User Profile: 2AFirearmsDealerDotCom


Member Since: July 20, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [-4] October 1, 2015 at 7:42am

    Great, just what we need. Another BLM president that’s also anti-gun and anti-cops. No thank you.

    Responses (1) +
  • [29] September 30, 2015 at 1:27pm

    Why bother reaching out to the white house for a response? Unless there is actual irrefutable proof of said “suggestion”, they will simply deny it. If there IS proof? They will simply lie about it.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 30, 2015 at 12:39pm

    @Sargeking; Oh, and by the way, as for higher education, how about nuclear engineering, electrical engineering, controls and industrial engineering, and a computer science minor?

    And no, I don’t really care what “higher level” you rose up to, as I didn’t even try to comment on your education or lack thereof without knowing anything about you. But congratulations. Good for you.

    And apparently, since you haven’t responded, that must have “quieted you down”? As you said?

  • [20] September 30, 2015 at 12:30pm

    At the very least she should also be charged with illegally carrying a concealed hand gun,under the influence while in possession of a handgun, as well as illegal possession of a hand gun.

  • September 30, 2015 at 11:00am

    @Sargeking; I’m intrigued as to how you know what history I know and don’t know, considering you do not know me in the least. For all you know, I’m a history professor. I’m not, nor do I claim to be. However, I have always studied history. I find it fascinating. And I study history from source documents. Not the bs progressive history they want us to learn.

    That said, no, you did not quiet me down. As it happens, I have a real job, and a life, unlike progressive trolls on this site. In addition, theblaze does not make replies known (there is no follow function on a thread one posts in), so in order to even know you replied to me, I have to take the time to go into my history and look for them, which I rarely do since I have more important things to do than to respond to progressive trolls.

    That said, most of your posts seem to me that you are a conservative, so I’m not really sure why you are attacking me with bs statements anyway.

    So, you should likely try and “get a grip” yourself, since you were responding to me without a clue as to what you were responding.

  • [4] September 30, 2015 at 10:23am

    Would be much better if they ask all these supporters about Hillary’s policies, letting them believe that they are trumps first… When they spout off about how they hate all these policies, THEN tell them they are actually Hillary’s policies. (I did that with Obama and you should have seen their wide eyes when I told them they were actually obamas policies. Unfortunately the morons still voted for him anyway).

  • [15] September 29, 2015 at 11:42am

    This kid takes a suitcase with a bunch of wires and electronics, and a count down timer, into school and becomes the greatest thing since sliced bread. In the meantime MY 8 year old son gets suspended for pointing with his index finger while his thumb was pointed up.

  • [5] September 28, 2015 at 12:26pm

    Then explain how they made it so…

    Responses (4) +
  • September 28, 2015 at 11:04am

    Hows that “war on poverty” in our own country doing, eh? Cant we concentrate on US first? Maybe the rest of the world later, after we get ourselves straightened out, to those countries that actually want our help and not just our money?

  • [2] September 28, 2015 at 9:58am


    First, in todays day and age (twitter, yelp, word of mouth, etc.) having a sign is irrelevant. However, I agree they should post a sign if they decide “No Shirt, No Shoes, No service” (by the way, next will be the nudists demanding and suing for service in any establishment – Don’t think so? Isn’t nudism legal in San Fransisco? Even when eating at a restaurant?) And yes, leave it to the people whether or not they want to do business there.

    No, they are not violating any “Rights”. They may, however, be violating LAWS. Laws are NOT rights, nor is there any provision for gay “rights” in any constitution. For the record, many of those bakers HAVE refused service to straight people, if, for example, they wanted a wedding cake for a satanic wedding ritual. But the satanists simply went elsewhere for their cake. This is where laws and rights are different. A Law is enacted by the government, be it federal, state or local. Federal laws outside of the confines of the US Constitution are, by definition, unconstitutional and should be left to the states. And so on down the line to the local level. That is the way our representative republic is supposed to work, in order to ensure EVERYBODY’S freedoms. If the public wants things a certain way, they pass laws. But constitutional rights are entirely different

    Also, just because a business serves the “public” does not make it a Public entity. It still is a PRIVATE business. Unless, of course, it accepts taxpayer money in any way.

