shoes_untied

This is missing the point. From the gun crowd we often hear the theme “I love my country but fear my government.” Why does that fear not extend to walling off the whole southern exterior of our country with the Great Wall of the US that can be used to wall people out or, if convenient, wall them in. Neat. With guns, the justification acknowledges that we accept some risk in order to protect us from the possibility of a greater risk. Why not this rationale with a walling off our country. A just for the sake of posterity, I am not against guns although it is not the centerpiece of my political views.

Well, I'm not a fan of that logic either but I'm not sure speeding is completely analogous because people don't view speeding as a common method of assaulting another person that can only be countered by also speeding. I don't like it because it uses a slight of hand to avoid the fact that the illegal gun supply rides on the backs of the legal gun trade. The more legal guns around the more opportunity for those guns to get into the hands of a someone illegally. Legal and illegal gun ownership do not use mutually exclusive supply chains. What I find absurd is that in a few minutes the same people that view the slightest change in gun laws to be huge attack on their protection against the tyranny of their government will be cheering loudly for someone who wants the same government to completely wall off the entire southern border of our country.

Well since I am in my 50s I feel like a young man jumping into this conversation. My question for you is do you really believe the rich and powerful are much more devious than they were back when deals were cut in bars and smoke filled rooms with not digital foot print of any of it? I have gotten on a soap box about this before but Washington is actually less corrupt (I did not say not corrupt) than it was 50 years ago and the rich and powerful have less power than they used to. The difference is that today we have become infinitely more efficient at catching people in the act because of digital foot prints. It is easier now for the masses to gang up against the elite than ever before. Do you think the Tea Party would have gotten any ground in the pre-information age? So what is wrong? One thing that is wrong is that we don't consider the time frame when we make comparison's of era's when we take information in. Since we catch other peoples corruption so much more efficiently than we used to, our minds take in far more evidence of corruption when in reality we just didn't have a way to catch people in the past so it seems to us like there was less corruption. If you put Hillary in any era prior to the information age, her corruption would be largely unknown. Doing forensic research on emails is a lot easier than doing forensic research on a suitcase full of cash that would have been exchanged in a back room in the past.

No. I am referring to Bush's path to citizenship proposal but you are right in that he is more lenient on allowing additional immigrants in.

Thank you. I hope it wasn't too long winded.

.

He is not promoting any of those things. There is a difference between believing something should not be under the purview of the federal government and promoting it. Abortion is the biggest issue I have with him but neither of the other candidates are pro-life either based on their actual record. Trump is just playing that role for now as part of his pandering campaign. I don't think Trump gives two hoots about protecting the unborn. There's nothing in Trumps past that indicates that would be core value of his or that he values loyalty to a political party and would feel obligated to keep promises he makes about the part platform once he got elected. Regarding illegal immigration, his stance is principally the same as George Bushes was.

I am planning on voting for Johnson as well. He's the only conservative in the race. It's not taking a vote from Trump because there is zero chance I would ever vote for him anyway. He would be just as corrupt and probably worse than Hillary based on his past. He just doesn't have record of corrupt government because he hasn't worked in government. In the end, I have to look in a mirror and know I did the right thing.

I would agree. He's the only candidate that would legitimately balance the budget. If Trump did it, he would do it by printing money banana republic style.

That is a great point. We should not settle for the status quo.

This is not news. Reports of this would never have even made it across campus twenty years ago and now it goes viral and thousands of people think it can be used to make broad generalizations about society. It is a perfect example of people misinterpreting the information age to the pre-information age and thinking because we see something like this on video and didn't in the "good old days" to thing that everything in the world is getting worse.

Thank you as well for sharing your thoughts. I'm not sure what you feel I said was an attack. I am a very direct person and I apologize if that came off poorly - but I can take it as well. Bottom line in my opinion is that things are a lot better in many ways then they ever have been, worse in some ways, but overall the Lord is blessing us in many ways and we ignoring it and burying our heads in the sand in fear when we should be out looking for ways to use the many changes that have happened in the last twenty years to further ministry.

