TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying GroverCleveland's 10 most recent comments.

• Poll Results: Blaze Readers On Guns And The Second Amendment

  January 14, 2013 at 2:14pm

  In reply to GroverCleveland.

  USAFPATRIOT: I confess it’s true, I am not very tolerant. I’m intolerant of bigots, and of people who crave violence, and those who remain willfully ignorant of the history of political thought in the U.S. and yet insist upon holding to their mean, baseless, second-hand opinions, usually nothing more than reprises of right-wing media super-zealotry. I am intolerant of the anti-intellectualism found on sites like this one, intolerant of the great seething mass of clueless patriots who are motivated by anger and envy, fear and paranoia–even though they seem to enjoy lifestyles and advantages one could only call blessed. Intolerant of so-called Christians who stupidly believe the message of Christ was a message of political action. Intolerant of wild-eyed hillbillies who seem sincerely to believe, in the depths of their quasi-literate, paranoid fantasies, that the U.N. is out to get them, that the U.S. President is a Marxist/Muslim usurper, that they are engaged in a latter-day civil war wherein they are the Good Guys. The truth is, I am appalled at the level of willful ignorance most of the poster on this site exhibit. And shocked at the hunger for violence most of you can’t help but show. A friend of mine told me about “The Blaze,” and I honestly didn’t believer her–thought she had to be laying it on a little thick. So I decided to have a look and Lo! What a rotten seething mess of gutter stew it really is! Now I’m going for some fresh air. You ought to as

• Poll Results: Blaze Readers On Guns And The Second Amendment

  January 14, 2013 at 12:59pm

  In reply to yoshik.

  “Safe and productive?” The 2nd Amendment does not make the nation “safe and productive.” Availability of all manner of firearms, without restrictions, does not make a nation “safe and productive.” A violent, racist, paranoid, simpering electorate does not make a nation “safe and productive.” People with work to do, with something to accomplish, with eyes open, with a sense of their own history and their own future–these things make a nation productive.

• Poll Results: Blaze Readers On Guns And The Second Amendment

  January 14, 2013 at 11:14am

  What we know from our informal perusal of comments on “The Blaze:”
  100% “believe in” the right to bear arms.
  100% “believe” that 100% of U.S. History is nothing more than a series tangled conspiracies involving “Marxists” trying to co-opt American government toward its own ends.
  100% do not understand the context in which the 2nd Amendment was drafted.
  100% are terrified, pasty-white christian creeps who know a lot about the definition of an assault weapon and the distinction between a “clip” versus a “magazine” but nothing about the definitions of: neighborliness, common decency, community or tolerance, and who are afraid to leave their single-wide trailer-homes without a semi-automatic weapon strapped to their persons.
  100% are really, REALLY pissed off that a black man was elected president of their nation TWICE.
  99% believe that those who post comments on “the Blaze” that contradict their weird, terrified world-views are paid “trolls” whose sole purpose is to undermine their little party.
  100% have never fired a shot in anger, and never will, and consequently cannot even conceive of all that is involved in this debate.
  100%, as a consequence of the forgoing, should be considered dangerous, because it is clear they are all just itching to shoot some one, and so invent all these “threats” to their liberties, and would like nothing more than to emerge as some sort of Rambo-esque hero. These are the idiots that bear watching.

• Sen. Feinstein Posts Proposed ‘Assault Weapons’ Legislation — and It Includes Provisions on Handguns and ‘Grandfathered’ Weapons

  December 27, 2012 at 1:35pm

  In reply to toiletclogga.

  FOR_MY_LIBERTY: Do you really not know that the “informational” link you posted is pure fiction, pure entertainment? What’s more, it’s bad fiction. It’s poorly written. It’s awkward and implausible. The so-called “source” has precisely the same style of diction, cadence and syntax as his “interviewer.” Only paranoid children believe this kind of junk. For godsake, get some fresh air!

• NRA: ‘There’s a Media Machine That Wants to Blame Guns Every Time Something Happens’

  December 23, 2012 at 12:35pm

  In reply to lisalake.

