User Profile: Selfreliance


Member Since: September 04, 2010

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

  • January 20, 2014 at 9:04am

    Back to the research, please. It is false to claim a difference between open and concealed carry is a requirement to permit for the latter, as there are six states with “Constitutional Carry” in which people may carry concealed without a permit requirement. The difference between open and concealed carry is that one’s firearm is hidden from view in the latter case. Period. Legal definitions and requirements vary too much from state to state to make sweeping generalizations about them.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 4, 2013 at 8:17am

    Dear Blaze editors:

    It has come to my attention that you are missing a significant revenue opportunity. There is a small piece of prime location on each and every page of The Blaze website — the very center — which is almost completely free from giant screaming advertisements for gold, dietary supplements, Walmart, and BlazeTV. It appears to be just wasted with silly text about this and that. I believe you can optimize your website for revenue by moving this pointless content to a small, scrolling sidebar, thus freeing the main portion for paid advertisement.

    You’re welcome,

    In reply to the story Could Obama Bomb Syria on 9/11?

    Responses (4) +
  • August 18, 2013 at 11:16am

    Are those actually “assault rifles” — selective fire military carbines capable for automatic operation — or is The Blaze being just as sloppy as the leftist media on this issue?

  • August 13, 2013 at 7:34pm

    Most local media reports that the gunman’s weapon is of unknown type. One says “armed with at least a handgun.” The AP reported “some type of automatic weapon,” but the source of that information is not clear… and highly suspected when the locals don’t also say it.

    Responses (1) +
  • June 30, 2013 at 8:30am

    In the event of disaster, I intend to kill my rabbit to ensure that it does not suffer, eat it to sustain myself, and use its fur to make a survival suit so I do not freeze to death. My wife and I have prepared to implement this plan by killing, skinning, and eating several dozen rabbits, and will maintain this level of preparedness by periodically killing another rabbit, guinea pig, mole, cat, or dog as available.

  • March 19, 2013 at 12:09pm

    Since this article does not specifically call out the major impact of more single-parent homes, that’s an increase in the number of household… the denominator in the “percent of households” equation. In the 1970′s, there were about 70M households. If 50% owned guns, then roughly 35M households owned guns. In the 2000′s, there were about 115M households. If 35% owned guns, that means over 40M households owned guns. So gun ownership is more broad, but has not expanded as quickly as the number of households.

  • March 12, 2013 at 8:58am

    Come on, Blaze. Surely this story is incomplete without telling the tale of Kennesaw Georgia, which has had a town ordinance requiring each household to own a gun since 1982. Please update your article!

    Responses (2) +
  • February 12, 2013 at 12:43pm

    Let’s be clear. I do not need to register a car that I purchase. I only need to register a car that I purchase IF I want to drive it on public roads.

  • January 28, 2013 at 9:15am

    Sorry, but this is a fake. The machine is clearly a powered shear. The motor drives the large flywheel, seen at the right top of the machine. This flywheel is connected to a shaft that runs left through the top of the solid green assembly to an offset arm, seen pointed down in the first picture. As this arm rotates, it moves up and down the heavy shearing blade, “T” shaped when seen from the end (first pic) with a sharp bevel on the bottom edge. The shearing blade runs up and down right next to a fixed anvil.

    At no point do we see the man’s fingers extending through the cutting zone, between the blade and anvil. Switch to the last picture, where this man’s fingers have allegedly been cut off by the shear. The blade is up relative to the anvil, since you can see through this space around the man’s waist. Notably, there is no evidence of blood or tissue on or around the blade or anvil. There is absolutely no possibility that this man’s fingers have just been cut off on this machine.

    Nice tale, though.

    Responses (6) +
  • October 4, 2012 at 8:03am

    In that last chunk assessing Romney cutting the deficit, the AP makes the same assumption the liberals always do… that our economy remains of the same size. Why is it so difficult for some people to realize that economies grow when people are more free to succeed? Once can take the relative size of government from 23% to 20% of the economy by keeping government the same and growing the economy by 15%.

    Responses (4) +
  • September 18, 2012 at 12:45pm

    To the extent that a given business relies on functional roads and bridges so forth, it’s certainly true that the individual business owner did not build these things. But let us be clear. The President said there are lots of smart people out there and lots of hard working people out there. Each of these smart and/or hard working people had available the very same infrastructure that they did not personally build, and yet every one of these smart and/or hard working people does not own a successful business. Many of them have tried, and many more have decided not to try. The difference between those who failed or did not try and those who succeeded is not something provided by government or anyone else. The difference lies with the individual. The difference is indeed something that person DID build.

