Top products from r/Conservative

We found 55 product mentions on r/Conservative. We ranked the 371 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/Conservative:

u/sutsu · 2 pointsr/Conservative


It's very rare that I get stupefied like this. Seriously, upvote for your density. You knocked me for not picking up your sarcasm before, but you totally miss not only my own sarcasm but the fact that what I stated is not a conservative argument but the epitome of a liberal argument?

Before I get into the rest of my argument, let me remind you of something. Sure, the top 20% may own 85% but in 2008 the top 25% paid 86% of the taxes. The bottom 75% paid only 14%, the bottom 50% only paid 2.7%. Is that not fair enough? Apparently not.

Back to what stupefied me, you asked (formatted to get to the point of the question):
> Whatever amount the haves have at the moment are we anywhere near taxing them at the amount that we should be to have a fair and equitable society?

And I answered:

> But to placate you a moment, in order to tax the haves enough to have any shot at a 'fair and equitable' society, the tax rate would have to be 100% of everyone earning even a cent, followed by a gracious rebate from the government so that everyone receives the same amount of money. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, right? Show me a large society where Karl Marx's ideals have taken good hold without requiring genocide and the stomping out of man's God given rights.

That answer is not my position on what would help this country. It is not a conservative opinion or argument. If you want to force a truly equitable society, that's the option you're looking for. Not me, I personally despise that option, because it forces everyone at zero. That's what you're really looking for, in case you don't realize it, to try and force a fair and equitable society. The problem is that no society will ever truly be completely fair and equitable. I just gave you Karl Marx's idea of a fair and equitable society, which is what many liberals and the left lean towards without even knowing it.

Now, allow me to state my opinion as a Conservative clearly since you obviously mistook what I was saying before. It may be complicated but I'll break it down for you so you can follow. Pay attention, you might learn something or even see something that you like.

  • In any society you will have the haves and the have nots. Not everyone will become a have no matter what sort of bonus or help you give them. Anyone can become a have not if they don't give a damn. You have to realize this.

  • In any society you will have people who game the system, for good or for ill depending on how you look at it. Human beings will look for any chance to get ahead in any way that they can, in ways both legal and illegal. Once you get these two top points, you'll understand that no matter what you do in trying to make society fair and equal, it will in part fail because some people will not look to be just a fair and equal part of society. They may remain in their status quo position or try and get more than they presently have. It is a fact of life.

  • As a Conservative, I support and would push for anything that gets unnecessary government regulation out of your house, business, and life. A government that can tell you what lightbulb and what toilet you must use is a powerful government indeed. You get rid of the excess and largesse of the government and keep it limited (a basic tenet of Conservative thought) and keep what is necessary and what it does well. That includes basic things that include but are not limited to a military, infrastructure, international relations, domestic policy, and protecting its citizens. It does not include building bridges to nowhere, nor putting a boot on the neck of industries that are the victim of the day, industries that would hire hundreds and thousands of workers and put an economy to work if not for the fact that the government has made them the "bad guy" because executives might make some money in the process of hiring those employees.

  • As a Conservative, I support and would push for government to stop messing around unnecessarily with the financial sector insofar as it has told banks that they HAVE to lend money or be called racist. You can see the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975. The problem is in part that banks were told to lend to persons who had no business owning a home, but because the lies, damn lies and statistics showed they were "really" (note: this is sarcasm) not lending to them because of their race, and forced banks to make bad loans. They then decided to pad their earnings any way they could, see securities and derivatives.

  • As a Conservative, I support and would push for a firm enforcement of the Constitution and our Constitutional laws. The Constitution is the basic contract the government has with the states and its citizens. If that contract is not enforced in its totality, what good is it? If one part of it is considered old, outdated and ignored, then any part of it can be considered old, outdated and ignored. At this point your rights are no longer God given and respected by your government but can be given and taken away by your government at their pleasure. Also the laws of the land must be universal, everyone must be equal under the laws. This means your average citizen and your biggest corporations must comply with the laws of the land, and if they break said laws they get punished. This also means that if there isn't a law, not just that there is a law and you're not enforcing it but that there actually is no law regarding a subject, you learn from it and you push to make a law.

