TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying US_SOLDIER's 10 most recent comments.

• Another Reason to Move to Texas: Gov. Perry Calls on Lawmakers to Return Unused Tax Revenue to Taxpayers

  January 30, 2013 at 8:20am

  In reply to TRILO.

  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

• Bad Idea: Bragging About Your ‘Classic’ Drunken Hit-and-Run Car Accident on Facebook

  January 4, 2013 at 7:05am

  In reply to PlanetReality.

  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

• Mom’s Practical Joke on 8-Year-Old Son Goes Viral After She Tells Him He Accidentally Bought $50k Car on eBay

  January 3, 2013 at 4:44pm

  In reply to froggy19510.

  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 :)

• Iowa Paper Publishes Radical Anti-Gun Column: If People Refused to Give Up Their Guns, ‘Prying’ Them ‘From Their Cold, Dead Hands’ Works for Me

  January 3, 2013 at 5:43am

  In reply to Mil-Dot.

  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

• Iowa Paper Publishes Radical Anti-Gun Column: If People Refused to Give Up Their Guns, ‘Prying’ Them ‘From Their Cold, Dead Hands’ Works for Me

  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,

• Iowa Paper Publishes Radical Anti-Gun Column: If People Refused to Give Up Their Guns, ‘Prying’ Them ‘From Their Cold, Dead Hands’ Works for Me

  January 3, 2013 at 5:32am

  In reply to Mil-Dot.

  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

• Pastor’s Wife Buys Gun From TX Shop — And Shoots Herself Dead in the Parking Lot

  January 1, 2013 at 8:56am

  In reply to Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}.

  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

• Al Sharpton: Next Up, Knife Control

  January 1, 2013 at 1:55am

  In reply to OHN.

  “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

• Bob Costas Says Gun Control Lecture Was a ‘Mistake’ But…

  December 5, 2012 at 8:15am

  In reply to BasketFullOfPuppies.

  What possible use is there for a citizen to have a semi-automatic weapon?”

  Typical liberal stereotyping and assumptions, First either he is making this assumption in hunting purposes which I can give you an example of a time when a semi automatic weapon for “hunting” saved my life or at a minimum from being mauled by a bore hog. If you’ve ever hunted them you understand they dont usually go down with one shot and after the first shot they come after you naturally lol. Now lets assume he was saying it in the context of “home defense.” What happens if more than one intruder breaks into your home and all you have is a bolt action rifle to defend yourself? Are you supposed to call time out everytime you have to reload? Giving in-animate objects human qualities is absurd such as guns kill people, and by this arguement cars drive drunk and pencils misspell words

• Obama Quotes MSNBC, Campaign Slogan During Live Press Conf. on Hurricane: ‘Lean Forward’

  October 30, 2012 at 10:23pm

  In reply to QuincySmith.

  Has anyone looked up the way “Forward” has been used in the past? Just look at Wikipedia, they have an entire section on the word. Heres a few who have used the word:

  -Avante! (“Forward!”), publication of the Portuguese Communist Party
  -Avanti! (Italian newspaper) (“Forward!”), publication of the Italian Socialist Party
  -Eteenpäin (“Forward”), Communist Party USA Finnish-language newspaper in the United States
  -Új Előre (“New Forward”), a Communist Hungarian-language newspaper in the United States
  -Vorwärts (“Forward”), publication of the Social Democratic Party of Germany
  -Vorwärts! (“Forward!”), published from Paris in 1844, in support of Communism
  -Vorwärts, newspaper of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia

  The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism. Interesting slogan for a man to chose for his campaign slogan when he has millions to spend and surely someone researched this word prior to selecting it? Or maybe he is counting on the public being so nieve as to not understand the roots of the word like in ’08 with “hope and change” but no one bothered to ask “change to what?” Well we figured out that change he was talking about by now. Here it is 7 days until election and Obama, MSNBC, and FEMA are all using the word and no one is even whispering about it