User Profile: 2AFirearmsDealerDotCom

2AFirearmsDealerDotCom

Member Since: July 20, 2012

Comments

123
  • [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.”
    @Winedude
    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.

  • [1] November 18, 2014 at 9:45am

    You DO realize, that this nation “with plenty of food”, gets a LOT of that food from animals, right? What difference does it make if you go to the store and buy meat (which comes from slaughter houses), or go and hunt it yourself?

  • [1] October 23, 2014 at 9:20am

    Um, yup. Depends on the model, etc, but yes, a used Sig could easily bring more than $1000.

  • [1] October 17, 2014 at 9:22am

    “Think about it, the bad guy brought a knife to a gun fight; a wounding shot did all that had to be done.”

    Until the next time when the thug brings a gun and ambushes his next victim(s) so as not to get shot himself again…

  • [23] October 13, 2014 at 12:10pm

    “The lawyer did note that Hands on Originals has both employed and served gays and lesbians, but that when it comes to the messages present on products, Adamson draws a line.”

    So, it appears he has served anybody and everybody, as long as the message itself is within his ideals of appropriate imagery.

    Does this mean I can sue him and force him to print tshirts depicting child rape, or mass murder, or bestiality?

    1) It is HIS private business, not the governments. He should have the right to do with it as he pleases. If the masses don’t agree with it, then don’t shop there.

    2) Why should anybody be forced to do something that violates their first amendment rights?

    3) What happened to freedom in this country? Doesn’t anybody care anymore?

    4) Can we force the gay activist groups to promote anti-gay sentiments if they have businesses with which we could do so?

    Responses (2) +
  • August 21, 2014 at 1:42pm

    Wrong. Rounds of ammunition are either sub-sonic (below the speed of sound), or super-sonic (above the speed of sound). With some exceptions, most handgun ammunition is sub-sonic, and most rifle ammunition is supersonic.

    Since the speed of sound (which actually varies a little based on some variables such as air temperature) is approximately 1,125 ft/s, it depends on whether the cartridge used has a muzzle velocity above or below that to determine if the cartridge is supersonic or subsonic.

    In practicality, does it really matter? Most people would not be able to hear/see the difference as the sound of the shot will be within fractions of a second of the shot itself regardless.

  • [1] August 13, 2014 at 11:46am

    Thats nice, but they never read the constitution anyway. Further, in order to truly understand the constitution, and not try and “interpret” it to fit your wants, they really need to be reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that explain the constitution.

  • [1] August 13, 2014 at 9:15am

    “fleeing from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.”

    Don’t they mean… INVADING from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

  • July 31, 2014 at 7:16am

    1) Is this one of the same schools that the UN admitted to finding Hamas rockets within?

    2) If not, isn’t it likely that there were Hamas weapons within?

    3) There are all kinds of reports and condemnations about Israel attacking civilian targets, but few to no reports of those “civilian” targets housing Hamas and weapons, nor any reports of Hamas performing some of those attacks attributed to Israel (which has had evidence presented in some of the attacks).

    4) White House, how about you condemn Hamas for continuing to lob rockets and attack civilians in Israel?

  • July 24, 2014 at 11:48am

    Monk, wait… that is impossible (seeing turtles crossing roads in florida….)

    http://www.wcjb.com/local-news/2009/06/34-million-federal-stimulus-money-pay-turtle-tunnel

    I mean, after spending all that tax payer money to build a turtle tunnel? You must be lying.

  • [13] July 18, 2014 at 11:38am

    How about government officials get off social media and do their jobs rather than sending out tweets? Twits.

  • [2] July 18, 2014 at 9:34am

    Yes, legally you can purchase it in another state and have it transferred in your own state, unless the state itself has its own laws preventing it. Like you said, it is just like an internet sale.

    Unfortunately, the SCOTUS refuses to practice constitutional law, especially regarding the second amendment, as any and all gun laws are an infringement and against our constitutional rights.

    in·fringe
    [in-frinj]
    verb (used with object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
    1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
    verb (used without object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
    2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don’t infringe on his privacy.

    ANY gun law “encroaches” upon our right to keep and bear arms.

123