Sorry but I can't comment on the half time shows and the sexy women on the news. We haven't had cable television in many years and I get almost all of my news from reading. We have rabit ear antennas for our TV which gets some basics. I find it interesting though that you say you don't watch television anymore but know so much about the bad that is happening. When did you stop watching? 15 minutes ago? I didn't expect you to change your mind. I work with data/information for a living and I also realize that a by product of the information age is that people can use it to gain wisdom or they can learn how to google to always find an exception to block any new information from getting in. Sorry you are so pessimistic. I feel that the Lord has presented us with a tremendous opportunity to get the gospel out. I feel sorry for those who miss out because they are paralyzed with fear.

What you are stating is very common belief. You are right that our country is turning away from God. That is an age old problem that never ends well for those who turn away. However, your assessment of the state of the country is just the opposite of reality. People are more empowered than they have ever been thanks to the information age. However, because information travels so fast and because our brains are wired to respond to basic safety first before considering the big picture we have the feeling that the world is coming apart at the seems when in reality things are better than they have been in many years. If we put our trust in God and stop worrying minute to minute we can see the big picture and realize a number of things including: - Violent crime in our country (including terrorism) has been going down for decades. You have to go back to the late 60s early 70s to find murder or violent crime rates as low as they are today. However, we live in a world where every violent act gets reported online and shared and shared again on social media and we forget that even 20 years ago many of these crimes would have never earned a spot in paper and ink media. It is great that we have all this information but we are confusing our comparison to the past and concluding things are worse when they are actually better. - We are not losing our rights, we are gaining rights in ways the government never envisioned. Look at our current election. Individuals have all the power and the establishment is largely being ignored when they tell us who we should vote for. That is because we have many times more outlets to get our message out, including as Christians, than we ever have before thanks to social media. -No politician will ever get elected saying this because both sides of the aisle are dependent on us feeling powerless but the reality is that Washington is less corrupt than it ever has been. The difference is that we catch politicians so much more easily than we ever have due to digital footprints, etc... 30 years ago if a politician sexually harassed an intern, frankly, they got away with it. Today, if a politician makes a pass at an intern, the intern gathers his friends around a computer that night, gets the politician on instant messenger, takes screen shots, posts them on Facebook, and a week later that politician is fighting for his political life. -An equally unpopular truth is that corporation have less power than they ever have. Every company is subject to reviews on yellowbook, google, you name it and if their rating consistently is subpar they are fighting for their life. Hover board start burning up and everyone knows by the end of the week? Would that have happened in the past? No way, we would be lucky to see an expose a year later on 60 minutes. In the 1930s GM started buying up all of the street car system around the country for the sole purpose of putting them out of business so they could sell cars. They did it under shell company names. Nobody really even figured that out for decades. Today we live in a world where if a bank decides to implement a monthly fee for having a low checking account balance, by mid morning the news has gone viral, by early afternoon protests are launched on social media, by late afternoon people are organizing a "switch to credit unions day" and by the next morning the marketing department is a announcing that they've reconsidered and have decided against the fee. Again, we are confusing the fact that we uncover things so quickly and revolt with the fact that we would not even know about these things in the past. -Last but not least, and probably equally unpopular is that the middle east is probably less barbaric than it ever has been. Again the difference is that mass atrocities even 20 years ago never reach the masses because we didn't have Youtube and social media. The fact is that mass atrocities were more significant in the past but we didn't have as easy access to the info as we have today. I would maintain that much of the difference in the difference between the haves and have nots today is due to the few people who realize that we have been blessed with tremendous power today are taking advantage while the masses cower in fear that the world is coming unglued. We need to have the faith that God will sustain us so we can get the message of the gospel out instead of hiding under our beds or thinking we can't leave the house without being heavily armed.