  • [1] September 28, 2015 at 8:43am

    I don’t think many agree that those in a public (read Government) position should be allowed to deny services. Government employees with religious objections DO have the right to find another job to which they can justify their moral and religious objections, just the same as any employee of any company public or private has the right to quit their job and obtain another that aligns with their work ethics or whatever.

    However, that does not mean that private companies, not run by the government, should be forced to do anything they choose not to do. For example, while I may believe it is reprehensible to refuse service to minorities or Christians or homosexuals or whatever, I do believe private companies and business owners have every right to do so. I would not, however, spend a single penny in that establishment should that be the case.

    But, government employees, getting paid by the taxpayer, must give equal service to any and all citizens, and are free to find another job if they don’t like it.

  • [1] September 28, 2015 at 8:33am

    Please explain exactly what “rights” are violated when a christian baker chooses not to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding? Where exactly does that “right” of the homosexual appear in the constitution?

    Also, explain what “right” the clerk has as a government employee to deny service by the government? You may quote the 1st amendment, however, that employee is NOT being forced to provide that service. S(he) has every right to quit that job and find another within his/her moral guidelines. Now, if that employee was forced to provide that service, chained to her desk, ordered at gunpoint to provide that service, yes, that would be unconstitutional.

    Responses (6) +
  • [3] September 23, 2015 at 10:16am

    Mobile 1 synthetic motor oil works amazingly well.

  • [2] September 22, 2015 at 2:28pm

    Stop. There is no such thing as “separation of church and state”. Perhaps you need to gain knowledge of our constitution as well.

    The first amendment simply states (among other things) that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion nor preventing the free practice thereof. In actuality, all laws preventing the practice of religion, even in schools and on public/government property, IS against the constitution.

    That said, I do not believe schools nor any government agency should bend over backward and kiss the butts of any one group of people. All people should be equal in the eyes of government. No special treatment. The government (and school systems) have established holidays. If you want to take your kids out of school with an excused absence for a special holiday of any kind, so be it. But do not force it on any other person.

  • [1] September 21, 2015 at 12:46pm

    And how are we going to combat climate change? By creating millions of clean energy jobs and millions of new jobs and businesses that will help us combat climate change and put Americans back to work,” she said.

    Hmmm… you mean like the Trillions of American tax payer dollars that were given to all the clean energy companies by the Obama administration? All those companies that months later went bankrupt? The all of 3 jobs that MAY hae been created for the trillions spent? Creating new jobs like that Hillary?

  • [8] September 18, 2015 at 2:13pm

    So we give them tax dollars so they can give it back to candidates. Especially those we may not agree with.

    There should be a law against any organization that receives government money donating to any political office, organization, politician, etc. It equates to a kickback.

    Responses (1) +
  • [5] September 18, 2015 at 10:34am

    Moreno added, “Everyone sees me as this thug or this gangster, I did this because I’m this bad guy … that’s not who I am.”

    Lets recap… You did it. That’s exactly who you are.

  • [1] September 17, 2015 at 2:19pm

    Free speech is one thing. Threatening bodily harm or murder is another.

    Granted, it was said in frustration and most likely didn’t mean anything. However, in todays day and age, it is possible she could have actually meant it.

    However, the charge is really stupid. They should have charged her with making a threat against another person or some such, if anything.

    The whole thing is ridiculous.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 17, 2015 at 12:55pm

    1) How does anybody (especially the teacher) know anything about this kids beliefs? Does he wear around a sign saying I’m a muslim? Or was that just a convenient piece of information after the fact?

    2) I’m sure the teacher and the school officials didn’t stick around much to do an in depth search of that device to determine if there were any explosive materials in it. It was a suitcase with a timer and a bunch of wires. Who is going to stick around to see if it goes boom?

    3) Even WITH our presidents comment of “bring it to the whitehouse”, does anybody think if ANYONE took that device and tried to enter the whitehouse, we wouldn’t see a much larger “over-reaction” to a “clock”?

    Everybody needs to get off their PC high horse and start using logic. Or, failing that, shut the hell up unless you specifically are the one in that exact situation.

  • [12] September 16, 2015 at 12:36pm

    Yes, it was the 14th amendment. However, the progressives in SCOTUS have perverted the actual text, meaning and purpose of that clause. It was written ONLY to grant slaves citizenship. There are documents written BY THE AUTHOR(S) of the 14th amendment that specifically state it is not intended to give citizenship to any foreigners just for dropping a kid on US soil.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love