User Profile: Selfreliance

Member Since: September 04, 2010


  • [3] December 5, 2015 at 11:50pm

    Well, coupled with the fact that he’s an “old friend” of the Islamic terrorist. Had the person who purchased the rifles three years ago been some little old Irish lady in New Jersey who’d never met Farook, no.

  • [8] December 5, 2015 at 11:47pm

    What is this, poor gun description day? First the New York Times describes the Islamic terrorists’ AR’s as “lightly modified combat rifles” and now that Blaze claims they are “high powered rifles.” .223/5.56 is NOT “high powered. Idiots.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] November 11, 2015 at 9:09am

    “Now, I ask you, is this red cup argument worth it?” No, it’s not. But let’s not stop their. Neither are the Washington Redskins argument, the penises in vagina bathrooms argument, the entire genre of reality television, babble about income inequality, and nearly everything else that comprised mainstream media and popular conversation today.

    Are you really just noticing because of the red cup?

    In reply to the contribution Why I'm Not a Red Cup Christian

  • [2] November 11, 2015 at 8:55am

    “PayScale, a firm that analyzes compensation, put the median mid-career income for philosophy majors at $81,200 in 2008, with welders making $26,002 to $63,698.”

    This is a rather insidious comparison, among the vast pile of spin here. The median income for philosophy majors excludes those who are not employed, yet they too earned philosophy degrees… including these folks at their $0 annual income will obviously drop the median earnings. Likewise, it is reasonable to say that Rubio means not philosophy _majors_ — many of whom actually work in management and law, where much higher salaries are more common — but those in the _field_ of philosophy, which would be directly comparable to the field of welding. Meanwhile, the median for welders includes both those who have training and certification in welding and those who have no training but are working as welders. The appropriate comparison here would be what certified welders make, including those who are unemployed.

    Some portion of my own self-employment is welding, I have no certifications, yet make notably more than the top pay listed by PayScale for “welders”… where do I fit?

    Either compare all of those who describe themselves as philosophers to all of those who describe themselves as welders, or compare degreed philosophers working in philosophy to certified welders working in welding. Does the answer come out in Rubio’s favor? I don’t know. But at least it would be an honest comparison.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 26, 2015 at 3:16pm

    A fascinating spin today from the NYT… alas, the comments closed quickly (for some reason
    wink emoticon
    . Please consider this:

    Best estimate currently is that there are about 12.8M people licensed to carry in the US. Additionally, five states totalling 11.6M people have Constitutional carry (no license required)… if these states reflect the national averages of 71.5% of people 21 and over and 8.6% of those prohibited felons, that is another 7.6M people who can legally carry concealed, for a total of 20.4 million people.

    If we assume the numbers accurate (a stretch, of course), the NYT claims carriers have committed 223 suicides and 540 non-justified homicides over the last 8 years, since 2007. That is an average of 28 suicides and 67 non-justified homicides annually. Let’s compare the rates per 100,000 people between the entire US population and carriers:

    Firearm suicides: US = 6.7; carriers = 0.137
    Firearm homicides: US = 3.5; carriers = 0.331

    In other words, according to the New York Times:

    The US population commits firearm suicide at a rate 49 TIMES that of legal carriers.

    The US population commits non-justified firearm homicide at a rate 10 TIMES that of legal carriers.

  • [8] September 24, 2015 at 9:32am

    Come on, TheBlaze, don’t start automatically playing videos. Your load times are bad enough, with all the ad/tracking stuff you’ve pushing out.

    Seems like a clear suicide-by-cop to me. Had a gun, obviously loaded since he previous shot himself, refused orders… I’m sure this will be cleared as a good shoot, and equally certain it’ll be promoted by the liberals as white cop shoots black man (in wheelchair).

  • [1] June 22, 2015 at 12:57pm

    Dear genius:

    The bombs you would have like to drop on rail lines were made by “weapons manufacturers.” In fact, the Nazis themselves were stopped by munitions provided by “weapons manufacturers.” The vast number of defensive gun uses in the US employ tools provided by “weapons manufacturers.” Our police — not to mention the papal guards — are armed with tools from “weapons manufacturers.”

    Making weapons is certainly not un-Christian. It is people who choose what to do with those weapons.

  • [-6] May 28, 2015 at 1:01pm

    Have you been reading a weekly bulletin from this mosque or something? How exactly would you know what they have or have not said about ISIS, etc? Please be rational.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-4] May 28, 2015 at 12:59pm

    When those on the left claim that any statement about radical Islamic Jihadists that doesn’t explicitly identify that they are a subset of Islam is an attack on all Muslims, I generally believe they are full of it. Here, though, is living proof of their point. “F- Islam”? Idiot.

    All Christians, Muslims, Buddists, atheists, etc are not the same, not interchangeable. I do not consider Nidal Hassan representative of all members of the Islamic faith any more than the Westboro Baptists are representative of Christianity or this idiot is representative of all atheists. Without this distinction, this man tramples the First Amendment. Religious freedom is the first provision of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, not freedom of speech.

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] May 27, 2015 at 6:55pm

    “defying her supervisor’s request”

    No, she did not. When you are military, your supervisor does not make “requests,” they issue orders. Disobeying them is grounds for discipline, and repeatedly disobeying them is a UCMJ violation subject to discharge.