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens. The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens. The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well. If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy. This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies. It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time. It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns. It’s a very tidy illogical argument. I agree.I have read where a "good guy" unfortunately with a bad temper has shot down a few people. you are going to hear all kinds of things. I would disagree that anyone who shot down a few people is a "good guy" unless they deserved it. Thus the circular argument that I sighted earlier. As soon as a previously law abiding citizen commits a crime with a gun, they are no longer a good guy and can't be used as an argument that guns are only a danger in the hands of criminals. That is a tidy argument, I will give you that. Unfortunately it makes no sense. The gun advocates are in denial and they have a ton of defensive arguments. There is no circular argument being employed. Law abiding citizens don't commit these kinds of crimes. That's what makes them law abiding. They follow the rules. The logic that says, they are law abiding until they're not, is silly. The Liberal argument answer to stopping gun violence to take away the guns from people are not committing gun violence. They want to make laws that punish the good guys. It's just stupid. The circular logic is that whenever a previously law abiding citizen commits a crime you declare that they then can't be used as evidence against your argument because they are now not a law abiding citizen. It doesn't allow any opposing arguments and evades the issue that the system viewed that person as "law abiding" when they obtained the gun and then it was used for crime.

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens. The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens. The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well. If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy. This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies. It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time. It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns. It’s a very tidy illogical argument. I agree.I have read where a "good guy" unfortunately with a bad temper has shot down a few people. The same guy with a bad temper would use anything as a weapon. People kill people in all kinds of ways all of the time. Not having a gun would not stop someone with a hot temper from killing. It would only change how he killed. Again this same argument of false equivalency that I pointed out earlier. It's about the effectiveness of a killing tool in the hands of a person with ill intent. If you think the tool doesn't make a difference then why carry a gun to defend yourself. Sling shots and knives are far cheaper. Not having a gun certainly would decrease the likelihood that a person with a hot temper will be able to kill for many obvious reasons.

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens. The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens. The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well. If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy. This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies. It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time. It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns. It’s a very tidy illogical argument. I agree.I have read where a "good guy" unfortunately with a bad temper has shot down a few people. you are going to hear all kinds of things. I would disagree that anyone who shot down a few people is a "good guy" unless they deserved it. Thus the circular argument that I sighted earlier. As soon as a previously law abiding citizen commits a crime with a gun, they are no longer a good guy and can't be used as an argument that guns are only a danger in the hands of criminals. That is a tidy argument, I will give you that. Unfortunately it makes no sense.

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens. The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens. The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well. If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy. This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies. It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time. It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns. It’s a very tidy illogical argument. There IS a movement to disarm citizens. Every tyranny in history has disarmed its citizens because tyrants are afraid of armed citizens. Tighter gun legislation is a step towards that. When you start deciding who can and can't have guns or applying unnecessary rules to them then you only have to introduce a few more laws to ban guns altogether. There is nothing illogical in the pro-gun argument at all. It has been carefully thought out and makes sense. You really need to check it out instead of making false assumptions. As for your circular logic theory, that's hogwash. Criminals will have guns WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS. Law-abiding citizens will not own guns if guns are illegal. What legislation is being proposed to make guns in general against the law? The assertion that any gun law is part of a bigger scheme to disarm citizens is just conspiracy theory and I have been around long enough to know it is futile to argue against conspiracy theories. Other than that you have not provided any substantive information to disagree with me other than just tell me that I'm wrong. It isn't guns Peep... it's people. This is another argument fallacy that always comes up in gun discussion. To say it is people and not guns is a fallacy off attribution. When people complain about guns they are not attempting to state that there are not evil motives behind people committing these horrific crimes and that guns plan and launch the attacks on their own. They are complaining that these evil people have access to such effective killing tools. I don’t know about you but I would be willing to bet that just about everyone here, if faced with the situation of being attacked would rather a person be armed with a knife than a gun. They are not equivalent. One is more affective which is the same reason many of you want to own one for self-defense instead of relying on just a knife. If it was all about intent then shoot, the whole hunting industry would be turned up-side-down. Why spend the money on a gun for deer hunting when you could just go out with a knife (or hammer as I have also seen compared with a gun as just a tool) and get your deer? Hopefully you see how ridiculous that sounds and while people aren’t as fast and agile as deer, it is still about the effectiveness of the tool. I would disagree with your assessment of knives and guns.... I've taken several defense classes and I would much rather a person come at me with a gun rather than a knife, especially if they seem to know what they are doing...... unless they are just out to kill you up front, it is much easier to take a gun away from a person than it is a knife..... but if they are just going to kill you outright, you aren't going to stop either and a gun hurts much less than a knife. This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens. The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens. The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well. If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy. This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies. It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time. It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns. It’s a very tidy illogical argument. There IS a movement to disarm citizens. Every tyranny in history has disarmed its citizens because tyrants are afraid of armed citizens. Tighter gun legislation is a step towards that. When you start deciding who can and can't have guns or applying unnecessary rules to them then you only have to introduce a few more laws to ban guns altogether. There is nothing illogical in the pro-gun argument at all. It has been carefully thought out and makes sense. You really need to check it out instead of making false assumptions. As for your circular logic theory, that's hogwash. Criminals will have guns WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS. Law-abiding citizens will not own guns if guns are illegal. What legislation is being proposed to make guns in general against the law? The assertion that any gun law is part of a bigger scheme to disarm citizens is just conspiracy theory and I have been around long enough to know it is futile to argue against conspiracy theories. Other than that you have not provided any substantive information to disagree with me other than just tell me that I'm wrong. do you ever listen to Barbra Boxer.... or Harry Reid.... I'm not going to the trouble of posting video's here, but I've heard them both many times tell people they want to outlaw all guns... BTW, it's much easier to take a gun away from someone than a knife... and if the person is just out to kill you it's not likely you can stop either..... but guns tend to put body parts into shock and are much less painful than knife wounds.... So I would much prefer you come at me with a gun...... let me get 4 to 5 feet from you in front, and you are mine with a gun, but it's usually really messy if you are able to get a knife away from a person and even if you are lucky enough to do so it usually causes seriously damages one or both hands and arms..... Other one. If this is the case, why aren't people opting for knives to protect themselves as opposed to guns. It seems as though, if your assertion is correct it appears you have solved the whole issue. Just carry knives and you will have an advantage over people with guns.

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens. The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens. The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well. If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy. This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies. It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time. It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns. It’s a very tidy illogical argument. I really do not believe that is true, and this is one small reason why: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/mandated-gun-ownership-a-tale-of-two-cities/ Like I said, if you want to argue that everyone owning and carrying a gun will be safer than only some then that argument is at least based on a logical foundation and it points out that local gun policy is about worthless because it does create targets without meaningfully limiting access to guns. However, as I also said, this argument is again based on the fallacy that the government is actually trying to ban guns. That is only true with conspiracy theorists. I have not problem with gun ownership. I have owned more than one myself and don't hunt that often but have always wished I had more time to do it. In addition, because I work with information and data for a living, I know how easy it is, if you have enough data points, to find two outliers and juxtapose them against each other to make it look like they represent the big picture. There are thousands of cities in this country and that would not be hard to do. I do always find it interesting though when people site these examples as legitimate while completely dismissing data (that is far more comprehensive and statistically valid) that shows countries and even states within the US with tighter gun controls having less gun crime.

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens. The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens. The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well. If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy. This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies. It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time. It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns. It’s a very tidy illogical argument. There IS a movement to disarm citizens. Every tyranny in history has disarmed its citizens because tyrants are afraid of armed citizens. Tighter gun legislation is a step towards that. When you start deciding who can and can't have guns or applying unnecessary rules to them then you only have to introduce a few more laws to ban guns altogether. There is nothing illogical in the pro-gun argument at all. It has been carefully thought out and makes sense. You really need to check it out instead of making false assumptions. As for your circular logic theory, that's hogwash. Criminals will have guns WHATEVER THE LAW SAYS. Law-abiding citizens will not own guns if guns are illegal. What legislation is being proposed to make guns in general against the law? The assertion that any gun law is part of a bigger scheme to disarm citizens is just conspiracy theory and I have been around long enough to know it is futile to argue against conspiracy theories. Other than that you have not provided any substantive information to disagree with me other than just tell me that I'm wrong.

