Conservative and Liberal can mean different things to different people in different places at different times. You might say I'm more of a Classical Liberal. Liberalism today in America is not the same thing. It's usually synonymous with the Democratic Party. And the Democratic party is the opposite of liberalism in classic sense.
Liberals to me have the potential to be one of the greatest threats to society. Now I'm not saying all liberals are bad people who have the intention of harming others, but they tend to be more radical. Liberals will usually have more radical views than that of conservatives, and want to induce more change. Therefore liberals will be much more likely to throw away any rules or guidelines to get what they want done. While some of the liberals views may be okay, conservatives exist for the sole reason that life isn't to bad and the need for change doesn't really need to exist. If the general living environment was abysmal, with people starving and dying on the streets I highly doubt many people would be conservative.
Conservatives are the bulwark against change, and while change can happen they are very cautious to allow any such change to go through without opposition or a second look. A perfect example of Conservatism at work would be the recent vote for Obamacare. Firstly, if we look at the general approval of Obamacare we see that most Americans don't approve of the law. Next we see that house republicans were wiling to risk a government shutdown to keep Obamacare from passing. Now since this is a debate about Conservatism and not Obamacare I wont get into the details as to why it is disapproved. (Unless asked) Now even with all this opposition President Obama still decides to pass his law saying that he would even use his veto on a repeal from congress. This is the liberal rational at work, I want something passed and I don't care what happens, it will get done.
Conservatism is more content to work with what is proven to function at a decent level, rather than take a shot in the dark and try something new. I see one of the arguments on the for liberalism is for more gun control, and he cites the mass shootings for his examples. While these events do inspire emotional reactions we have to look at this rationally. Putting in stricter gun laws only hurt Law abiding gun owners. If a crazy individual want a gun he'll get one, your only hindering the lawful from defending themselves and if I recall correctly, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (US Constitution 2nd Amendment) Rights for people shall not be infringed upon for owning guns. "Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective way to enslave them" (James Madison).
Conservatives guard against unneeded change, and rash decisions based upon the emotions of a crowd. I prefer them to liberals for they enable a certain buffer of stability to be added and to make sure change only happens when it is really needed, not because someone gets elected who thinks he's the next world genius whose plans cant be wrong.
Gun control: So you conservatives would rather violate constitutional right to privacy to prevent what has happened less, yet not violate constitutional right to bear arms when mass shootings have happened constantly and are happening REGARDLESS of U.S. Foreign policy? These past few years we have seen mass shooting after mass shooting, massacre after massacre, constant death. It has to stop. There is nothing wrong with owning a gun once the proper precautions have been made (i.E., background checks). But giving a gun to a lunatic is not a constitutional right. It is asking for trouble.
Social welfare: Do you honestly think poor people are asking to be unemployed and without any money to live off? Poverty happens for a variety of reasons, i.E., childhood poverty, structural change in economy, etc. There will always be those who will take advantage of the system. But the needs of the many who are desperate outweigh the right to not have to pay a couple extra bucks in taxes to a lazy person when you're relatively wealthy (in world standards). Being self-reliant is an issue for morals of the private sphere, not the public sphere, where it will hurt the many who actually need it.
War on drugs: the war on drugs has been a terrible failure. We are pumping billions of dollars into this project, and at what cost? The drug business is as strong as ever, and much of mexico, other latin American countries, and ghettoes in the u.S have been destroyed by crime, since criminals are the only ones who will sell the stuff and thus make money off it. Marijuana is not anymore dangerous than alcohol, and the news exaggerates its effects. Yes, there are those who beat up their wives after smoking marijuana, but the same goes for alcohol users, and this represents a minority of the users.
There is no doubt as to whether all of humanity is equal, they aren't, but that is not to say that people have to be offered different opportunities because of their social class or ethnicity as conservative governments would have done. All humans should be offered the same opportunities and possible futures, it should be left for them to decide what happens in their life. The lack of liberties that a conservative government would present is degrading to whatever society is left out.