Originally Posted by OldArmy
It's plain that you value some generalized public policy aimed at the public good and don't value individual liberty as highly.
It comes down to personal freedom and an understanding that government can't get this fixed for me. For you, a belief in the state and a willingness to write off personal freedom (mine) in order to "do something" that makes you feel better.
Anyone who has read a lot of my posts on fiscal policy would not think I believe that if something is worth doing, the gov can do it best. However, there are clearly certain cases where other governments have fixed certain problems for their people, or at least handled it better. I consider the idea that I dont have to arm myself if I dont need to, to be a form of liberty or freedom, not the lack of liberty..
I dont want the gov in my wallet to support someone who chooses to not put his oar in the water and start rowing, so that rules me out as a liberal. However, I also dont want the gov in my business, telling me who I cant or can't marry, or if my wife can have an abortion. That's none of their business either. So because of the last bit, I guess that rules me out as a conservative also. I never did understand how you can be anti-gov, but be ok with them telling you what you can do with your own body....
I like the idea of natural selection, and that you are responsible for yourself. Ideally, If I succeed or fail, it should be because of what I did or didnt do, no other external influences. Reward the strong, prevent the weak from cheating to achieve parity, when they should be behind.
If an animal species gets some un-natural assistance, that can upset the balance of things, to the harm of the whole eco-system. Think of a Cheetah in the plains of Africa. All the animals, even his prey, NEED him to survive or die on his own. If a liberal gives the gazelles night-vision goggles so they can see him coming, that's bad, he starves, the gazelle herd over-populates, etc. Everyone suffers.
If a conservative allows the Cheetah to tip the scales the other way (ie: wear a jetpak so he can run faster, the equivalent of him having a gun), then he can use that to kill the fastest gazelles; once again the strong are no longer rewarded, and the weak not punished. Balance is screwed up again.
Just as entitlements allow some to "cheat" the market, guns allow others to also "cheat" the market, and survive or even thrive when their lack of skills should really see them wither. 16-year old gang-banger dropout should not be wearing more expensive watch than me. If he has no useful skills, he should starve, to send a message to other would-be gang-bangers.
If I build a better widget that people want, I should be able to enjoy the proceeds of that, not have them taxed away, or removed at gunpoint. My widget skills should determine how nice a car I can enjoy, not my marksmanship skills when I have to shoot back at someone who was busy honing their gun skills while I was busy perfecting my widgets.
Also, I look around and learn from other countries. I see tax-paying, hardworking people dying while waiting for medical treatment, so other countries got that wrong. But, I also see people being fatally shot at 1/10 the rate they are here, so other countries got that right. Borrow what works, discard what doesnt. That's why I do support gun controls as one of the few things the gov is good for.