User Profile: 2AFirearmsDealerDotCom


Member Since: July 20, 2012


  • [1] June 29, 2015 at 8:28am


    ” If a state says “you don’t have to do X because of your religion” that is saying “we support and endorse your religion””

    Wrong. The first amendment only states:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    notice, it also says it cannot write a law PROHIBITING the free exercise of religion.

    First, this is federal, thus states are not bound by it as such, as the 10th amendment takes over. However, most state constitutions also have their version(s) of the amendments, and yes, the federal constitution generally trumps state constitutions.

    Second, it is NOT the same as “endorsing” your religion. It IS the same as we support your right of freedom OF religion (not from religion). In no way is this considered “making a law establishing a religion”.

    This is what everybody continues to lie about and push as truth.

    That said, I agree that public establishments (those that are at least in part paid with tax payer money) should be required to service the public all equally regardless of religion, race, etc. But I believe the government should be out of the marriage business completely, at least on federal level, and should be left as a states rights issue.

    But I also believe private establishments should be allowed to operate free of this BS.

  • [3] June 26, 2015 at 12:16pm

    Too late. The branding, fines and jail sentences are already in place for refusing to perform the same things for them.

  • June 26, 2015 at 11:47am

    @ J-Mo,

    Why is it only TWO otherwise unrelated individuals? Any why does it have to be unrelated? Again, if we are talking about for the equal rights to all, why set any limitations? People have left their entire estates to their pets…. one would not do that if there wasn’t real love there….

    By the way, my dog is a lot more intelligent than most progressives I know. She can even nod her head yes and shake her head no in response to questions asked.

  • [-2] June 26, 2015 at 11:42am

    And your comment had nothing to do with my question or comment. It was simply a way to bash on Mormons and Glenn Beck. And, if you do some research, not ALL Mormons believe in that. There are different sects of mormons, with slightly different beliefs, none of which has anything to do with my question.

  • [6] June 26, 2015 at 11:05am

    So how about marrying more than ONE person? Maybe a bi-sexual wants to have both a male and a female partner in life?

    Or how about those people that want to marry their pets? Don’t they deserve equality under the law as well?

    Truth is, the Federal government should have NOTHING to do with marriage. Frankly, neither should the state or local governments as well, however having states and the people determining laws about marriage IS in the constitution (the 10th amendment).

    If you want to document civil unions or marriages for the purposes of legal rights (such as financial or medical, etc), well, thats fine. But was already possible with such things as power of attorney, etc.

    Government should be out of the marriage business.

    Worst part about this whole thing has nothing to do with the actual content of the issue. The real and only tragedy here, is that SCOTUS is using its power to ignore the entire legislative branch of government, by forcing the states to adopt or reject laws that are not governed by the US Constitution, and should be left to the states per the 10th Amendment. Much like they did with Healthcare, and other recent decisions.

    The legislative branch is now irrelevant. The executive branch determines what it wants, and uses SCOTUS to enforce it. This is a dictatorship.

    Responses (3) +
  • [87] June 26, 2015 at 9:11am



    Responses (4) +
  • [1] June 26, 2015 at 9:06am

    “Vietnam War was about 20 years”

    — seriously? I don’t know if you’re trying to be funny or what…

    The Vietnam War was 1955 to 1975, so a little more than 20 years ago. More like 40-60 years ago.

  • [3] June 25, 2015 at 2:26pm

    Stop feeding the trolls.

  • June 25, 2015 at 12:52pm

    ” There is no right to fly a flag that has resulted in the deaths of so many Americans!”

    So, in your words, we should also NOT be flying the stars and stripes? Remember, the civil war was more accurately the war of northern aggression. The civil war was fought primarily about states rights, and the constitutionally limited central government overstepping its bounds — it was NOT about slavery.

    So in reality, the stars and stripes were the true cause of the deaths of so many Americans.

    And you are a disgusting human being if you think “there is more of a right to shoot on sight someone flies a flag of rebellion”. Because somebody has a different viewpoint on the meaning of a flag, you think its okay to kill them? Troll.

  • June 23, 2015 at 7:59am

    Actually, that SOB did break a law. He was already under a felony indictment, which means he was not allowed to legally own a firearm.

  • June 22, 2015 at 10:31am

    “I cannot imagine the horror that could’ve occurred if people were sitting around with concealed weapons, this thing started and you had a full-scale gunfight,” Shrum said Friday. “You might not even have three survivors.”

    Yeah, but you misguided lackey for the left… you may have had TWELVE survivors too! Or at least, maybe more than three!

  • June 22, 2015 at 10:28am

    To all those that say armed defenders could easily have stopped the bloodshed, I say not necessarily.

    It IS possible, there may have been more casualties.

    It IS possible, there may have been fewer casualties.

    There is no data or evidence that says there would not have been fewer casualties, as every situation is different.

    The ONE THING that is definite, is that if those folks in the church had been carrying, there is a better chance for a better outcome. Instead of shooting fish in a barrel, the evil garbage that did this despicable thing, would have had to try and avoid getting shot himself, thus lowering his ability to fire accurately, and possibly being stopped permanently before being able to cause (as much) harm.

    Is it possible that some of the defenders might accidentally hit somebody else in their panic to stop the shooter? Yes. But without that potential CHANCE to stop the shooter, well, see how well that works out every time it happens?

  • June 22, 2015 at 10:22am

    Probably wrong. He most likely carries or has armed guards carrying around him. I’m sure he has seen his share of guns, just doesn’t want anybody else to have them.

  • [1] June 22, 2015 at 9:09am

    Concerning his lineage, yes, that joke was extremely wrong…

    Should have said, Black with 50% cream and weak.

    But even so, that CANT be considered racist. Is he NOT black? Is calling a black person black, now racist? Really? Wow.

  • [-2] June 19, 2015 at 10:08am

    Rand Paul needs to get rid of this plan and simplify it to the FairTax plan. Check it out at

  • June 19, 2015 at 9:48am

    What you are describing you can find information on at

    There are a FEW politicians (like Ted Cruiz) that want to abolish the IRS, income taxes, corporate taxes and the tax code completely, and replace it with Fairtax.

    Check it out.

  • June 19, 2015 at 9:46am

    Check out

    It is the alternative to all the garbage taxes, and still provides funding for medicare, social security, etc. Basically it would fund everything we currently do now, but it would get rid of a ton of individual taxes (income tax, fica, ss, corporate taxes, etc). It would also give a prebate to every american citizen so that lower income people will actually be helped more than they are currently.

    Unfortunately, very few politicians will go along with this amazing plan, since it would mean the end of their monetary control of the people.

    Responses (1) +
  • [16] June 18, 2015 at 1:05pm

    Seems to me, that is the PERFECT time to put an advertisement for a means to help defend yourself and others against other crazy people.

  • [-2] June 17, 2015 at 10:30am

    Perhaps. But, why can’t they call it a civil union? Leave Marriage to the religious organizations, and finally, but probably foremost, get the federal government out of the marriage business completely?

    Let marriages be reserved for religious institutions, civil unions be the government equivalent, and let the states and the people themselves decide whether it is one man / one woman, two men, two women, three men and a baby, a woman and her dog, or whatever.

  • [2] June 16, 2015 at 3:15pm

    What I’d like to know… is if she at any time on any legal document or form, listed herself as black, and for what purpose? For example, job applications, welfare gathering, whatever… did she ever get any special considerations for anything (besides NAACP — strange, what would they do to us if we created an NAAWP?) because she lied and falsified documents stating she is black?

    Responses (2) +
Restoring Love