  • September 9, 2012 at 10:31am

    Great statement by Walsh. However, Blaze… PLEASE get this right:

    “following her testimony before a congressional panel”

    Sandra Fluke DID NOT testify before a congressional committee. She was put for by the Democrats at the last minute, rejected by the Republicans as unvetted and irrelevant, and gave her statement at a Democrat press conference after the committee met. Speaking at a presser is not testimony, and the Democrat members only do not a committee make!

    Responses (1) +
  • September 8, 2012 at 11:21am

    Just to sprinkle a little fact in here, since many people probably don’t know the specifics of the AWB, here are the basics of the law Jackson and the Dems think is vital to making us safe.

    The AWB banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grips, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or threads to attach a suppressor, or a grenade launcher. That’s how it defined an “assault weapon.” Notice that a rifle with a 100-round drum magazine and a grenade launcher could be completely legal under the AWB as long as it did not ALSO have a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, folding stock or pistol grip.

    The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban limited the ability to buy guns that “look” dangerous, without regard to how dangerous they actually might be. Bayonet lug? When is the last time you’ve read about someone going on a bayonetting spree? Flash suppressor? Get real. All the Dems who look to this law as a model are idiots.

    Come and take them.

  • August 30, 2012 at 5:51pm

    “If (my 6-year-old daughter) saw that, she’d say ‘Why is that little girl doing that? What does that mean?’” Folsom said. “How do I explain that?”

    You know, when I said the same thing about two men getting out of the same bed in the morning on prime time TV, I was called homophobic…

    Responses (1) +
  • August 22, 2012 at 9:17am

    Ferguson’s response hit it perfectly… particularly in pointing out that his critics pick nits from the elephant’s behind while ignoring the observation that there is an elephant in the living room. Great job, a must-read! Exactly the way the right should respond to the left on most things they harp on.

  • August 21, 2012 at 7:49pm

    What I’d expect is that you’d be thrown in a holding cell while they figured out A) if you own the gun legally, B) what sort of person your record says you are C) what their options are. In a just world, if you’re clean otherwise and voluntarily noted the gun (but not the first time), I personally hope you’d be sent back across the border. But that’s just me, being reasonable.

  • August 21, 2012 at 6:48pm

    You seem a bit confused. First, even the most outrageous people do not put forth a desire to force a victim of rape to raise the child or such an event. Second, while rape is certainly traumatic and terrible, what has the child done to warrant execution? it is the most innocent of the innocent, and you are all for it death. This does not seen a valid position to hold.

  • August 20, 2012 at 9:29am

    I’m not sure why this warrants any sort of investigation. It’s not like this involved Nancy Pelosi and some innocent bystander could have been driven blind…

  • August 15, 2012 at 6:29pm

    Thanks, Blaze, for an interesting and informative piece. Several of the examples herein make it clear that Barton has indeed intentionally misled through except or exclusion… and that seems to me quite distasteful. It’s not clear the breadth of impact across the entire work, but it certainly calls to question how much of Barton’s reception is due to telling a certain sort of person what they want to hear.

    The missing bit about U of V certainly changes what the reader perceives as Jefferson’s intent. It’s not clear on slavery… I would like some research about the financial state of Jefferson’s slaves during the window of opportunity. At least some of his life, Jefferson had pledged slaves as collateral, and it’s certainly not possible to free a slave so pledged unless you can also make good on the debt he or she collateralizes. The Thompson Bible? Come on, David. Someone subscribing to such a publishing scheme is certainly not called a “financial backer” in any legitimate recitation of the record.

    I have often found David Barton an inspiring speaker. While I’m sure I’ll continue to do so, I will be unable to shrug off the knowledge that his motivations extend well beyond an accurate reflection of the historical record.

  • August 13, 2012 at 9:24am

    Your “simple truth” is riddled with problems.

    First off, your claimed contribution level averages $63 per month… with a rough average over the period of 4% of pay from each employer and employee that’s 8% of a whopping $787. An average annual salary of under $10K is not a representative person. Perhaps more schooling…

    Second, an investment of $63 monthly for 50 years at a 5% annual rate of return is $169K… not $62K. You are not even close to the actual amount of the investment you describe. Further, the market average over that 50 year period is much closer to 11%, which yields 1985 value (had it been invested in say a DJIA index fund) of more like $1.65 million.

    Third, to get to the amount of benefits you’re claiming, you’ve got this person retiring at 67 and collecting benefits for 27 years until today. At 94 years of age, they are certainly the exception. A man born in 1918 has a life expectancy of about 50 years, so living until age 94 is really remarkable. The AVERAGE person starting work in 1935 pays in considerably more to the SS system than your example and collects NOTHING because they die at 50. Had they invested privately, their retirement account would have been MUCH larger, and it would have been inherited by their heirs instead of reabsorbed by the government.

    Sure, there are a scant few that do better than their contribution. The vast majority do not, period.