Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Yet another one who doesn't get it....

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    914

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote: Yeah TJ is always stirin' up **** :celebrate

    I think this was already mentioned in the Utah forum.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    :quirkyYou know, if these columnists ever find talking heads more credible than the local branch of the VPC, we could be in some trouble. Fortunately the VPC has long since discredited itself to those in the know.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    What the hell is this ****????

    "How do you expect an officer to deal with that - other than to point a gun at them and go through the process [of elimination]? There's no other way to make that determination safely without putting officers at risk."


    I dont know about you guys, but I can think of plenty of other ways to deal with "that" situation.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    [quote]

  6. #6
    Regular Member BUBB4H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Centreville, VA, ,
    Posts
    165

    Post imported post

    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?


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    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

  8. #8
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    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
    Very, very nicely stated. Nice response.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    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's pure poetry!
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    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?
    Thanks for finding that post! Excellent use of contrasting positions to make the point unequivocally.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •