User Profile: The_Eye

The_Eye

Member Since: January 26, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • June 20, 2014 at 2:36am

    Imagine my shock in finding out that she has proved herself an idiot once again. Though there is a large part of me that is starting to think statists like her do this intentionally. If you continuously conflate semi-auto and auto soon the ‘dimmer’ among us will start to treat them as one in the same. Those same dim bulbs will then start latching onto her views. There has never been a time when we needed to defend the 2nd amendment more from attacks from Democrats and Republicans who think it is ok to make so many exceptions to the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own weapons that the ‘right’ becomes meaningless.

  • March 25, 2014 at 4:26am

    UsedCzarSalesman: Your understanding of Marbury is pretty flawed at best. The cased established that the Constitution Art. III Sec. 2 Clause 2 all conferred original jurisdiction upon Federal Courts in some instances and appellate jurisdiction in other cases to determine matters of fact and LAW (which the Constitution is a part of the law) which is pretty clearly does. The act of judicial review LONG predates Marbury and was in effect in the US even before that decision was handed down.
    The issue most of us have with the BS they do with the Second Amendment has to do with the ‘compelling state interest’ exceptions they have carved out to deny rights in cases like Korematsu (which is one of the most ludicrous decisions ever, possibly worse than Dred Scott and Plessy) In days gone by the SCOTUS used a pretty plain meaning approach to the Constitution and would forbid any tramplings of it. (see virtually every Commerce Clause case pre-Wickard and you’ll see what I mean) Once the idea that it was ‘OK’ to eliminate or blunt a right if the government ‘really needed to’ got in with the FDR appointees all bets have been off. Justices on both ends of the political spectrum have allowed that concept to be stretched to absurdity. Thankfully it was shunted a bit in Lopez (school gun zone case) for the 10th Amendment but there is still some work to be done to get them to declare that the prohibitions allowed on the 2nd have gone over the line of ‘compelling state interest’

  • August 29, 2013 at 4:24pm

    What a sham. Can’t show that black men can have differing views on politics. If you aren’t a Dem you aren’t black is basically what they are saying. Oh and let’s also ignore that the biggest opposition to the 1964 bill was southern democrats. The few Republicans who opposed it did so on the grounds that the Dems were stealing the GOP platform.

  • August 29, 2013 at 4:15pm

    Obama’s level of dishonesty is just shocking. Using a vague term like ‘military grade’ weapons includes a class of very innocuous arms. 1911′s are/were military. Are they really that scary? That terms makes people think of gangsters running around with M-60′s which simply doesn’t happen. Gang gun violence is done mostly with shotguns with handguns nearly tied. Both are widely used and wildly unpopular to ban. Thus why Obama and other Dems go after ‘fringe’ weapons like the big bad .223 cal AR-15. It’s a joke. Don’t relent. Don’t give into the BS they are feeding the public.

  • July 27, 2013 at 11:20pm

    I really wish she would stop being an idiot and retain a lawyer. Stop negotiating with them and asking them to ‘make offers’ and all the rest. Call and attorney and have them nail their balls to the wall. They have committed multiple civil and probably criminal violations that they owe her compensation above and beyond the cost of her STOLEN property. The longer she refuses to get a lawyer and sue the more I start doubting her story or her intelligence. No sane human wouldn’t pound them to dust in court for this.

  • July 27, 2013 at 11:13pm

    The police claiming it was self defense can’t stand. They were on the man’s property without cause and a mistake of fact defense doesn’t (or shouldn’t) provide a full defense. It (should) only lowers it from murder to manslaughter. There is no chance in any universe those cops shouldn’t do time. If you are going into a hot situation you make good and GD sure you are at the right house. Being on the opposite street is idiotic. Both of those cops are criminals and should be locked up for a few years.

    Responses (1) +
  • July 25, 2013 at 6:47pm

    People calling for criminal charges need to understand that those likely won’t be forthcoming due to the mistake of fact doctrine. The police should still arrest the repo man because it is up to the court to decide if the mistake was legitimate or not. (Also in OH as in many jurisdictions mistake of fact only mitigates the charges it doesn’t drop them completely)
    Second, why on earth is she not retaining a lawyer? Once they refused to settle up the first time, retain a lawyer. They can be sued civilly for the following torts: Trespass, Conversion and likely win for intentional infliction of emotional distress if OH has that. (it sounds like she may have worked from home and lost inventory so tortious interference as well) Trespass will only be $1000 bucks or so. Conversion would be the full $18K because they have to pay retail to replace all of her items but the IIED claim, in front of the right jury could be MILLIONS and the way this bank is acting they deserve to pay her a hefty sum. This is before you get to any of the Federal charges people rightly have been pointing out.

  • July 23, 2013 at 10:13pm

    Man all the pro and anti- Christ messages here really miss the point. Froning believes Christ is the path to being a positive force in the world. That is what is admirable that he wants to be a good person. How he arrives there is his own choice. Too many people take the path of negativity rather than trying their best to be the best person they can be. Honor the gift of life you have been given and be a good person and use whatever positive motivation will help you on your path. (Christ or otherwise)

  • July 1, 2013 at 10:50pm

    He is just a fool. Scalia’s statement is called fact and the voting rights act has long outlived any usefulness it may have had and Scalia recognized that. Maher is just a poison. He is even worse in that he is a 60 year old man who no less than 15 years ago identified himself as a Libertarian who is now as far left as it gets.

  • July 1, 2013 at 10:44pm

    6 cops to stop a 20 year old from buying beer and pulling heat on her….wtf is going on? A 20 year old college student drinking a beer is darn near the bottom of the list of things to worry about.