  • As a Conservative, I support and would push for bad businesses failing. If you ran your business like crap, if you caused a financial meltdown by making bad bets, if you ran a failing model and couldn't keep your labor costs within your company's means, you have no business being IN business. Boiled down, NO BAILOUTS. Doesn't matter whether you're a financial institution, a government sponsored enterprise, or an automotive corporation. I'm sure most people would get this, but you always have some snarky fool calling Conservatives inhuman monsters with no compassion for the people who would be unemployed by letting these businesses fail. You let one business fail, another will rise up in its stead.

  • As a Conservative, I support and would push for a complete dismantling of the IRS and ALL the taxes presently collected in the US (including but not limited to personal income tax, corporate income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, social security and medicare taxes, death tax, payroll tax, workman's comp tax, et al.) and the setting up for a flat 20% consumption tax on all new goods and services sold at the consumer level within the United States, coupled with a monthly "pre-bate," or rebate at the beginning of the month, for what a poverty level family would spend in taxes for that month. This way, the poorest don't even pay for the basic bare necessities of what they need, and anything a person spends in excess of that 20% becomes taxed regardless of where they stand on their income. The tax is levied on all new goods and services, regardless of who buys it (citizen or non-citizen) and how they buy it (cash or credit). This means that even a drug dealer who doesn't declare any of his income will pay taxes on the bling bling brand new Benz he buys in cash, and the tourist from Kazakhstan who bought a Statue of Liberty souvenir is actually contributing to your Social Security. It also means that since all the levels of production aren't taxed on their materials, the cost of products would drop. The added bonus of this is essentially a clear cut pool of funds for the government and who takes what. Even better, as you see how much money government takes, and where you can trim the fat of the government, you can more easily adjust the tax rate to save everyone some of their hard earned money. Not just tax cuts for the rich, but tax cuts for everyone. That's a fair and equitable proposition. Now, of course it's not a perfect system because you can live on second hand goods off of eBay for the rest of your life, but as I said before, there's always SOMEONE who will game the system. You find the game, you adjust it and close it, and you go from there. If you would like to learn more about this, you can read The Fair Tax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS by Neil Boortz.

  • As a Conservative, I support and would push for a reform of Social Security such that the people who have lived their lives and planned for Social Security will be guaranteed to have it, and offer alternatives for retirement planning . Personally, I'd say any citizen over the age of 40 or 45 should be guaranteed their Social Security benefits. All funds for Social

  • As a Conservative, I support and would push for massive immigration reform. I am totally for anyone who wants to come to this country and become part of the civil society being welcomed with open arms, given a road to become a resident alien or full fledged citizen, and entering the melting pot of American Society. However, if you decide that you're above the system and you should be able to wander in at your leisure undocumented and unnoticed over open borders, I fully support you getting kicked the hell out of my country. Come here to help and be part of the civil society or stay out. Because of this, I fully support a nice big wall across the Mexican border because it is unsustainably porous.

    Maybe you'll still think that conservative ideals are idiotic, and you're more than welcome to have your opinion. This is as clear cut as I can make my positions as a Conservative. What's your beef with them?

    edit: Unless you're just going to say "TL:DR, you're still a conservative asshole."
u/liatris · 2 pointsr/Conservative

If anyone is interested in this topic Bernie Goldberg, a 30 year vet of CBS Evening News, wrote a fantastic book called Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News it's entertaining book that goes down easy, a great beach read.

>In his nearly thirty years at CBS News, Emmy Award winner Bernard Goldberg earned a reputation as one of the preeminent reporters in the television news business. When he looked at his own industry, however, he saw that the media far too often ignored their primary mission: to provide objective, disinterested reporting. Again and again he saw that the news slanted to the left. For years, Goldberg appealed to reporters, producers, and network executives for more balanced reporting, but no one listened. The liberal bias continued.

>Now, breaking ranks and naming names, he reveals a corporate news culture in which the closed-mindedness is breathtaking and in which entertainment wins over hard news every time.

u/MarkRLevin · 14 pointsr/Conservative

First, let me suggest that you read a copy of my first book, [Men in Black] (, where I address this and other issues at great length.

You've really asked two questions here: where does the Supreme Court's power of judicial review come from and does it have the power to strike down state and federal laws. I believe judicial review outside of those areas specifically mention in the Constitution, or authorize under various judiciary acts passed by Congress, are implied, if legitimate at all. As you may know, the federal circuit courts and federal district courts are created by acts of Congress. Congress also has the power to limit the jurisdiction of these courts, although, it almost never does.

