When I disagree with you, your rights should be revoked

By | May 5, 2013

Dave Perry’s frothing-at-the-mouth editorial is a prime example of liberal thinking put on paper. When they don’t like the rights you have, you don’t deserve them – because they say so.

I have seen the light. After all these years, I now agree that it’s fruitless to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are so obviously corrupt, so clearly malevolent, so bent on hurting innocent people for their own sick gain.

No more due process in the clear-cut case of insidious terrorism.

Those first two sentences are the first two in the article. No editing, ‘taking out of context’ or other egregious acts of non-journalism. They are exactly as Mr. Perry wrote them in the Aurora Sentinal.

So who exactly is he so angry with that he feels that their God-given, constitutionally-protected rights should be discarded? Why.. it’s the NRA:

No, no, no. Not the wannabe sick kid who blew up the Boston marathon or the freak that’s mailing ricin-laced letters to the president. I’m talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association.

Of course he wouldn’t wish this kind of punishment on someone like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, or the weirdo that mailed ricin to a member of Congress and a judge – no, not them. Dave wants the NRA to be stripped of due process.

Some may think the post was a joke, but dear old Dave’s own words tell it like it is when after those first two paragraphs he says, “I’m not laughing.” Well, neither is anyone else Dave.

The Boston Marathon bombings, the airplanes used in 9/11 and many black youths that are victims to crime have little to do with the NRA. The Marathon morons reportedly hollowed-out fireworks for their radical Islamist-fueled jihad. The 9-11 terrorist used airplanes. The horrific number of black youths killed by gang violence are almost entirely a cultural issue that years of liberal side-stepping has made worse. But Dave, you keep your head in the sand about our nation’s real problems. Keep toeing the line for the progressive left. Keep saying things that very few Americans actually agree with.

More troubling than Dave’s targeting of the NRA is his total lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Due process cannot be foregone – unless you’re the president and see fit to do so.. apparently. Media outrage? Nope, just more like poor Dave piling on to the “you don’t deserve your rights” movement.

We have New York’s Bloomberg deciding what you can drink and eat. Several states are deciding what firearms your second amendment allows you to own and which one it does not. Day-by-day, the government is deciding that you are not self-sufficient. You, Mr. and Mrs. American, cannot take care of yourselves. You citizens need the government to tell you what rights you do or do not have!

Dave is just saying out loud what all those liberal Democrats are thinking. “They don’t think like us so let’s take away their rights and lock them up!” What’s that you say? Dave never said to lock up the NRA? Oh, but he did:

Send the guilty monsters directly to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity and let them rot in their own mental squalor.

It’s easy to believe that taking away some other law-abiding citizen’s rights is OK as long as it affords you some level of security. Unfortunately, it is also the slippery slope to serfdom.

Sure, you won’t lose all of your rights in a moment. It will be limits on this or limits on that. Slowly, but surely, you won’t be able to say much that the ruling class disagrees with.

Then come the rules about what you may not possess. Harmless at first, then more intrusive until finally you’re stripped of anything the D.C. elite see as an obstacle to their power and agenda.

This isn’t theory, it’s history brought forward. Learning from governments of the past to understand what those actions eventually bring about. Learning from all those citizens who at those times thought “surely that can’t happen here.”

Ignorance is the tool of the left. Whether Mr. Perry wrote this in a moment of rage, out of spite or because he has an agenda is impossible to guess. The results of such thoughts have been proven throughout time.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

2 thoughts on “When I disagree with you, your rights should be revoked

  1. granny

    Love GOP, love the NRA. Love the Constitution. Hate Obama. Democrats, years ago used to have a brain & know who put them in their position. Anymore they care not what the legal citizens want. They are to busy kissing BO’s arse.

  2. Dan Collins

    Yeah, I had an experience like that in comments to an article trying to reframe Gosnell with respect to abortion in Brazil. The argument was that saying birth control is immoral is “incredibly dangerous,” so that people who believe that should not be able to express the thought, because of all the social consequences.

    Not too long ago, I remember seeing bumper stickers saying that I shouldn’t get one if I didn’t like them. Now they don’t care whether I like them or not, they will require me to pay for them. And Gosnell? That was not due to overpermissiveness and a lack of oversight, it occurred because we haven’t been permissive enough, and wingnuts are trying to use this to upset the status quo.

    A Guttmacher study showed that 12 of 13 unwanted pregnancies were the result of people either not using birth control, or using it incompetently. If I don’t want to pay for birth control, these people argue, then it’s hypocritical to complain about abortion. But even if I did subsidize other people’s birth control, would that imply a reciprocal obligation that they use it with care to prevent having to have an abortion? No. I’m supposed to be ‘reasonable,’ and it’s not reasonable to expect that they will, because they are only human. I can’t seriously argue that subsidizing birth control implies any mutual obligation; it is all one-way.

    The Supreme Court went searching under penumbra for the right to abortion, and found it there, but according to these people the clear language of the First Amendment confers no right to religious liberty or freedom of speech to express religious convictions. To say that birth control is immoral, even in the context of counseling an aspiration to abstinence outside of marriage, is tantamount to a hate crime, on the theory that it warps auditors’ psyches to hear it. It’s strange, but there we are.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/illegal-abortions-2013-5?pundits_only=0&comments_page=0#

Comments are closed.