User Profile: Gup20


Member Since: September 26, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • November 20, 2015 at 2:28pm

    I think the rules of engagement for US Police and US military should reverse — the local police (who shoot first if they even “feel” in danger) should be held to the standard that they may not use deadly force unless they can confirm with certainty that they are being assaulted with a weapon, and if – after the fact – it is determined that they were not being attacked, they should be prosecuted. On the other hand, we cannot fight politically correct wars. Soldiers in the theater of battle should have very little restrictions.

    As members of the executive branch of government, police should not be able to deprive a person of life or liberty without due process. The completely subjective “I felt threatened” is not due process. Due process must be objective. It can’t be “i thought he was reaching for a weapon” or even “I thought that was a weapon, and it turned out to be a cell phone.” It has to be “he had a weapon and fired at me, and at that point, use of deadly force was justified.” When they put on a uniform they represent the government, and so police should have severe rules of engagement that must be followed and verified before use of deadly force is authorized.

    The constitution was written to protect us, the people, from them — the greatest force for evil the world has ever known — government. It restricts govenment and the actions government can take. The only good regulation is one that limits government. We need more regulation on government.

  • [4] October 29, 2015 at 9:49am

    Cruz easily won the night… Rubio had an excellent night, as did Fiorina. Jeb Bush is done for. Christie had a good night because he abandoned his big government schtick and used the words “smaller government” a couple of times (though is anyone fooled?). Huckabee was decent, though he seems old and preachy. Carson was on par… but I don’t think he did anything that set the world on fire for him… he’ll probably plateau (though he had a good night, just wasn’t memorable). The biggest story was how irrelevant Trump seemed tonight. You’d think in a night that was supposedly focused on economic issues, Trump would be the the king, so for me he was the biggest loser (if you don’t count CNBC) of the night. Kasich talks too much about Ohio, which on the one had seems good until you realize that he’s put all his eggs in that one basket… a basket which was slapped pretty hard by trump who dismissed all of his success as “you got lucky because of fracking striking it rich in your state.” In that one line, Trump destroyed Kasich’s entire candidacy. Lucky for Kasich, there wasn’t much left to destroy.

  • [3] October 16, 2015 at 3:11pm

    When I read the headline, but before I read the article, I thought — ok, what are the two entities the democrats blame for everything? I answered myself – Republicans and the American people… and then I started to read the article and the answer was: “dishonest Republicans and a confused public” … yep… sounds pretty much like standard DNC party line.

  • [77] October 15, 2015 at 4:31pm

    Good stuff, Matt. I like to think of homosexuality the same as any other sexual sin — adultery for example. You wouldn’t say “the church has to be more accepting of my open, continuing adultery!” Even though I may be sexually oriented towards many sexual partners who are not my wife, God calls me to conform my sexual behavior to His standard of behavior, and that means not giving in to my sexual urges to commit adultery.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 13, 2015 at 11:44am

    Not surprised by this “big government solution” by RINO Jeb Bush.

    Repeal and replace with 1 or 2 page law that says insurance companies cannot deny you for pre-existing conditions and that you can shop for insurance across state lines.

  • [20] October 12, 2015 at 10:28am

    Regarding medical health, there MUST be protections in any mental health law that protects the individual’s right to due process. A judge in a hearing should be the only one who can remove that sacred right.
    I agree wholeheartedly with the last two … however.. I think one easy way of implementing this would be to make ANY entity which prohibits guns legally liable for any violent attacks that happen within their premises. By restricting guns, aren’t businesses and schools essentially asserting themselves over an individual’s right to self defense and taking that responsibility upon themselves? So, let the law reflect that and make anyone who prohibits guns legally responsible and liable for anything bad that happens to people where they are not allowed to protect themselves.

    How fast would you see the “guns prohibited” signs come down when insurance companies require it because they don’t want to be financially liable for gun crimes.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] October 10, 2015 at 4:15pm

    The gunfight at the OK corral happened between outlaw, lawless Cowboys and the Tombstone law enforcement. Tombstone was a gun free zone! Tombstone had laws prohibiting the bearing of arms within the city limits. In fact, that is what precipitated the altercation. The day before, Doc Holiday had hauled one of the gang in to the courthouse for carrying a gun in town, and the judge fined the outlaw $25.