As to your second point about striking down state and federal laws, it depends on the facts. If a state passes a law that clearly usurps a federally granted power under the constitution, then a federal court will strike it down. But again, I would need to know the facts from each case.

u/Ferginator · 1 pointr/Conservative

Are you just seeking to be contrarian? I cannot tell. This is the "conservative" sub-reddit.

The programs you speak of are unconstitutional (illegal), violate federalism, and are contrary to liberty.

Your supposedly deregulated banks are nothing of the sort. We have a central bank and fiat currency - a plank in the communist manifesto.

I happen to have lived in NZ and Canada, in addition to the US, and I want nothing to do with collectivist (imposed) medicine. Regarding Sweden, you would do well to read "The Dark Side of the Welfare State", which includes a commentary and interview with Sven Larson, a Swedish economist. He has also written a book by that same title.

You present a false dichotomy, as though people who promote individualist pride, in the absence of government handouts, do not want the individual "to make something of himself." Of course they do, and they see the handouts as impediments to progress.

Go ahead and deny the social security and medicare components all you want - not that a military empire isn't contributing as well. Larry Kotlikoff is perhaps the nation's foremost expert on unfunded liabilities and generational accounting, and I recommend The Coming Generational Storm if you want to look into that further.

u/guanaco55 · 3 pointsr/Conservative

Thanks for the book suggestions! (If you use the formatting help button (to the right of the "save" button) you can add hyperlinks to your titles. In your case: Boys Adrift and Girls On The Edge.) Cheers!

u/contrarianism · -1 pointsr/Conservative

> the reason for this is that only idiots respond to emotional stimulus

Wow you are ill-informed my friend. Trying reading this to upgrade your thinking.

u/finsterdexter · 2 pointsr/Conservative

But our oil IS priced differently. And the price of oil is not "global". It would seem you lack understanding of how prices work. Is the price of bread global? Certainly, every country consumes some amount of bread. How much bread is produced in the U.S. and what cost? How about Singapore? It's not about "having enough oil", which I disagree with, by the way. But if we can produce oil and other energy here cheaply, then the "global" price becomes irrelevant for American consumers and American industry. If the "global" price of bringing oil to the U.S. is $140/barrel, but I can purchase the same amount of oil/energy LOCALLY for $120/barrel, then I will.

You need to discard this notion of a "global" price. Prices are not determined by the "globe". Prices are determined by the people willing to buy the particular good.

I strongly suggest a little reading on the subject.

u/Hayes_for_days · 18 pointsr/Conservative

Pssshh. 12 reasons in a short article? There's a whole book with reasons to vote Democrat linked below. It's a great read and has a 5 star rating on Amazon!

u/Armageddon_It · 2 pointsr/Conservative

Yeah, I'm all too aware of the unfortunate situation. I just hate fatalistic talk, as I strongly believe we can and must turn it around. 9/11 got my attention, but I really didn't start understanding the insidious nature of things until I read While Europe Slept back in 2006.

There are reasons for optimism. Pots have to simmer awhile before they boil. I recommend following Dr. Steve Turley who follows these trends on youtube.

u/BarrettBuckeye · 1 pointr/Conservative

>And again I'd argue that because it has never happened, is it a safe bet to argue that it won't? It just seems funny to me that so many conservatives will willfully agree that they'd love the lower price that automation will bring because it will be displacing workers, but refuse to believe those workers won't be able to find jobs. Economists like the one in your article talk about small disruptions like the cotton gin that have affected one industry. Automation seeks to disrupt them all, from cleaning people, stock traders on up to doctors etc.

That's not the point. The point is that while it remains a possibility, there is little to no historical precedent for your claim. It's likely, based off of past advancements in technology, that a reduction in workplace opportunities will decrease overall. Now, you point to things like the cotton gin, but it's not like there is a huge necessity in the marketplace for people to pick cotton. Other opportunities in the market have came as a result of technology, which is exactly why it's perfectly reasonable to think that those workers will be able to find employment elsewhere even in the face of automation; it's not like cotton picking is a particularly skilled trade.

Going back to your cotton gin example, I'd like to actually extend that out to the agricultural industry in general. Today, we have giant mechanical harvesters, machines that turn soil, plant seeds, etc. So what happened to all of those people who used to work the land? Did they disappear? No. They moved to the cities. Why did they move to the cities? Because there was employment opportunity in urban areas as opposed to rural farmland. And a lot of those jobs in urban areas came from - you guessed it - technological advancements. Factory jobs became a big part of the urban economy. Assembly lines, textiles, manufacturing, you name it, became the new place for low-skilled work. And on top of that, we get a large production of cheap goods from the rural areas since vacated by low-skilled workers.

