User Profile: 2AFirearmsDealerDotCom


Member Since: July 20, 2012


  • January 13, 2015 at 12:10pm

    How about we just force everybody to be gay, that way there is no discrimination against gay people at all?

  • [6] January 8, 2015 at 1:51pm

    Wait, black had nothing to do with the chokehold, but had EVERYTHING to do with the divisive cop hating mentality and racial garbage the protestors and media and government leaders are all pushing…

  • [2] January 8, 2015 at 1:42pm

    Exactly the same arguments they used against Hitler becoming a dictator…

    I’ll give just one potential possibility for you to contemplate:
    While polls show only 15% of the military supports obama (as you say), I can guarantee you that at least 90%, if not more, of the military supports this country and most importantly their families.

    I agree it is unlikely that O will become a dictator in the next two years. However, I do agree it is possible, and here is why…

    Make an assumption that like Hitler, O starts off shoveling the whole “its for the good of the country and the protection and well being of its citizens” manure. (They have already passed many laws, like ACA, using that mentality to sell it to the masses). Now, assume that the media pushes it as well, as him being our savior from crime, starvation, whatever, etc. After all, a people is only 9 meals from anarchy, which nobody wants.

    So, things go from bad to horrible (through coincidence or planned, doesn’t matter). Things deteriorate to the point where martial law must be declared to restore order and feed the people. Military members are unlikely to refuse if they are helping innocent people to be protected and fed. In addition, they want the paycheck to be able to protect and feed their own family….

    Next, dictatorship, at least on some level. Please at least admit to the possibility, even if remote.

    And this was just ONE possible path. Think financial collapse, Infrastructure collapse, war, et al…

  • January 8, 2015 at 11:47am

    Wait, I’m confused. ***** wants to fund DHS to fight the 5 Billion or so in funding they passed for illegal aliens (yeah, thats right, I said it correctly) in the omnibus spending package?

    Yup. Conservatism at its best. Just like when I was in the navy, they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-roof a building that they spent another hundreds of thousands of dollars on a few months later to tear down.

  • January 7, 2015 at 9:16am

    Fairer? Well, what could be MORE fair, is for them to use the current gas taxes imposed for the process of infrastructure instead of increasing it. The current federal taxes on fuel should be more than sufficient to keep the roads gilded in gold… That is, if they actually used that tax money to keep them up instead of squandering 40% of it like they do with every other bit of revenue.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 7, 2015 at 9:13am

    If what you are saying is true, then why the new tax at all? Why not just take the “federal income tax cut” that is proposed and turn it toward infrastructure?

    The problem isn’t with too little taxes. The problem is too much spending, especially on non-essential garbage.

  • [1] January 6, 2015 at 12:21pm

    Wanna bet you won’t find a bible in that same library???

    Responses (4) +
  • January 5, 2015 at 2:27pm

    Perhaps not, but you ARE unlawfully detained.

  • January 5, 2015 at 2:26pm

    Would you have no problem with a monthly search of your home by police, so that they can save lives by finding all the bad people hiding things in their homes?

  • January 5, 2015 at 2:24pm

    I do believe the limit was lowered to 0.08 simply as a way of obtaining more convictions, thus more money. I don’t believe there is significant documented evidence that a person is “drunk” at 1.0 vs 0.8.

  • January 5, 2015 at 2:20pm

    Until the invention of a compressed air system that will blow air for you…

    Really want to stop drunk driving? Execute those legally prosecuted.

    People will either stop driving while drunk in fear for their lives, or stop driving drunk upon losing their lives. Pretty simple.

  • [5] December 18, 2014 at 8:22am

    Wait wait wait wait WAIT…. So let me get this straight….. A person, asking another person for assistance getting something off a shelf, is now RACIST?????

    Wow. Just… Wow.

  • December 16, 2014 at 2:07pm

    While I don’t often agree with you JRook, I do agree with you on this topic, with the exception of providing subsidies to the oil companies. How about not spending taxpayer money subsidizing a multi billion dollar private industry? How about instead we simply have the government get out of the way (within reason) and let them do their job of supplying us oil/energy?

  • December 16, 2014 at 12:32pm

    You’ve lost this one.

    1) Yes, it is with the public trust. As long as the business owner does not harm the public. Refusing service is not a harm. There are many other businesses that would happily take the money, thus reducing his business revenue. That is how free market works.

    2) Refusing business is not a violation of rights. Passing laws refusing business for the entire lifestyle/religion/etc, would be a violation of rights. That business owner forcing every other business owner to refuse service would also be a violation of rights. A publicly funded print shop refusing service would also be a violation. However, a private owner/business refusing is not a violation. Hmmm, lets put it this way. Assume for the moment you are a homosexual. You want to have sex with me, and I don’t because I’m not a homosexual. Should you be allowed to sue me to force me to have sex with you?

    3) Um… huh?

    4) So by your own statement, your answer should have been yes. If a gay activist group can sue and force somebody to do something they don’t wish within that scope, then Anti-gay activists should be allowed to sue them to make them do something like print anti-gay tshits.

    For the record (and I’m sure you won’t believe me or care), I have absolutely nothing against alternative lifestyles, as long as they have nothing against me. I just believe that NOBODY should force their own values and beliefs on another individual out of “tolerance” pc crap.

  • [7] December 16, 2014 at 11:46am

    Once again, your understanding of our Constitution is lacking.

    It would be EXACTLY as proper to put up a Chanukah menorah. If that’s what the people chose to do.

  • [5] December 16, 2014 at 11:44am

    “A nativity scene on public property is not guaranteed by the Constitution.”
    You are absolutely correct. However, at the same time, PREVENTING a nativity scene on public property is also not guaranteed by the Constitution.

  • [4] December 16, 2014 at 11:39am

    And what about the violation of the first amendment (only one “m”) by people like yourself to view your stupid emptiness?

    Bottom line is that legally (not politically or actively) the people own public lands by payment of their taxes. This is why public lands must be available and open to all taxpayers. Government has no actual authority to stop the people from displaying nativity scenes, or Hanukkah items, a blank nothingness for Atheists, or even satanic worship symbols if that’s what the PEOPLE want.

    It would only be in violation of the first amendment if congress passed a LAW stating that ONLY Christianity or ONLY Atheism may be displayed/practiced/etc.

    With regard to your whole anti-religious zeal, the key words of the first amendment are as follows:

    “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    You have no grounds.

  • December 2, 2014 at 1:43pm

    No, much like the water department, they just tack on a “customer service fee” to all suburbs of detroit amounting to hundreds of dollars a year per household that actually pays their bills…

  • [6] November 25, 2014 at 6:53am

    What kind of answers are you looking for? This was NOT a “child”. This was an 18 year old, 6’4″ 260# plus MAN that attacked and beat a police officer that was simply trying to do his job.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] November 18, 2014 at 12:07pm

    I don’t believe the issue with healthcare for most americans is the one size fits all plans provided. I think what irritates most americans is the lack of CHOICE. Sure, we have the choice of picking from one of these three plans that the government offers. Thats still no choice.

    If the ACA had been created with it being in mind as an OPTION, I would have no problem with that. Sure, let the government create its own “group plan” as an option for americans to select from. But allow me to walk away from it and get my own damn insurance or not, from whomever I choose.

    If the government option is really as good and as inexpensive as they try and pretend, then americans will naturally gravitate toward it. That is called the free market system.