Get TheBlaze

User Profile: NicholasDL

NicholasDL

Member Since: December 18, 2012

Comments

  • [3] August 11, 2014 at 12:23am

    I doubt the pejorative comments about the color of the rioters are valid comments from a conservative or libertarian; since at the core of each group is the passionate defense of and respect for INDIVIDUALITY. For the individualist, the concept of race is meaningless. We are and should be the embodiment of matured equity.

    Categorizing races and making repulsive assumptions about a race is antithetical of Individualism; those actions are the foundation of collectivism.

    I suspect the progressive side has planted these comments as evidence for racism.

  • [21] August 6, 2014 at 12:06am

    OPEN CARRY IS INAPPROPRIATE.

    Got your attention? Great. Just to pre-emptively destroy the inevitable claims of the 2nd Amendment “supporter” that open-carry is just too much, inappropriate:

    There is no such thing as an inappropriate display of a legal, guaranteed Right. Your logic fails when applied to other Rights:

    “I support free-speech but stating your opinion aloud when other people are around is just too much and hurts our free-speech cause.”
    “I support religious freedom but wearing a cross openly in public is just too much. These people hurt our religious rights.”

    Your opinions about open-carry are just that. A Right is not subject to your opinion.

    The exercise of Rights is not limited to popular opinion.

    Your discomfort by the expression of a Right may never place limits on a Right.

    Open Carry is legal. Practice it or lose the Right.

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] August 5, 2014 at 11:54pm

    Your reasoning makes no sense when applied to any other right:

    “I am all for free speech but just saying what you want to? Why?”
    “I am all for privacy but not letting cops search your home whenever they want to? Why?”

    A right is not subject to your comfort level and is not subject to popular opinion.

    Your statement, “And remember just because it`s a right doesn`t necessarily mean it`s a good idea” why not apply it to speech, religion, privacy…

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] July 29, 2014 at 1:12pm

    THE POLICE have become a militarized force of; accurate writing, bloated and shaven-headed oppressors for which the citizenry is to blame since the plurality of officers were recruited from the military wherein the critical practice is to suppress the insurgent by any means necessary, notwithstanding rights. Since the insurgent wears no uniform, these soldiers observe anyone as a potential criminal.

    The problem is that when returned to the United States and enlisted into the police, these officers continue the same practice of viewing all around them as potential terrorists to be immediately suppressed by any means necessary to which they respond as soldiers.

    It seems to me that either military personnel may not become domestic police or must undergo a complete re-education on human and constitutional rights.

    Responses (2) +
  • January 20, 2014 at 5:08pm

    The proper translation is “Thou Shalt Not Murder” which is the reason the Bible permits the death penalty for certain crimes.

  • January 17, 2014 at 10:07am

    “DNA evidence confirmed McGuire’s guilt, and he acknowledged his responsibility in a letter to Gov. John Kasich last month.”

    I am certain some idiotic progressive is out there lamenting his death and the existence the death penalty… while driving to a women’s right to choose rally.

    I have no interest in arguing for the benefit of ending the life of a rapist, over the taxpayer supporting him as ward of the state; rather, I would have voluntarily served as executioner (and I know you progressives hate that… we exist and in far greater numbers and courage).

  • January 15, 2014 at 12:36pm

    deniseg wrote “Because owning a gun is not only a right, it is a responsibility.” Um, no. The fact it is the second line item in the Bill of Rights means it is a Right; the amendment did not have any conditions or a word such as “except for” or “unless”.

  • January 14, 2014 at 4:27pm

    A RIGHT is not subject to someone’s opinion at any level of authority. That is the reason useless phrases like “unalienable right” and “shall not be infringed” are written.

    Can you demonstrate where the Amendment, the Right stated “shall not be infringed unless someone has a concern…”

    No, it is timid children like you ready to supplicate and defer to the State who give the 2nd Amendment a bad name. It take no courage to avoid confrontation. It takes true strength to exercise a Right and defend that Right when challenged.

  • January 14, 2014 at 4:21pm

    Let us extend your logic to other rights and actions:

    “You can refuse a warrant-less search, but yes, you’re going to be arrested. That’s is what happens if you want to claim 4th amendment rights.”

    “You can be homosexual (or any other “minority class”), but yes, you’re going to be beaten up. That’s is what happens if you want to walk around gay.”

    “You can dress like a Muslim or orthodox Jew, but yes, you’re going to be arrested. That’s is what happens if you want to walk around displaying your beliefs.”

    Guess “That’s part of the bargain as well.” as you claim.

    A RIGHT is not subject to opinion.