>I take it you've never visited a third world country where that's the case.

Two things here:

  1. This is ad hominem. Whether or not I've been to third world countries is irrelevant to my opinion on this matter. Attack my ideas, not my experiences.

    For the record, I'm a military veteran, and I've been to more third world shitholes worse than what you have ever dreamed of.

  2. I wasn't aware that supermarkets existed in theses third world countries. The shelves in socialist Venezuelan food stores are just overflowing with products just waiting for consumers to take them off the shelves!

    >We as a species produce more than enough food to feed everyone yet we willfully throw a lot of food away because giving it away means no profit.

    We also give a lot to these people too. There are more factors at play than just the fact that we can't give these people food. A lot of it is politics; a lot of it is the unfortunate and dangerous situations that these people find themselves in aside from starvation. It's a little disingenuous to think that the only driver here to hunger is a profit motive.

    >Food vendors will sell to people with money, my argument is without a UBI there will be a lot less people with money, and they'll just adjust their prices to reflect that.

    So this statement you've made here is what is going to make me stop talking to you after this post. You're either not listening, or you're not sophisticated enough to listen to reasonable arguments and data. I've literally just got done explaining to you how this is not even close to being the case. Even in the face of automation without a UBI, there are employment opportunities without having to hold a gun to my head and take what I have earned to give it to someone else. Again, what happened to all of those farm workers that got displaced by mechanization? Did they just up and die, or did they move somewhere where technology had created more opportunities? I really don't understand why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.

    >Supply and demand doesn't mean there'll always be a competitor who's going to come in and lower prices, in fact the opposite is more often true, vendors create artificial shortages to increase demand and raise prices in many sectors.

    Ok, so you don't understand basic supply and demand. All of your focus is on the supply side without any consideration for demand. If there is no demand (meaning nobody can pay for their products), then the vendors can't sell to anyone. With diminishing demands, come lower prices. If fewer people can buy my product, and I need to move more volume than is allowable at the current price of my product, then I have to lower my prices. Vendors can create artificial shortages all they want, but if few people are able to afford their product in an environment where many people have been displaced from the market due to automation and somehow have not found other forms of employment, then they would be forced on the demand side to make their products available for less. If they don't, then their own businesses would suffer.

    >You seem to be conflating my argument to mean that automation will put businesses out of business.. it's not, I'm arguing again that automation will put people out of work.

    No. I'm not, and I have continually debunked the idea that automation will put people out of work (see multiple citations above).

    >Less people working means businesses will raise their prices to adjust for less customers.

    Again, you don't seem to understand basic supply and demand. If businesses aren't getting enough customers, then the solution isn't to raise prices, it's to lower prices. I'll make a simple example to illustrate my point.

    Johnny sells tomatoes for $10 (I know, those are some damn expensive tomatoes). Johnny usually has 10 customers a day, and they each buy 2 tomatoes, so Johnny makes $200 per day. Now, the market has shifted, and people can no longer buy $10 tomatoes or they just don't want to spend that much on tomatoes. Due to the change in the market, Johnny now only has 5 customers per day. So what does Johnny do? Johnny needs to sell more tomatoes. He could raise his prices, like you say, to $20 per tomato, and if he's fortunate enough to keep his remaining 5 customers, then he will restore his gross profits, but that's not likely. The market demand doesn't have as many people who can and will buy $20 tomatoes as there are people who can and will buy $5 tomatoes. If Johnny raises his prices, all he's going to do is drive more of the market out, so instead, due to market demands (remember demand is a key driver in a capitalist market), he has to lower his tomato price in order to attract more customers.

    >Maybe I just have a different perspective on things because my grandfather lived through the depression and I can't fathom telling someone who survived only because the government had bread lines that people nowadays would be shouting that those from the greatest generation would have been better off dying in the streets.

    Well this is just a complete strawman.

    My grandparents lived through the depression too. Government economic policies like Herbert Hoover's trade protectionism and FDR's socialism kept us in the Depression until the advent of WWII. Nobody is shouting that your grandfather or my grandfather would have been better off dying in the streets. This also has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about right now. The Great Depression wasn't a result of automation.