  • June 26, 2013 at 9:59am

    If there is any justice the vile swine in this video will resist arrest and be shot on site when he is apprehended. What a disgusting subhuman wretch. Calling him a ‘man’ in the news report is a travesty. He is just absolute detritus.

  • June 26, 2013 at 9:48am

    The police who charged him with this nonsense are a perfect example of why there should be an attorney on staff who reviews arrests BEFORE the police charge people in cases like this.
    The cop who gave the ‘exception’ to the rule also clearly doesn’t know that the ‘equal force’ rule which is the law in virtually every state also has another important caveat to it: a person who protects themselves in the ‘heat of moment’ who has a belief (even if it is incorrect) that their life in in peril may react with the force they feel is appropriate to abate the threat. (that is straight from the Model Penal Code which has essentially been adopted en gross across the US) The takeaway lesson is, if you are dumb enough not to exercise your right to remain silent immediately and feel compelled to talk to the cops, you make DARN sure you say you thought the person was armed and was going to use the weapon to kill you or another person you are defending. You have then ‘covered your a_ _’

  • June 21, 2013 at 5:28am

    I would like to be ‘super’ outraged but I’m not. Cops don’t have to be brain surgeons. If someone does something that ‘sounds’ like it MIGHT be a crime they press the charges and leave it to the DA to sort out.
    Now, if he beat the kids or anything he is probably in some trouble. If he put them in a room to keep them in place for when the cops arrived and maybe said he was gonna do ‘bad things’ if they tried to get out his lawyer should have no problem on earth getting a motion to dismiss.
    It sounds absurd but the cops don’t really know the law. They should be smart enough to know this is a BS case but they are covering their own buts. I ‘get’ that.
    The parents who asked to have charges pressed are probably trying to delay the inevitable HUGE civil suit they are about to face because that is a slamdunk and they are going to get HAMMERED hard for all of that damage.

  • June 2, 2013 at 9:09pm

    Folks, that wasn’t ‘blessthejews’ argument. BTJ said “NOTHING” good happens after midnight. Really? NOTHING? I guess every time I’ve been out with friends at a bar after midnight has gone from “great” to “terrible” the instant the clock struck 12:01.
    The argument wasn’t ‘criminals operate at night more often than not’ it may have been implicit to an extent but it was not the argument. Obviously criminals prefer the cover of night.

  • June 2, 2013 at 6:10pm

    Wow Blaze…this is probably the most misleading post ever. I am no supporter of Radical Islam but you need to read the story you are quoting again. The AUSA was talking about a COUNTY COMMISSIONER (i.e. AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT) who posted that picture on an official account. Regardless of how much you agree with the sentiment as a government official you can’t, in your public capacity, post things that are anti OR pro religion. That’s called the US Constitution Amendment I. He, rightly, pointed out that if a public official posted a picture on his official account that said ‘Kill a Christian’ it would equally be a violation of U.S. Const. Amend. I.
    NOTHING in what the AUSA said suggested that private citizens couldn’t post things like that. This site does a lot of good work but when you either through deliberate intent or ignorance misrepresent a story like you have done here you basically are no better than MSNBC.

    Responses (2) +
  • April 26, 2013 at 9:19pm

    The gun he shot the criminal with, yes, that would need to be used at trial as an exhibit. However, there is likely no reason to keep it for appeal. It won’t be reviewed de novo only errors of law at this point would be appealable and the facts of the case suggest that he’d have no chance at all of remand. I can’t imagine a photograph wouldn’t suffice at this point. Give the man his guns back. Tough SOB fought in WWII so he could retain his right to own a gun, enough is enough give them back to him.

  • April 24, 2013 at 11:34pm

    Good for him. Forget these idiots. It’s a sad sad day when you cant wear a shirt urging people to protect their CONSTITUTIONAL rights. I guess we are truly only free citizens at the leisure of the government now.

  • April 21, 2013 at 9:37pm

    Jason Howerton, nice hit piece. For a site that likes to talk about how much they love the Constitution, you sure hate the right to a FAIR trial which means not jumping to conclusions and waiting for evidence.
    The media still hasn’t explained the video and picture evidence of the government contractors with identical backpacks to the ones that were allegedly use being at the finish line and then running from the scene sans backpack. I’m not Alex Jonesing it and saying that is definitive but it is something worthy of investigation given the long history of the gov staging events for their own gains.
    Finally those who are saying that the two suspects shooting at cops is proof enough…uhhh what? If you were a patsy and being set up, might you fight back too? Patsies are routinely killed off by the police in other countries (and this one) to make sure they don’t talk since they could easily refute the story. So their fighting back is no indication whether or not they actually did anything.
    It doesn’t look great for them (well, him since his brother will not stand trial) but he should get his day in court and offer an explanation if one exists and NOT walk into a room where everyone presumes he is guilty.

  • April 12, 2013 at 9:48am

    Good for you, Mr. Tresmond. Sue their a$$es and force their hand. NY is ludicrous. The only good that will come from this is another SCOTUS challenge that will hopefully go the way of Heller and McDonald if not better.

  • March 30, 2013 at 10:06am

    Tolerance cuts both ways and many on the left seem to forget that. They want people to be tolerant of everything they do but to be truly tolerant don’t you have to give a little too and be mindful of the other person’s sensibilities?
    If you want to be into polyamorous relations and stuff like that, OK fine do it in your own house but shoving it in the face of someone who has no interest in it and maybe finds it distasteful is it’s own form of intolerance. You are effectively saying ‘your moral beliefs are trash to me, shut up’ and that is just as wrong.

123 To page: Go