    There is an issue, in that an equivalent quote from Islam would have likely been ignored… but that is speculation (grounded in experience).

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] April 8, 2015 at 7:54am

    The fact that she is “being affected” is not material to the question of her commitment to lease a given number of rooms. In no way has the state “frustrated” this contract. Those she had planned to attend have no impediment to doing so.

  • [5] April 8, 2015 at 7:52am

    You sign the contract, you live by its contents. What do you expect the hotel to do? Whom you should hold responsible for the fallout here is clear… those calling for boycotts in attempt to hurt those whose beliefs differ from what they deem OK.

  • [4] March 17, 2015 at 7:15pm

    Here’s my take. How about we stop letting liberals do such a crappy job of educating our children?

    Responses (1) +
  • March 9, 2015 at 7:45pm

    Yet Gallup continues to show gun ownership in the high 40%’s… and so does the ABC/WaPo poll.

    What’s really telling in ALL of these polls is that they track data at the household level, but analysis of said results never seem to mention the increase in number of households in the US (due to divorce, single parenthood, population growth, and so forth). This article, for example, compares current GSS data to data from around 1980 when the survey apparently said “about half” had a gun in the home.

    In 1980 there were 80.8 MM households according the the Census. In 2015, there were 115.2 MM. So GSS says in 1980 there were about 40 MM households (50% of 80 MM) with guns, and in 2014 there were 37 MM (32% of 115). Using the ONLY long-running survey that shows a percentage decline.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] March 2, 2015 at 6:48pm

    The LEOPA defines armor piercing for its own context. In military terms, the M855 round is not an AP round… the 5.56 AP round is the M995.

  • [3] February 19, 2015 at 9:37am

    First, spend less energy on what anonymous people say to you over the Internet. More importantly, get your facts straight.

    “Women make up 15% of murder victims, in 90% of these cases, the murderer was a man she knew well, a husband, father, or boyfriend.” Completely false. The category in the FBI statistics you’re drawing from is “family, friend, or acquaintance.” While it does include husbands and boyfriends, the bulk of people thus classified are folks like the neighbor you see at their mailbox twice a year, a cab driver, and your drug dealer.

    “Having a gun in the house increases the likelihood of being killed by the gun by about 8 times.” This claim has been thoroughly debunked, and wasn’t based on scientific method anyway. The study authors _assumed_ that if someone had a gun in the home and were shot to death, that the gun kept in the home was the one with which they were shot… obviously bogus. What’s more, there was no control attempted for the level of danger individuals faced. Quite simply, those who lawfully keep a firearm int heir house are also those at greater risk of violence, thus more likely to be subject to murder.

    You cannot read propaganda from MAIG (now Everytown for Gun Safety) and assume it to be accurate. Everyone should know that after the debacle over their claim that there had been “100 Newtowns since Newtown,” since even CNN noted that at least 85 of the incidents they claimed were nothing like Newtown.

    Carry or don’t.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] February 17, 2015 at 10:06am

    “95 percent of your murders and murderers, and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all of the cops. They are male, minorities, 15 to 25.”

    As Dr. John Lott points out, this claim is completely false. While blacks specifically are disproportionately represented among murder victims and murderers, and the same is true of gang-aged youth, the numbers are nothing like 95%. All blacks taken together commit around 50% of murders. Add in all other minorities and you barely crack 60%.

    As with everything else coming from Bloomberg about guns, this claim is a lie.

  • February 16, 2015 at 10:59am

    Sound research indicates that the costs of locking up guns far outweighs the benefits at a state level. No sound research indicates a net benefit. Incidents like this one — a minor in a household accesses family guns (which may or may not have been locked up) — are exceptionally rare, but John Lott’s analysis of state-wide laws for “safe storage” of firearms show approximately “300 more total murders and 4,000 more rapes occurred each year in 18 states with [safe storage] laws.”

    It may make sense on an individual level to elect to lock up one’s guns, depending on situational factors. It certainly does not make sense to mandate same. You can’t ignore the benefits to focus solely on the costs.

    Responses (2) +
  • [8] February 16, 2015 at 10:52am

    Do your research, Pastor. The costs of “lock up your weapons” are vast while the benefits are not, as well established in peer reviewed research. Lott, for example, concludes that “300 more total murders and 4,000 more rapes occurred each year in 18 states with [Safe Storage] laws.”

    You cannot simply look at one side of the equation, especially when you’re simply going to assume significant benefits on that side… there are in fact numerous examples of both A) unauthorized users — youth and otherwise — who accessed weapons that were locked up and did wrong with them and B) potential defenders of self or others who could have mounted an effective defense to wrong if they could have accessed weapons that were locked up. On top of that, _laws_ requiring safe storage generate documented increases in hot burglaries, murders, and rapes. Your conclusions are likely based on nothing more than a biased media… but you can do better than that.

  • [28] February 13, 2015 at 9:25am

    Haven’t read the book, won’t see the movie, but people have a right to their own choices. If the parties consent legitimately, don’t be stupid enough to call something two free people freely elect to do together “abuse.” Worry about you.

    Responses (3) +