For The Record - Tonight 8pm est
CLOSE X

User Profile: US_SOLDIER

US_SOLDIER

Member Since: December 03, 2010

Comments

123
  • [1] May 18, 2014 at 6:54am

    Blumenthal should also sponsor a bill called “Stop Lying About Your Military Service Act” Sorry but this man and his weasel friend have no credibility

  • May 3, 2014 at 6:20am

    Several flaws in retards statement:

    “Police officers don’t carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions we may come upon.”

    de·fense noun \di-ˈfen(t)s; as antonym of “offense,” often ˈdē-ˌ\
    : the act of defending someone or something from attack
    : something that is used to protect yourself, your country, etc.

    “We are asking and have been asking for reasonable regulations, not that are going to impact the legal gun owner.”

    Any law you pass will impact both legal and illegal gun owners by definition because law is intended for the entire swath of the American public. It equate to passing a law stating “It is illegal to posses an illegal firearm, illegal 30 round magazine…..”

    And now the Giant Elephant in the room:

    “We are asking and have been asking for reasonable regulations”

    Reasonable is a gimmick. Reasonable is tied to the person uttering the words own definition and beliefs. He and many of his kind clearly think bans, registration and confiscation are entirely reasonable. I say justify melting the barrels off my firearms…then they can have them should they pass those “reasonable restrictions”

  • March 18, 2014 at 1:51pm

    Wow you mean we can get images of this raid but not of Benghazi? Wonder why that is?

  • March 6, 2014 at 7:59pm

    They came for the guns at Concord Bridge

    The British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment. The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

    The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18.

    At dawn, the British confronted about 200 militiamen at Lexington. “Disperse you Rebels—Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse!” ordered Major Pitcairn. The Americans were quickly routed.

    With a “huzzah” of victory, the Redcoats marched on to Concord, where one of Gage’s spies had told him that the largest Patriot reserve of gunpowder was stored. At Concord’s North Bridge, the town militia met with some of the British force, and after a battle of two or three minutes, drove off the Britis

  • February 27, 2014 at 2:58pm

    It is not just Hussein Obama going it alone people. He has himself, his pen and his phone. Nothing to see here

  • February 22, 2014 at 5:33am

    J_ordan do you have thoughts of your own? I think of little puppets with pull strings coming out their backs when I see comments like yours. Nutjobs, right-wingers, gun nuts, tea baggers….. Do some homework and come up with some of your own terms so don’t appear to be just a mouth piece for the left

  • February 22, 2014 at 5:22am

    Exactly!, why not just say those are Mr. Nugents thoughts and he has a right to both think and express his thoughts? Screw all this PC crap. Its why were in the mess were in. Hussein Obama is a POS and should be called it frequently. People need to understand that you have a right to think any damn thing you want, and you have a right to say anything you want so long as the words don’t lead to physical harm to another person (i.e. yelling fire in a theatre) Rights don’t end just because they emotionally harm someone. I don’t agree with racists, or people from the Westboro Radical Church but they still have an absolute right to think the way they think and a reasonable right to say whatever they like, as I said so long as their words do not lead to physical harm of another person. Stop bowing down to PC silliness

  • February 22, 2014 at 5:06am

    The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)
    Militia members, referred to as “every citizen, so enrolled and notified,” “…shall within six months thereafter, provide himself…” with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.
    The militias were divided into “divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies” as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

    Responses (1) +
  • February 19, 2014 at 12:27pm

    Shame on all involved. You know better

  • January 24, 2014 at 7:27am

    MrOblivious, You are speaking of things you know not what you speak my friend. First off have you read the Constitution? And if you have, did you notice the one titled “2nd Amendment, Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?” Next, how do you equate confiscation by the federal government to defending the 2nd Amendment based on the simple-stupid language penned in the 2nd Amendment? I feel dumber now having read that part. Next, As far as DOMA Im actually disturbed that the American people would be calling on government to regulate (either side) a private agreement between 2 parties and preacher, clergyman or whatever. Now, having said my own personal belief on that situation, the Founding Fathers were very brilliant men and actually designed a system to handle issues such as these. Its called State’s rights and their ability to be testing grounds by passing individual laws based on the what their people want. Think about it this way, you’re in a State that supports Gay marriage yet you’re a devout Catholic, Christian, whatever. It disturbs you so much based on your principles that you move to another State that does not have similar legislation and your worries are curtailed. Now, where do you go if the Federal government passes Gay marriage? Laws as alienating as these should never be a part of the Federal governments laws but keep it at a State level so those that disagree will have some place to go

  • January 17, 2014 at 7:27am

    Now is the time to take your liberty into your own hands since the government will no longer safe guard it. Drop your contract plan with whatever carrier you have and go with prepaid phones. Every few months change to a new phone with new number. I do this already and no information is given with what I call “burner” phones, therefore even if the NSA were tracking me it would quickly become a nightmare to pin point and catalogue

  • August 7, 2013 at 6:24pm

    The Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock, Colo. sent notice to residents last week of a new provision banning all “firearms and weapons” from the premises