    Funny how the outlaws didn’t stop carrying their guns in a gun free zone, and how it took law enforcement (good guys with guns) to stop the outlaws.

    Responses (2) +
  • [69] October 8, 2015 at 2:34pm

    There are not billions of people in our nation… only about 320 million.

    Furthermore, if you remove the top 5 gun crime cities: Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland, St Louis, Washington DC (all of which are heavily democratic and have steep, steep gun laws) then the US gun homicide rade would be in about average. The problem is when guns are restricted.

    Tragedies like this could be prevented in two ways (if you value freedom): First, we need to return to Biblically oriented moral standards. This isn’t going to happen anytime soon as many pastors (such as the author of this article) have compromised those standards. The other way is to allow people to have weapons and defend themselves, thereby preventing and dissuading crime.

    The alternative of gun control is demonstrated time and time again to raise violent crime.

    Responses (9) +
  • [2] August 12, 2015 at 2:15pm

    From what I understand Michigan has a preemption clause in their gun law which says that no local municipality, city, or local unit of government (which a school and school board qualifies as) may make any laws or policy’s which are more stringent than State Law concerning guns. This is why it is illegal for schools to prohibit the open carry of guns.

  • [23] August 12, 2015 at 10:56am

    Good for them! It’s great to see more people openly carrying. What a fantastic thing for the country and for liberty. I makes everyone around them SOOOOO much safer! (which is why cops openly carry their weapons)

    In a country with 350 million guns, we have 8,000 homicides per year with guns. We have 250 million cars, and 35,000 fatal car accidents per year. We have less than 1 million doctors and 200,000 deaths by medical malpractice and medical accidents per year. Does the school lock down and call police whenever someone drives their car into the parking lot? Would they call the police when they saw a doctor in a white coat approaching the building?

    The administrators lack all common sense. IT IS BIGOTED AND DISCRIMINATORY TO ASSUME THAT EVERYONE WITH A GUN IS VIOLENT OR A BAD GUY!! The same document which protects all men as created equal (our founding documents — the declaration of independence and the constitution) specifically identifies gun owners as a protected class.

    It is very easy to tell if someone is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. Good guys have their weapons in a holster or slung pointing strait up or down. Bad guys are waiving or pointing or generally have the gun in their hands. It’s so simple a young child can tell the difference. But school administrators check common sense at the door.

    Responses (4) +
  • [2] June 10, 2015 at 4:32pm

    Home birth is actually safer and better than hospital birth. In the industrialized world, the USA has the WORST maternal and infant mortality rate!! How can that be? Doctors PUSH expensive and unnecessary interventions which ultimately cascade putting mom and baby’s life in danger. For example, the C-section rate for the rest of the world (according to the WHO) is 10%. In home births, that number is 5%. At American hospitals, that number is 40%. What this means is that there are millions of women having UNNECESSARY major surgery which comes with risks and dangers. Meanwhile, a traditional, hospital birth costs about $15,000, while a C-Section can be anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 depending on complications. A typical home birth with a trained, certified midwife averages about $4,000.

    Hospitals typically have women give birth on their backs… this compresses the pelvis and actually makes it much more difficult (and much more painful) to give birth. Why do they do this? Because it’s convenient for the doctor that way. In fact, the vast majority of any person’s experience at a hospital is not based on what’s best for the patient… but rather what’s best for the doctors, nurses, or hospitals.

    Check out the documentary by Riki Lake called “The Business of Being Born.” It is a microcosm for everything that is wrong with the medical and insurance establishment. It demonstrates plainly the principles behind why health care costs are so high.

  • [3] May 27, 2015 at 3:13pm

    Sadly, I think we will see the gay pride, the abortion supporters, and the anti-second amendment supporters using this tactic soon to block the free speech of pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and pro-second amendment rallies. This probably did more harm than good.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 27, 2015 at 3:07pm

    The constitution doesn’t say “freedom from speech” it says “freedom of speech.” Just like it doesn’t say freedom FROM religion, it says freedom OF religion.