  • January 14, 2014 at 4:07pm

    *** There will be them who write: “Why did he have to open-carry? He was asking for trouble!”

    Such a claim could be rephrased accurately as:

    “Why did he refuse an unwarranted home search? He was asking for trouble!”
    “Why did he have to wear a cross? He was asking for trouble!”
    “Why did he defend his opinion? He was asking for trouble!”

    A Right not exercised is soon lost; I have no respect for anyone claiming to be a defendant of the 2nd Amendment yet is too timid to open-carry.

    The Amendment states: “…shall not be infringed…”; no exceptions were listed or implied.

    Responses (3) +
  • November 24, 2013 at 12:28pm

    Not religion nor the media. The issue is a society in which citizens are maintained throughout life in an extended childhood with the State assuming the role of parent: determining what is fair, what is punishment, what one may eat or drink, what one must do to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Children will act as children and demonstrate tantrums without the concept of responsibility.

  • November 24, 2013 at 12:14pm

    “He should not have made trouble” is the defense of the coward; albeit histrionic, the man in the video at least has the courage of his conviction unlike the commenters who would not sacrifice cable TV to protect a freedom lost. There is; however, a growing movement who will eventually restore freedom by any means necessary. Such actions founded this country then and will re-establish it.

  • October 26, 2013 at 9:32am

    WHO cares? People have the memories of mice and a year from now people will have forgotten and socialized heath care will be an inevitability. The People will not revolt and risk losing cable television, an altar at which they worship their new gods: the Actors.

    The People would surrender every freedom to ensure they could watch actors PLAY PRETEND for millions of dollars. Play pretend! They hate their little lives so much that they would rather watch fake, scripted lives on television. Pathetic.

  • October 26, 2013 at 9:22am

    *** VERY*** few would actually drop their cable service since entertainment is far more critical to life than principles.

    We ended our cable service two years ago and have not regretted the decision. This was done not for political reasons; no, I was just tired of paying nearly $200 a month to watch actors PLAY PRETEND so that I could avoid doing anything constructive for a few hours.

    If you MUST watch actors play pretend for millions of dollars, get a Roku.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 25, 2013 at 9:40am

    The IRS accepts donations to pay down the national debt and yet this parasite has no intention of submitting 98% of his undeserved wealth.

    Every time I see this buffoon I wish he would engage a personal “hygiene” revolution.

  • October 9, 2013 at 10:53am

    Actually the arrests are NOT GOOD. Rangel and his ilk will widely use the photos as publicity for their reelections, which is ultimately the impetus of their staged “civil disobedience”.

  • September 18, 2013 at 7:35pm

    A right not exercised is a right lost. The Bill of Rights is not subject to the resultant offense one might feel.

    The First Amendment comparison is specious since it specifies “Congress shall make no laws…” yet the Second Amendment contains no such specificity with “…shall not be infringed” since the it applied to all levels of authority.

    *** GLENN: If AR-15s are not included in the 2nd, since the founders could have never conceived such advances in weaponry, then the first amendment does not apply to television, radio and the internet since the founders could have never conceived such advances.

  • September 17, 2013 at 9:40am

    The sheeple need not speak since none would be willing to sacrifice television and sports to defend Constitutional Rights. Far easier to sit in a comfortable chair and complain privately yet capitulate publicly.

    Whatever executive orders this buffoon enacts will be challenged and overturned in the current SCOTUS since the precedent has been set that firearms are an individual right.

    Further, there will eventually be a breaking point whereat many will take arms and act in the same passion as the nation’s founders. Remember, the founder’s and supporters were not a majority in the colonies.

  • September 15, 2013 at 11:41am

    Generalization is a source of evil; I support open-carry and I have been adamant that if I saw a young minority with pants hanging low, the typical “gansta rap” look and yet open-carrying, I would not feel threatened in the least. I would defend that person’s rights since appearances are the poorest method of judging someone’s character and young people dress unconventionally to assert their individuality.

    Where should the line be drawn? Once a crime has been committed and only then. That someone might feel uncomfortable seeing a firearm is a subjective and personal fear. Legalities of an action are not based on that.

  • September 15, 2013 at 9:42am

    That you might feel discomfort upon seeing a firearm is not relevant; the legality of an action is not predicated upon current public opinion.

    The only – only – reason much of the populace feels fear upon witnessing another open-carry a firearm is that over the decades we have been conditioned to associate firearms with fear. Familiarity breeds comfort, the more people who open-carry, the more at ease people will become.

    Only in recent times has this image of self-protection become abhorrent, as the citizenry is conditioned that only members of the State (police) may have firearms.

    It is true that a Right not exercised is a Right soon lost.