User Profile: 2AFirearmsDealerDotCom

2AFirearmsDealerDotCom

Member Since: July 20, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [20] August 27, 2015 at 11:56am

    “This is not a particular case — it’s the number of deaths per year,” Goodfriend said.

    In which case, how about banning those pesky automobiles, since they cause more deaths in a month than guns cause in a year? Or at the very least, limit them to 10 MPH since we all know less damage can be caused at lower capacities.

    Responses (3) +
  • [3] August 26, 2015 at 10:58am

    It is VERY SIMPLE.

    IF the supreme court wants to pretend the 14th amendment “anchor babies” provision means anybody dropping a kid on US soil suddenly creates a US citizen, then here is what we do:

    The kid is a US citizen. The parents are not. Deport the parents. If they want to take their child away with them, then they sign off US citizenship rights for the baby. If not, they leave the baby as a US citizen and return home alone.

    Done.

  • [81] August 17, 2015 at 12:26pm

    “The Texas senator went on to say of Iran, “If there’s one principle that history has taught us, it is that if somebody tells you they want to kill you, believe them.””

    This is the ONE thing I truly don’t understand about our government. When an entire country and people say the want to kill us, or they hate us, or whatever, why in the world do we CONTINUE to support them? Stop giving them money. Stop giving them weapons. Stop all of it.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] August 17, 2015 at 12:18pm

    It is all very simple…

    IF the black robes want to further the lie that the 14th amendment gives US citizenship to any baby born on US soil (the anchor baby argument, which is NOT what the amendments purpose was)… then here is how you solve all the problems…

    Okay, the baby has US citizenship. The parents do not. Deport the parents. If they want to take the child away with them, they can sign off on the baby’s citizenship renouncement. If not, they can sign off their parental rights and the baby can stay in the states and get adopted.

    Done.

  • [4] August 17, 2015 at 12:09pm

    “whether the money is accomplishing what voters were promised”

    OMG. Haven’t people yet figured out… the government NEVER accomplishes what voters are promised when it comes to stealing their money…

  • [30] August 17, 2015 at 12:05pm

    I stopped watching Mythbusters when they did a show with Barack Hussein Obama. Not sure if that was the only reason though. Just happened to be about the same time.

    Responses (4) +
  • [6] August 13, 2015 at 1:49pm

    “You’re never excused when you’re using your vehicle as a weapon,” he said.

    That’s it. The only obvious answer is to ban all vehicles. Or to limit their capacity to 10 miles per hour…

  • [2] August 12, 2015 at 11:57am

    No. The MI state laws are written poorly. Basically, one is restricted from open carrying in a public school (among other listed specific places.), unless you meet certain criteria such as a law enforcement officer, or, if you are a licensed Concealed Pistol License holder. However, as part of the Concealed restrictions, one is restricted from carrying a firearm concealed in public schools (among other listed specific places.).

    So, as a result, without a CPL, one cannot carry a firearm into schools (et. al) period. However, one with a CPL may OPEN carry a firearm into schools (et. al.) but not CONCEALED carry.

  • August 5, 2015 at 11:21am

    There are SO many things wrong with this article and what the economists say:

    “Economists say he wouldn’t stand a chance: Trump’s boundless self-confidence is no match for the global economic forces that took those jobs away.”

    –Global economic forces that ook those jobs away, like the excessive government regulations and taxes forcing companies to look overseas to save money.

    “I cannot foresee a scenario where 5 million additional manufacturing jobs … reappear in the U.S. in the decades ahead.”

    –Who said they have to be manufacturing jobs? I, for one, would LOVE to speak with a customer service representative that I can understand.

    ” U.S. unemployment at a seven-year low 5.3 percent, a rate close to what economists consider full employment.”

    –Thats all well and good, except for the fact that this administration, much like other previous administrations, has changed the way they calculate unemployment just to show good numbers. TRUE unemployment is currently around 18%, not 5.3%.

    “We’d have to bring in people from other countries to do the work.”

    – I’d rather have a lack of people than a lack of work for the people.

    “Better trade deals are unlikely to be a panacea,”

    –But every little bit helps!

    Why are all these “professors” arguing against anything and everything that MIGHT help our economy?

  • [1] August 5, 2015 at 10:17am

    No. But unfortunately, they keep telling their congregations to vote for the Dems. Blows my mind as to why.

  • [2] August 5, 2015 at 10:16am

    I see. So lets just give them anything they want, because the threat of terrorist actions is just too much for the US to bear.

    Yup. We lost. They won.

    Of course, the other option would be, if any country or terrorist group threatens or commits violent acts against the US or its allies, we go and stomp them out of existence. The right way. Including any and all with any links to the group, including countries. But no. Our illustrious leader would never do that to his friends.