    What you are advocating is very dangerous. It means we are free FROM speech we don’t like.

    It’s like saying “a person can’t post their thoughts on a blog because we disagree with them… they can type them on their computer, but not post them online where people can read them.”

  • May 27, 2015 at 3:05pm

    No… countering their insanity with speech of your own is a form of speech… what they did was prohibit the speech of WBC — like book burning or banning.

  • May 27, 2015 at 2:56pm

    That is incorrect. They actually DID stop them from expressing their speech. The constitutional way would have been to counter the WBC lunatics with counter-protesters with signs of support for the police officer and family or signs that were anti-WBC. By covering up WBC signs they actually engaged not in free speech, but in speech prohibition. Covering the signs is like burning books or jailing dissenters. It is preventing the speech you don’t like rather than countering it with your own speech.

    The counter protesters acted in the PROGRESSIVE way of countering speech, which is to stifle the speech they don’t like.

  • [-1] May 27, 2015 at 2:52pm

    The correct course of action is to counter speech you don’t like with speech of your own… not to infringe upon or prohibit a group from speaking whose speech you don’t like. That’s the progressive way of countering free speech they don’t like.

  • May 27, 2015 at 2:51pm

    There is no “right to grief” or “right to grieve.” The right to free speech is delineated by the constitution and therefore takes precedence over all other non-articulated rights. I agree their signs are offensive and disgusting… however… it’s not for us (or the government) to decide what speech we like or don’t like. All speech is protected. To allow one group to prevent another group from exercising their first amendment rights damages the first amendment for all of us.

    Could gay pride people show up and do this at a traditional marriage rally at a state capitol? Could WBC show up and cover people who stand in support of the military? We can’t throw out our principles (standing up for free speech) when we disagree with the speech… we have to be consistent.

  • [-1] May 27, 2015 at 2:44pm

    @stopspending, the counter protest group didn’t engage in speech… they engaged in prohibiting the free speech of the WBC. That’s never ok. It would have been acceptable if they engaged in counter-speech, but they didn’t. They engaged in preventing the speech of someone else.

    As much as I hate to say it, the counter-protesters violated the WBC’s free speech rights.

  • May 27, 2015 at 12:44pm

    I agree with you. The evil Wesboro lunatics do have the right to free speech which was infringed by the good-willed and well intentioned counter-protesters. However, how would these like it if counter-protesters blocked their signs at an abortion clinic protest or how would they like it if the government put up sheets to block people whenever the government decided it didn’t like what the protesters had to say?

    Who are we to decide which speech we like and allow that to be seen and which speech we don’t like and disallow that from being seen. If we allow it here, we have to allow it everywhere. What happens when Christians lovingly protest gay marriage in support of traditional marriage and the gay mafia sets up with sheets to block people from seeing the protesters?

    Honestly, it seems like the people here are being inconsistent.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-2] May 27, 2015 at 12:29pm

    I completely and entirely disagree with most of what Westboro Baptist does, and this protest is sickening. However, I believe that the actions of those with the sheets is egregiously wrong. You counter free speech with counter-speech of your own. To hinder, prohibit, or block the free speech – especially that of people you disagree with – is wrong.

    Let them have their say – as wrong and sick as it is. It infringes on their free speech rights to block them. You don’t stand up for what’s right by doing what’s wrong. You stand up for what’s right by doing the hard thing. You say “I don’t support your beliefs (in fact I think it’s sick and wrong), but I support your right to express them.”

    What happens when counter protesters decide to do this to abortion protesters? What happens when the government sets up free speech zones and then blocks anyone from seeing the protesters in those zones?

    Westboro Baptist are certainly not Christ followers and are not behaving in a Christ-like fashion. They are a heretical cult group. That doesn’t mean, however, that we can take away their rights of free speech because we don’t like what they have to say. It just means we have to do a better job of countering their lunacy with the truth. Speak out against them with our own free speech… don’t block their free speech.

    Responses (4) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love