User Profile: The_Eye

Member Since: January 26, 2011

CommentsDisplaying The_Eye's 10 most recent comments.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • S.E. perfectly demonstrates why I am Libertarian and not Republican. The GOP is bleeding itself dry. Is there a group they don’t stand or appear to stand in opposition to other than rich white men? Whether you believe that is the case or not that is the PERCEPTION and perception is key.
    They have every right to ban the gay groups from supporting, but don’t then wonder why you have no support from gays. (which is to say nothing of other groups who are less than supportive)
    The GOP are as much of a bunch of statist goons as the Dems. There are some good Republicans (as opposed to no good libs) but they are usually ostracized by their own party for harboring pro-freedom views.
    Don’t look now, GOP, the Whigs are holding a spot at the table of obscurity for you. Time to shape up the platform or fade away.

  • My God the DOJ and Eric Holder are enemies of the State.
    This is an absolutely outrageous holding. Furthermore, he needs to get a new attorney. I skimmed the briefs filed and saw no attempt to distinguish the laws that have since prevented his gun ownership and Smith v Doe (2003) that allowed the sex offender’s registry. It was held constitutional because gathering a name wasn’t deemed a and didn’t include a loss of any liberty or property (still a tenuous decision at best if we’re honest and it pains me to say it as that is ‘favorable’ to sex offenders). In this case, the laws that made it illegal to own weapons by people with misdemeanors punishable by 2 years or more in prison came WELL after the fact of his incident and the result is a loss of liberty and property. It’s a classic ex post violation.
    If this isn’t appealed to SCOTUS and reversed once it is there then the Constitution no longer matters to anyone at any level of government. This should have been an easy case to win but the Statists just keep up their legal realist games.

  • Wow again Blaze? You state that it is bulletproof to appeal then at the end say it will be appealed…because of the ruling in the 7th circuit.
    First, the 10th cited dicta as it’s authority that is the 100% easy way to assure your decision will be appealed and accepted by the SCOTUS. I point this out because that Scalia quote you posted (and liberals love) isn’t him saying prohibitions are ‘OK’ it is him saying he isn’t dealing with them in that particular case. I know this because I asked him as much directly at a speaking engagement at my law school last semester.
    Second, simply because there are contradictory opinions in different circuits doesn’t mean an appeal is automatic and it certainly doesn’t mean that any other circuit is bound by the findings of another.
    Finally, you are ‘shocked’ that ‘conservative’ justices found this way? W was not conservative. He is a crony capitalist statist. So his justices behaving like crony capitalist statitst should come as no shock to anyone.