  Let’s talk about the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments were reluctantly penned by Mr. Madison to answer anti-federalist fears and complaints about the proposed constitution. One of those fears was the rise of a large standing army. Anti-federalists thought that the military potential of the new nation should locate itself in state militias, which were more democratic in their nature, and which dissolved when not needed. The 2nd Amendment was written to appease anti-federalists, and to help ensure that the nation would not develop a large professional army, an idea which the people feared and hated. So you see in its intent, the 2nd Amendment is an utter failure. It fails as a safeguard of liberty, and for that reason should be subject to scrutiny. It is not merely a vestige of a very different past, but a weak an ineffectual piece of political art.

• NRA: ‘There’s a Media Machine That Wants to Blame Guns Every Time Something Happens’

  December 23, 2012 at 12:27pm

  You know where there was an armed guard on duty? Columbine.

• ‘The Sandy Hook Effect’: Something Remarkable Is Happening With Gun Sales & Stocks

  December 19, 2012 at 1:28pm

  In reply to rangerskippy.

  Wow. I don’t know what it feels like to be that paranoid, Skip, and I hope I never find out. Also, your global statistical “facts” are made up. But seriously: nobody is coming for your bible, or your children. Here’s what we do want: we want to rest assured that the people who suffer the kind of paranoia you exhibit don’t have access to military-style assault weapons. That simple enough? I don’t see any guarantee in the constitution that establishes the right of poorly-schooled, quasi-retarded rednecks to terrorize their communities.

• ‘The Sandy Hook Effect’: Something Remarkable Is Happening With Gun Sales & Stocks

  December 19, 2012 at 1:04pm

  In reply to rangerskippy.

  NAUGHTYCAL (What kind of name is that?): Yes, mad men always find a way. And that way is always high-powered firearms and high-capacity magazines. Let’s at least take that away. I don’t carry a weapon of any kind (because I’m not afraid). But if it were mine to choose, I’d rather face an adversary with a machete, or a ball-bat, or a knife or even a single-shot rifle or revolver than somebody in body armor armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle. Wouldn’t you?

• ‘The Sandy Hook Effect’: Something Remarkable Is Happening With Gun Sales & Stocks

  December 19, 2012 at 12:51pm

  In reply to rangerskippy.

  FRANCISCO: It’s simple. No one needs or should have these weapons. No one needs high-capacity magazines. No one needs auto- or semi-automatic weapons. No one has an automatic, constitutional right to gun ownership. And the truth of the matter is, these weapons don’t even need to be manufactured for the mass market. THAT’S the point. The manufacture and sale of the weapons of war has become a huge private industry. One of the demands of that industry is that it have an unrestricted private commercial domain in which to operate. This is not necessary. Neither is it constitutionally protected. The idea that “if we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns” is absurd. Because for outlaws to own guns, those guns have first to be manufactured for sale. Not every imaginable means of making a profit is legitimate. And it should not be considered legitimate that the manufacture and sale of instruments of slaughter is a profitable business model. You should not be able to buy an assault rifle at Walmart, nor should anyone be able to buy an assault weapon on the black market, or at a “gun show.” There simply shouldn’t be enough of these things manufactured to supply the greedy demands of nutjobs, rednecks and military/law enforcement wannabes. The Second Amendment does not guarantee the rights of nutjobs to put holes in first-graders.

• ‘The Sandy Hook Effect’: Something Remarkable Is Happening With Gun Sales & Stocks

  December 19, 2012 at 12:27pm

  In reply to rangerskippy.

  “RANGER:” No. Wrong. James Madison composed the Bill of Rights not to “give” us anything. Madison thought a Bill of Rights superfluous, unnecessary; he felt bullied into providing such a thing in the first place. The problem was this: anti-federalists had to be placated. They had numerous complaints against the Constitution as it was drafted, and they had certain specific fears regarding a new federal government that had to be addressed before ratification could become a reality. Among those fears was a standing professional army. A large standing army was seen as a European phenomenon, a feature of despotic old world governments. Americans wanted to avoid such a thing. Anti-federalists saw that the only way to avoid it was to reach at least a tacit agreement that henceforth American wars would be fought by militias, called into service when necessary. To that end, the 2nd Amendment was drafted. There is nothing about its original intent, its language, its usage at the time that implies some sort of parity between government arms and civilian capabilities. It was a rule designed to prevent something that we have lived with since the end of the Vietnam war: a large, professional army. All you Second Amendment Idiots don’t understand that you have already lost the battle you are fighting. The Amendment was never in place to ensure your access to the latest in killing technology; it was meant to prevent the standing Army most of you now claim to be so proud