    Responses (1) +
  • [30] August 5, 2015 at 10:10am

    So, they won’t get paid, and they won’t be able to make decisions… just work, for no money.

    I thought slaves were illegal in the US nowadays?

    Oh, but since they are illegal too, its all okay.

    Responses (1) +
  • [10] August 5, 2015 at 10:06am

    Maybe it was hot outside. Does it matter? Does it mean he deserved what he got?

    Responses (2) +
  • August 5, 2015 at 9:53am

    Oh, and btw, I used the annual report directly on PP website. Not this issuu.com whatever that is.

  • August 5, 2015 at 9:48am

    Yes, that is exactly where I got the information from… their annual report. Now, if you notice, I did state GROSS profit. Perhaps you should read all the words since you seem to have the math skills to know the difference between gross profit and net profit.

    And since you run a non-profit organization, you probably full well know how easy it is to cook the books in order to maintain that no net profit margin. Including the administrators that “want a Lamborghini”. Sure, maybe a location needs a company vehicle for whatever reason. But wouldn’t a $20,000 vehicle work just as well as a $200,000+ vehicle? Or was she wanting to buy it for her own personal vehicle, with PP money?

    What I said was 100% accurate, based on their own annual report. About 1.2 billion in revenue, with about 770 million in actual services provided, leaving a GROSS profit of about $430 million.

  • August 5, 2015 at 9:36am

    Actually, I believe the problem isn’t earning a “living wage” at all. The real problem, in my view, is that the cost of living has become so ridiculously expensive. $2.50 a loaf for bread? $3-$4 a gallon for milk? And gas? Why have our “living wages” suddenly become unlivable?

    The answer, of course, is the planned and forced erosion of the value of the US Dollar. As the value of the US dollar declines, the prices on everything else goes up in order to compensate for it.

    If we could but strengthen the value of our dollar, even $5 an hour would become a “livable wage”. Reduce government regulations and exorbitant over spending and you would be surprised as to what becomes livable.

    That all said, there is also the issue of the definition of “livable wage”. Unfortunately, too many people think it means you can buy a house, cars, have 12 TVs, cable television, Ipads and Iphones, computers, and any number of other luxuries. I’m sorry, but a livable wage is simply a place to stay and food on the table. Everything else is WANTS.

  • August 4, 2015 at 12:21pm

    Source what? The numbers? I gave you the source. Look it up in their own annual report. Those are THEIR numbers.

    Oh, sorry, that was from their 2012-2013 annual report. I’m not sure what the numbers are from other years. But I’m sure you could find that in their annual reports as well.

  • August 4, 2015 at 12:11pm

    @huffdaddy,

    That is as ridiculous of a straw-man argument as I have ever heard.

    Nowhere did I state that I have the right to break into YOUR home so I can share any religious beliefs with you. Laws against breaking and entering have nothing to do with religion.

    Nor did I say I have unlimited rights when practicing religion. What I said, what government, specifically congress, can make no law regarding establishing a religion, or the free practice thereof.

    And yes, there are currently laws in the USA that ARE forcing religious beliefs on others. Or, more like, preventing the free practice of religious beliefs.

  • [1] August 4, 2015 at 12:02pm

    Lets say your parents give you $20, but say don’t spend it on drugs. You had $100 in your pocket.

    Your plan for your $100 was to use it to buy gas, food, etc. You didn’t have the extra $20 to spend on drugs.

    So, okay, you get the extra $20, and that goes to gas. Then 80 of the 100 you already had goes to gas and food, etc. Then you take $20 of the original 100 you had, and buy drugs with it.

    Now, do you think your parents would really give a rats behind that it wasn’t THEIR $20 that was spent on drugs?

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] August 4, 2015 at 11:58am

    “It’s our obligation to protect our wives, our sisters, our daughters, our granddaughters” from the GOP’s “absurd policies,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “The Republican Party has lost its moral compass.”

    Guess what Harry? Something around half of those aborted fetuses ARE “our wives, our sisters, our daughters, our granddaughters” .

    But, all that inconvenient moral compass stuff aside, taxpayer money does not belong to ANY organization that provides abortion services. Yes, you and they can tell us that tax payer money doesn’t fund abortions, but it is all the same company. It all ultimately comes from the same pot. How is it you can specifically tell me that the dollar I give you for taxes, is not the same dollar you give PP, that winds up being part of the money to fund an abortion?

    More to the point, why should ANY company that has 1.2 Billion in revenue, that only provides 770 Million in services, get any taxpayer money???

    Yes, you can get those figures from their annual report,

    $1.2B minus 0.77B = $430 million gross PROFIT.

    Responses (2) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love