    >If you put it so far out of bounds then yeah, it's easy to dismiss. This isn't sci-fi though, if automation displaces 10% of workers you're talking recession, 20% and it's at a 30's era level of great depression. So it's completely hyperbolic to say it's got to displace 100% of workers.. the number is much lower.

    It is sci-fi because there is no historical precedent or any basis in reality of technological advances resulting in lower employment rates, and just about every economic study has actually concluded the opposite: advancements in technology are usually consummate with increases in employment. You're talking about some fantasy world that does not exist where all of the sudden technology has the exact opposite impact on labor opportunities than what has ever happened before to the point where 10% (or greater) of workers are all of the sudden, not just displaced to new jobs, but completely unemployed. There is no rationale to the idea that this would happen, and if you would just bother to read the studies I posted above, you would see that.

    I also recommend that you educate yourself a little better on economics. Here is something that I think everyone should read.
u/_AnObviousThrowaway_ · 2 pointsr/Conservative

Thomas Sowell, Vision of the Anointed. Imo the best place to start with Sowell, continue on to his more recent books afterwards.

u/shiner_man · 9 pointsr/Conservative

Believe it or not, The Fair Tax book is actually an interesting read. The amount of money spent dealing with taxation and the amount of money not collected because of our current tax (due to things like the black market) is absolutely staggering.

u/BootStiefel · 14 pointsr/Conservative

Read Boys Adrift by Dr. Leonard Sax. It's an amazing book on the subject. He has one called Girls on the Edge that I just started and it's killing my heart.

u/the-snow-monster · 2 pointsr/Conservative

I think this might be a similar game. Maybe I’m not looking in the right places but cant find hasbro’s version.

Edit: Hasbro Monopoly Socialism Board Game Parody Adult Party Game

u/45321200 · 8 pointsr/Conservative

Because Shapiro spends months/years writing books. Knowles wrote a best seller that had no words in it


u/GRat9717 · 91 pointsr/Conservative

From the same company that also made a jab at Socialism in another version lol

u/keypuncher · 1 pointr/Conservative

Beliefnet mentions the book and the research, so I linked to it.

Would you be happier with just an Amazon link to the book and no detail?

Here's a direct link to the 1996 General Social Survey also mentioned.

u/DroodEdwin · -1 pointsr/Conservative

I'll use a book written by a liberal sitting Senator to support my premise that liberals resort to childish name calling far more than conservatives

u/ngoni · 4 pointsr/Conservative

Mark Levin's book Men in Black details this. A great read.

u/wharris2001 · 6 pointsr/Conservative

Not astonishing at all to anyone who studied the issue. For a summary of relevant research from someone studying the data for decades, see



u/shinypretty · 2 pointsr/Conservative

Errbody ought to read this. You can buy it, or a PDF is available online.

u/cazique · 1 pointr/Conservative

Sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about. I think you romanticize the physical sciences. Medical research is messy... is that pseudoscience based on feelings? Political scientists apply statistical tools to support their positions. Read literally any journal of political science. I would suggest looking into articles discussing the effect of media bias on voting patterns, which would alarm you (if you believed in stats and political science).

Since you brought up psychology just to disparage it, I would recommend reading Thinking, Fast and Slow.

u/Dustin_00 · 2 pointsr/Conservative

This book.

I doubt there are many recordings of Rush's show from that time period.

I know the second statement is true. The problem is he thinks the antarctic ice is floating in the ocean.

u/pontificate38 · 3 pointsr/Conservative

I've been hooked on Jonah Goldberg since Liberal Fascism. I don't think i've ever found something to disagree about with him.

u/rhtimsr1970 · 1 pointr/Conservative

>Especially when you consider its closest competitor at least tries to give both sides of each debate, even during editorial segments

You obviously don't watch FoxNews and, instead, get all your info about them from other people. Given that, it's understandable why most of what you said above is wrong.

I'm not going to go through it all again, point by point. Read the experts. They make the case far better than I could anyway. They're everywhere.

u/khufumen · 5 pointsr/Conservative

While Europe Slept, written 10 years ago, gives one a good understanding of the current crisis in Europe and why being tolerant to the intolerant is a recipe for failure.

u/[deleted] · 11 pointsr/Conservative
  • Just made the account? Check

  • First sentence about how you'll be downvoted? Check

  • Making up attacks to seem like a victim? Check

  • Bolding random words to make a point? Check

    You don't want to open dialogue. You're responding to vague arguments that no one on this subreddit has made that you imagine what some red neck tea party member would yell at hippies at a OWS rally.

