User Profile: dem1974

Member Since: April 07, 2013


  • March 19, 2014 at 3:26pm

    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.

    Scott Walker has not established a state religion that everyone in the state of Wisconsin must follow. He has not prevented the establishment of a religion (e.g., making a specific religion illegal). He is allowed to express his religious views and the followers of atheism (it is a religion, religion is simply a belief in something and they believe there is nothing) need to go pound sand and grow up.
    I am so sick of these people and their hostility toward Christianity. Have these Freedom from Religion people said anything about the Minneapolis dress up like a Muslim day? I would assume they would be all over that. Probably not, they know Christians won’t resort to violence if they are called out.

    Responses (4) +
  • February 28, 2014 at 10:51am

    Hey why not. The state is ignoring most of the other amendments anyways so why should the 4th be an exception? Think of how ‘safe’ the government could make society without the 4th amendment.

    Freedom is dead.

    I never thought I would agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg on anything…

    Responses (1) +
  • February 26, 2014 at 2:55pm

    He needed to make sure the moose was dead. A few shots from a handgun from that distance aren’t going to kill a moose. Have some respect and make sure the moose is dead.

  • February 25, 2014 at 3:36pm

    Any limits on magazine capacity are unconstitutional, period. Why should the government get to tell me how many rounds I get to protect myself from the criminal scum they refuse to keep caged up? Accuracy in a shoot out situation is about 10-15%, which means 3 rounds out of 30 might high the bad guy. Screw these politicians with their private security PAID for by the taxpayers.

    Are only 2000 of the 3000 square feet of my house protected by the 4th Amendment? Are only books less than 200 pages protected by the first amendment?

    “This is a common sense measure that’s above politics,” he said. “It’s about safety.” IF this is the argument they are going to use, why not toss out the 4th amendment? Random house searches would really increase safety. What about a right to trial by jury? Let’s get rid of that too. We can just lock up everyone we think might be a criminal. That would increase safety, wouldn’t it?

    Hands off my magazines of whatever capacity I choose.

  • February 21, 2014 at 8:35am

    Seems about right for today’s police departments and government in general. Handing out tickets to generate revenue and not dealing with actual crime, which doesn’t generate revenue.

    I bet the city will show up at this poor woman’s estate hearing trying to collect on the tickets…

    Responses (13) +
  • January 31, 2014 at 11:56am

    “property-rights fundamentalists”

    As opposed to what? So does Ellison believe that one cannot actually own property? Everything is owned by the collective to these people. An individual pays for the property 100% on their own, yet the ‘collective’ owns it. Screw these people.

    Responses (4) +
  • November 11, 2013 at 10:30am

    So the department of pre-crime? This is a violation of the 4th amendment. The state doesn’t get to look for evidence of a crime without probable cause or a search warrant.

    Keep electing more liberal/communist and all freedom will be gone in 10 years. But as long as abortion and gay marriage are legal that’s all that matters, right?

    Responses (1) +
  • October 29, 2013 at 8:42am

    So do their shoes not come with souls?

    Responses (2) +
  • October 25, 2013 at 10:22am

    “Hudson’s husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 of resisting arrest and is forbidden by law from owning or possessing a firearm, explaining why the raid allowed authorities to search their shared property for firearms.”

    Did they have any EVIDENCE that he was in possession of a gun? He isn’t allowed to own a gun but that doesn’t entitle the police to search his home to determine he isn’t in possession of a gun.

    Are we doing random house searches now looking for law breakers? This was a diversion to get what they really wanted. Her files. One would assume the only item they would be allowed to confiscate would be a gun.

    Responses (4) +
  • September 4, 2013 at 2:11pm

    The US Supreme Court has ruled several times the police have zero obligation to protect the public. Perhaps she isn’t familiar with these rulings. Also, criminals, by definition, don’t follow the law. This is the real war on women, trying to deny a woman’s right to determine what is best for her self defense. Someone should tell this woman to go pound sand and mind her own damn business.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 28, 2013 at 4:04pm

    Actually there is no ‘right’ to vote for POTUS. POTUS is chosen by state electors which can be appointed by the state legislators and not the popular vote within a specific state. If the state gives you a free ID there is no tax. Why do you support voter fraud? Photo ID prevents people from voting more than once. Are you worried the left couldn’t win an election without fraud?

  • August 22, 2013 at 1:08pm

    So Eric Holder thinks certain minorities do not have the level of intelligence required to obtain a photo ID? Bottom line, photo ID prevents people from voting multiple times. This is especially important with early voting and dead people on the voter rolls. Why are the democrats so afraid of a fair election? Also, there is no constitutional right to vote for president.

  • August 16, 2013 at 11:44am

    A hate crime? It’s called free speech.

    Presidents have ALWAYS been mocked throughout the history of the US. The day that isn’t allowed is the day we become just like North Korea where everyone worships the ‘dear leader’. Do they not remember the 8 years of Bush and how he was mocked? If a black president cannot be mocked because of his race then a black man should not be allowed to hold the office.

    Being mocked comes with the job in a free country, which is really the problem in Obama’s mind. The country is still free, at least for the time being.

  • August 7, 2013 at 4:10pm

    Why didn’t the individual who took him down at the scene finish him off with a double tap to the head or empty a whole additional magazine into his chest? I don’t know all the details but if I had taken him down he wouldn’t have lived to tell about it.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 7, 2013 at 8:49am

    This is highly illegal and completely unconstitutional. Using this same logic, the apartment complex could ban individuals of a certain religion or race. Additionally, the complex could allow random police searches if they just add a clause that makes the 4th amendment null and void.

    Apartment complexes cannot suspend the Bill of Rights.

  • August 2, 2013 at 7:32am

    Looks like he will be cut…so get drunk and say the n-word your NFL career is done. Get drunk run over someone with your car and kill them (i.e., Donte Stallworth) and you are still playing today.

  • July 31, 2013 at 12:44pm

    Dear John, please just switch parties. It’s ok, we won’t be mad. It’s obvious you are a democrat to the core. I wonder if he really wanted to win in 2008 or if deep down inside he wanted Obama to win.

  • July 15, 2013 at 2:00pm

    I didn’t think she wanted to get involoved?

  • July 15, 2013 at 1:58pm

    I agree with Holder, it was unnecessary and if Trayvon had not attacked George and started to slam his head into the sidewalk the shooting would not have happened.

    Why is there zero interest in the actions of Trayvon?

    Don’t launch unprovoked attacks on other people would be a good PSA.

    Responses (3) +
  • July 3, 2013 at 8:54am

    Could it be possible there is no case, because all the evidence points to self-defense?

    Most rational people would say that if someone is on top of you beating you MMA style and saying “you are going to die tonight” that they would respond in the same way.

    If Zimmerman was black and Trayvon was white no one would even know about this case because it wouldn’t be a case. Whites wouldn’t be ‘demanding justice’ in the streets and threaten to kill a black person for the hell of it.