    Ok so,
    -kitchen knives
    -forks, spoons, steak knives
    -heavy books
    -hammers
    -bats and golf clubs
    -excessively heavy workboots (i.e evil steel toe boots)
    -folding chairs
    -meat tenderizers (only the manual ones)
    -butter knives
    -see how ridiculous this sounds? These idiots said “weapons” What defines a weapon in its most basic term? Anything wielded by the human hand is a potential weapon, to include the human hand. At least just come out and say “no guns” instead of sugar coating it and make it appear to be for the residents safety by giving the false perception that you are trying to remove all “WEAPONS” from the premesis. I smell a law suit coming in which this will quickly be overturned. If a city cant do it, an apartment complex certainly cant. Refer to Chicago or D.C. if your still confused as to how to set your policy

  • January 30, 2013 at 8:20am

    I dont particularly care for him as a politician but he has done very well as a governor in this wonderful
    state of Texas. I am not sure if you are aware of this Trilo but that money they talk about investing in infrastructure is money that HAS to be spent because our wonderful state constitution only allows us to keep so much in a rainy day fund and thanks to him and the many great state representatives who have resisted spending in to oblivian like many other states and our federal government we in Texas are about to hit our cap for our rainy day fund. So lets see, we are proepering on our regular state budget and we are having to spend our savings because we are only allowed by law to save so much and you are bashing this man? If you are a Texan I will remind you that there are 49 other States you may move to and if you are not then keep your mouth shut about Texas business sir

  • January 4, 2013 at 7:05am

    We have already played the banning of alcohol and drug game in this nation and it didnt and isnt playing out so well. Prohibition of alcohol only drove it under ground and gave rise to the gangsters who bootlegged it and killed thousands of people in the process. Much as prohibition of drugs is now giving rise to the cartels and common street peddlers who in turn kill thousands of people in the process. The police in turn have gone from public servants being issued a shotgun and a pistol to now being hard to differentiate between the military and police. I know it sounds radical and people cant fathom a world where people are allowed to put whatever they want into their body but I support legalization of all the stuff you listed. I urge you to look at what the Dutch study showed after a decade of legalization of marijuana. They concluded “We succesfully made marijuana boring” There up and coming adutls did not want and had not tried marijuana when it was readily available. Just the same as most teens do not smoke even though its only a convenience store away. Marijuana is 70% of the drug cartels multi billion dolllar profits. Imagine wiping that out overnight through legalization. The price would no longer be black market prices and would settle in the area of common cigarette prices. And for the record I do not do drugs, have any desire whatsoever to do drugs, and would not do drugs even if they were legal

  • January 3, 2013 at 4:44pm

    Lighten up people it was just a joke. I remember when I was 5 for two weeks my dad kept telling me I was getting a box of rocks for xmas. When xmas day came everyone was opening their presents and getting sweet toys and what did I get? A box of rocks lol. And yea I might of cried a lil bit, then my dad brought my real presents out after a lil torment. And I like to think I turned out ok :)

  • January 3, 2013 at 5:43am

    I hate posting on here. It cut my post in half. Here is the rest of it, smh

    In the case of United States v Cruikshank, the United States Supreme Court held that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not granted by the Amendments and are not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that the Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government and it is the duty of States to secure the individual rights of the American people.

    One of the most definitive and succinct interpretations of the Second Amendment is found in the Court’s second holding:

    “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government…”

    The Second Amendment did not create or grant any right to keep and bear arms. It placed an additional restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the existing right to keep and bear arms. Thus, all a repeal could do, from a federal standpoint, is remove the secondary restraint imposed on federal power by the Amendment. And since many States have a right to keep and bea

  • January 3, 2013 at 5:39am

    “Better to be thought a fool and hold your tongue than to open your mouth and remove all doubt” How ignorant these people are of the very thing that allows them to show their ignorance for all the world to see. Constitution 101:

    In the case of United States v Cruikshank, the United States Supreme Court held that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not granted by the Amendments and are not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that the Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government and it is the duty of States to secure the individual rights of the American people.

    One of the most definitive and succinct interpretations of the Second Amendment is found in the Court’s second holding:

    “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government…”

    The Second Amendment did not create or grant any right to keep and bear arms. It placed an additional restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the existing right to keep and bear arms. Thus, all a repeal could do,

  • January 3, 2013 at 5:32am

    Yet another tool to come out and blast his ignorance of the Constitution in a public manner. First, the Bill of Rights does not create/grant rights nor does the government. U.S. vs Cruikshank clearly points this out:

    IIn the case of United States v Cruikshank, the United States Supreme Court held that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not granted by the Amendments and are not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that the Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government and it is the duty of States to secure the individual rights of the American people.

    One of the most definitive and succinct interpretations of the Second Amendment is found in the Court’s second holding:

    “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government…”

    The Second Amendment did not create or grant any right to keep and bear arms. It placed an additional restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the existing right to keep and bear arms. Thus, all a repeal could do, from a feder

  • January 1, 2013 at 8:56am

    I sense that this was intentional. Because it is legal to buy ammunition and a friearm at the same time in Texas. But what leads me to my conclusion is why she would take the time to load the firearm in the parking lot immediately after purchasing it. I dont see a plausible reason for doing that. That part sticks out to me immediately, although we will all have to wait for the full story to come out. Simply my opinion

  • January 1, 2013 at 1:55am

    “In any civilized society you do not see massacres continue to happen, from Tucson to Aurora to Columbine to Virginia Tech to where we are now in Newtown to Chicago and you keep the same laws when clearly they’re not working,”

    I suppose he means those failed “gun free zones” that seem to work so well for whackos looking for soft targets to shoot up, Idiots are in mass in this country nowadays, smh

123