Home >> Gun News >> When I disagree with you, your rights should be revoked

When I disagree with you, your rights should be revoked

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “When I disagree with you, your rights should be revoked”.

READ:  Just Because We Can See Through Obama Doesn’t Mean His Administration Has Been Transparent

Looking for more great news and commentary from a conservative perpective? Visit our homepage!

About R. Mitchell

Rich Mitchell is the Sr. Managing Editor of Conservative Daily News. His posts may contain opinions that are his own and are not necessarily shared by Anomalous Media, CDN, staff or .. much of anyone else. Find him on twitter, facebook and


  1. 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. 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.