This is a comment I found in the comments section. Holy crap... Kudos to the author.
I choose to possess my legally unconcealed firearm and enjoy my U.S. Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Walsh chooses not to do so, and instead to enjoy her U.S. First Amendment rights to free speech. The differences between us don't end there, however.
I enjoy my rights freely and because I choose to do so, but she enjoys hers for cash payments and professional enhancement.
I encourage her to enjoy hers with integrity, but she opposes mine despite my integrity.
My enjoyment of rights helps guarantee that she can continue enjoying hers, but her enjoyment advocates the abolition of mine.
I agree that others who abuse their rights to arms must lose them, but she has never agreed that others who abuse their rights to speech must lose them.
I like knowing that there are groups which defend her rights to speech, but she castigates groups which defend my rights to arms.
I agree that others who enjoy their rights to speech aren't tainted by those who abuse them, but she blames others who enjoy their rights to arms for the abuse of a relative few.
I like that all her rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, but she would like to pick and choose mine.
I accept that there are others who oppose my rights to arms, but she seems unable to abide others who oppose her rights to speech.
And finally, I understand the gravity of my rights to arms and act accordingly to avoid even the slightest mistake, but she seems nonplussed when she gets her facts dead wrong.
Now, who's the bigger threat to our nation?
Very, very nicely stated. Nice response.BUBB4H wrote:This is a comment I found in the comments section. Holy crap... Kudos to the author.
I choose to possess my legally unconcealed firearm and enjoy my U.S. Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Walsh chooses not to do so, and instead to enjoy her U.S. First Amendment rights to free speech. The differences between us don't end there, however.
I enjoy my rights freely and because I choose to do so, but she enjoys hers for cash payments and professional enhancement.
I encourage her to enjoy hers with integrity, but she opposes mine despite my integrity.
My enjoyment of rights helps guarantee that she can continue enjoying hers, but her enjoyment advocates the abolition of mine.
I agree that others who abuse their rights to arms must lose them, but she has never agreed that others who abuse their rights to speech must lose them.
I like knowing that there are groups which defend her rights to speech, but she castigates groups which defend my rights to arms.
I agree that others who enjoy their rights to speech aren't tainted by those who abuse them, but she blames others who enjoy their rights to arms for the abuse of a relative few.
I like that all her rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, but she would like to pick and choose mine.
I accept that there are others who oppose my rights to arms, but she seems unable to abide others who oppose her rights to speech.
And finally, I understand the gravity of my rights to arms and act accordingly to avoid even the slightest mistake, but she seems nonplussed when she gets her facts dead wrong.
Now, who's the bigger threat to our nation?
That is a comment that gets BIG KUDOS
TJ
That's pure poetry!This is a comment I found in the comments section. Holy crap... Kudos to the author.
I choose to possess my legally unconcealed firearm and enjoy my U.S. Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Walsh chooses not to do so, and instead to enjoy her U.S. First Amendment rights to free speech. The differences between us don't end there, however.
I enjoy my rights freely and because I choose to do so, but she enjoys hers for cash payments and professional enhancement.
I encourage her to enjoy hers with integrity, but she opposes mine despite my integrity.
My enjoyment of rights helps guarantee that she can continue enjoying hers, but her enjoyment advocates the abolition of mine.
I agree that others who abuse their rights to arms must lose them, but she has never agreed that others who abuse their rights to speech must lose them.
I like knowing that there are groups which defend her rights to speech, but she castigates groups which defend my rights to arms.
I agree that others who enjoy their rights to speech aren't tainted by those who abuse them, but she blames others who enjoy their rights to arms for the abuse of a relative few.
I like that all her rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, but she would like to pick and choose mine.
I accept that there are others who oppose my rights to arms, but she seems unable to abide others who oppose her rights to speech.
And finally, I understand the gravity of my rights to arms and act accordingly to avoid even the slightest mistake, but she seems nonplussed when she gets her facts dead wrong.
Now, who's the bigger threat to our nation?
Thanks for finding that post! Excellent use of contrasting positions to make the point unequivocally.This is a comment I found in the comments section. Holy crap... Kudos to the author.
I choose to possess my legally unconcealed firearm and enjoy my U.S. Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Walsh chooses not to do so, and instead to enjoy her U.S. First Amendment rights to free speech. The differences between us don't end there, however.
I enjoy my rights freely and because I choose to do so, but she enjoys hers for cash payments and professional enhancement.
I encourage her to enjoy hers with integrity, but she opposes mine despite my integrity.
My enjoyment of rights helps guarantee that she can continue enjoying hers, but her enjoyment advocates the abolition of mine.
I agree that others who abuse their rights to arms must lose them, but she has never agreed that others who abuse their rights to speech must lose them.
I like knowing that there are groups which defend her rights to speech, but she castigates groups which defend my rights to arms.
I agree that others who enjoy their rights to speech aren't tainted by those who abuse them, but she blames others who enjoy their rights to arms for the abuse of a relative few.
I like that all her rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, but she would like to pick and choose mine.
I accept that there are others who oppose my rights to arms, but she seems unable to abide others who oppose her rights to speech.
And finally, I understand the gravity of my rights to arms and act accordingly to avoid even the slightest mistake, but she seems nonplussed when she gets her facts dead wrong.
Now, who's the bigger threat to our nation?