    If you really want to learn about conservatism, here's a few places to start:

    Free to Choose

    Basic Economics

    Uncle Sam's Plantation
u/oboboy14 · 2 pointsr/Conservative

This is the book I read my senior year in college for my keystone economics class. The professor extensively studies the American social security system, and the entire class was based on mathematically proving what he had already done, basically showing that the pay-as-you-go system is retarded. The book is frightening.

u/HomesteadGeek · 2 pointsr/Conservative

This UBI crap was posted to /r/Futurology a while back as Canada is dabbling with the idea. They act like Marxist redistribution of wealth is some new groundbreaking idea never considered before rather than the century old debunked economic model based on Marx; whose government model is responsible for more poverty and mass murder than any ideology in history before it. The author of that article seems to believe that adopting Marxism will reduce the size, scope, and cost of government. That's rich.

Over 100 million murdered by their own government detailed in the Black Book of Communism.

Buy the book here:

Or download it here:

u/PhilosoGuido · 5 pointsr/Conservative

Even the sleazy NYT didn't say he lied. Nice editorializing. So they found a paperwork issue. Let 69 accountants pour over every detail of your life and lets see what they find. Hell, there are over 175,000 pages of federal regulation and even this liberal law professor estimates that the average persons probably commits 3 felonies a day and doesn't know it.

u/SecureThruObscure · 3 pointsr/Conservative

Yes, I have.

Your article only talks about wrongly accused crimes, what about crimes that shouldn't be crimes? What about the expansion of federal laws to the point that accessing the internet incorrectly is a crime?

u/bestmaleperformance · 43 pointsr/Conservative

It really enrages me the hoops I had to jump through to own just a fucking shotgun in my state. I don't have an issue with "common sense" gun laws if they were actually based on common sense. If you want to run a background check on me, fine, I don't think limiting violent offenders ability to buy guns is a massive infringement on my rights (i know some disagree)

My issues were:

A. The waiting period, especially since I was brought to a police station once for defending myself in a massive brawl that broke out at a bar, they were able to run a full background check on me in under 3 minutes, and that was because the computer was "being slow as usual"

B. A whole day wasted at a gun safety course I had to wait weeks for and pay hundreds of dollars where you learn nothing, then fire 4 shots at a target.

C. Then I had to file paperwork with my local police and be grilled and made to feel like a criminal for wanting to have a firearm. It's then up to him if he feels like issuing me a gun and I wait months to hear if my application is even denied, what the fuck!?

I was at a diner when a guy came in and shot his wife to death over an impending divorce, she was a waitress. He emptied the revolver in her in front of everyone and just sat down. He could have easily executed half the people in the place if he wanted to.

When I was 16, I met some girls at the beach with friends, long story short, everyone is off on their own having some fun within a couple hours, the girl I'm with apparently has a boyfriend, who is completely insane and jealous (probably because his girlfriend is fucking everyone) so he pulls up with a shotgun and starts threatening to kill me, her, himself, etc. Luckily I was able to stay cool and talk him down, convincing him that his girlfriend didn't cheat on him, nor was I interested, thankfully for me we had already been done and just sitting on a bench talking.

Anyway fuck anyone that says you'll never need a gun or anyone who tries to keep you from protecting yourself, also the best fact based book I've ever read on guns and that no leftist is able to argue with

u/zenontherocks · 9 pointsr/Conservative

It's either a natural right or it's not. I believe it is. You're talking as if it's not.

Look, this is always the argument. "You have to be reasonable and give up just this small part of your freedom for the good of society." And then the same argument after the next election. And again and again. And each time it's a load of horseshit that doesn't do anything but burden ordinary people, to the point they either cease activities undesirable or become criminals. So you're damn right I don't want to give another inch. It's gone too far already.

As for "criminals and the mentally ill" - We have nearly no consensus on either the diagnosis of certain mental illnesses, or which mental illnesses should serve as reason for supression of the patients natural rights. As for criminals, we are all criminals, even if we haven't been caught yet. The average American unknowingly commits about three felonies a day. We have more laws and a higher per-capita incarceration rate than any other nation in history. So yeah, I have a hard time believing that the people in charge have the slightest idea what they're doing, much less that we should give up even a shred of our freedom for their guarantees of safety.