that's very unlikely and time consuming.

As a result, the person could go free with insufficent evidence and released to do it again.

Currently, if they have a murder weapon, the only way to find out the owner is to contact the gun manufacturer with te serial number. The gun manufacturer would tell them what shop they sold the gun to. And then they would have to contact the shop and hope and pray that they kept a record and didn't lose it, have it destroyed in a fire etc. if the shop is open, if the shop even still exists.

All this to find out who the owner is. Time is critical in a murder. If they can't get a suspect within 24 hrs, odds are, the guy will disappear by then. And they might never find out who the owner is if they can't track down the records.

With a national database, they would be able to find out the owner is seconds.

And to protect gun owners, we add the stipulation that you can only access the database to find the owner of a gun used in a crime and you can only the guns owned by a person already suspected of commiting a crime.

So I ask again, how is this an erosion of gun owners right to own a gun? This doesn't restrict whether or not someone can buy a gun, just ensures that there is a record of the purchase somewhere, anywhere.

Please reread my post above.

Once again, what I am proposing, the current proposal of the national database in no way restricts the rights of someone to purhcase a gun.

By ignoring this specific law and instead talking about other laws that have nothing to do with this, you're not in any way undermining this proposal. HOw can you not see that? Please focus on what's being talked about here.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES...on the wrong side of everything!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know