Your first point is as true of liberals. In fact, in my experience liberals are worse for it. Conservatives sometimes think rationally after they have calmed down ,except for the really religious ones.

Your second point.. well you are being too vague. Some aspects of conservatism are that way, others arent. The economics is firmly grounded, the social issues side of conservatism is not. Keynes was an idiot pure and simple, supply-side also has its faults but is better - but Mises and Hayek are the "conservative" economists you should be paying attention to.

Your third point, regarding gun ownership is patently false and you have to twist yourself in knots cherry-picking statistics and studies to even begin to make a claim to the contrary. Heck, where I live.. I live in a "ruralburban" area... everyone just about has guns here. EVERYONE, and depending on which "block" you are on it alternates between suburbia and semi-rural. There are shooting ranges and gun clubs all over. Gun violence here is nil. Crime and violence are tied to economics, not gun ownership.

Always remember, guns are illegal in Mexico. Lets not be Mexico,thanks. Regarding your first point, liberals who are anti-gun are the truest religion of all. There is no logic there, and no reasoning with them, ever. Dont even try to claim any sort of logic in regards to the anti-gun argument - its not there.

Your fourth point has some merit regarding some conservatives, but again not others. It depends on how the poor want to fix the problem, and how the conservative in question wants to fix the problem.

Which brings us to your last point - your primary fault regarding your regulatory arguments is you have yet to put forth what specific regulations should be employed and how they would work. Except in one case, which was already debunked - and your general platform of "any regulation is good, regardless of merits of the particular regulation" which basically debunks itself. Also, it gets back to enforcement issues. As the guy in that 1%er article I posted noted - "the banks have taken over the regulatory agencies, so we need more regulations!" does not exactly make much sense.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)