This is another argument fallacy that always comes up in gun discussion. To say it is people and not guns is a fallacy off attribution. When people complain about guns they are not attempting to state that there are not evil motives behind people committing these horrific crimes and that guns plan and launch the attacks on their own. They are complaining that these evil people have access to such effective killing tools. I don’t know about you but I would be willing to bet that just about everyone here, if faced with the situation of being attacked would rather a person be armed with a knife than a gun. They are not equivalent. One is more affective which is the same reason many of you want to own one for self-defense instead of relying on just a knife. If it was all about intent then shoot, the whole hunting industry would be turned up-side-down. Why spend the money on a gun for deer hunting when you could just go out with a knife (or hammer as I have also seen compared with a gun as just a tool) and get your deer? Hopefully you see how ridiculous that sounds and while people aren’t as fast and agile as deer, it is still about the effectiveness of the tool.

This is a common assertion that makes the false assumption that the gun supply to criminals is separate and operates independently of the gun supply and distribution to law abiding citizens. The gun supply to criminals rides on the supply chain of guns to the law abiding citizens. The larger the supply of guns to citizens the greater the opportunity there is for them to get into the hands of disreputable dealers, dishonest people, careless owners, etc… thus increasing the supply to bad guys as well. If you believe that increasing the amount of guns in this country until all citizens are packing will reduce crime in a greater amount than what it will cause through carelessness, bad judgement, or good person gone bad then fine, but the whole “only bad guys will have guns” argument is a false dilemma fallacy. This argument also rides on the back of additional fallacies. It make the false assumption that there is an actual legit movement to take guns away from people (and yes Google jockeys I know easy it is to find exceptions to the rule) when there is actually only movements to create legislation to allow people guns to fire high volumes of bullets in a short amount of time. It also rides on circular logic that whenever a previously “law abiding” citizen commits a crime that they are no longer a law abiding citizen and therefore can’t be considered against the argument of only criminals will have guns. It’s a very tidy illogical argument.

I'd say Louisa May Alcott, Rosa Parks, or Amelia Earhart could all hold their own on the bill. I'd have to give the nod to Amelia Earhart though so that those internet clubs that stamp bills with a code then people track where the bill travels could have a "Where's Amelia" club.

I will take this that we agree on what the definition of a conservative is. Regarding the flag burning law, it is not a law but many people calling themselves conservatives certainly supported one and it was a major campaign issue for Bush. The issue wasn't whether it passed, the issue is what people define as conservative. Many people who considered themselves conservative not only were in favor of a law against it, the were in favor of abusing the constitution against it. I think it only missed by one vote in congress. Again, when a person tells me they are conservative, I really don't know for sure what they mean by that for the reasons in this discussion. It has made conservative and liberal labels suspect wherever they are used.

An example of where this comes into play is gay marriage. Many conservatives believe in a government ban on gay marriage. Some believe that is the government sticking it's nose into something it shouldn't be involved in. So who is the conservative the one who believes in the ban or the one who thinks the government should stay out of the marriage business? When I am talking about big government, I am talking about both spending programs and intervention in our lives. Personally I believe the government should stay out of that business which I believe is a conservative viewpoint. As a Christian, we are making a deal with the devil when we ask the government to legislate our beliefs because we are allowing a precedence where whoever is in power to make the rules about what is right and wrong or what I can pratice. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about gay marriage. Nevertheless, many people view supporting a ban on gay marriage is a conservative viewpoint. It's the same with other popular "conservative" views on things like bans on flag burning, etc... I'm against those kinds of laws because I'm a conservative. If my neighbor wants to burn a flag, I would like to know that so let him try. I can go stop it and let him know my views and I will know not to send my kids to play with his kids (dated example since my kids are grown up but you get what I mean). Nevertheless, some people view it as being conservative to pass laws like that.