This is a placeholder for now because I have not had ads on this blog for years. In case I ever start up again, this will be the policy in effect:
The FTC has some fool nonsense rules about ads on blogs or some such and presumes authority over the First Amendment to compel the unfunded mandate that we who earn ad revenues make some kind of disclosure so you don't think we're getting paid to say nice things about people or God knows what, meaning they must think you're stupid, too. I have had a few ads on this site in the past and may do so again if I think it's worth a try. Combined, I probably couldn't buy a box of good cigars each year, let alone a bottle of George T. Stagg, and that is somehow supposed to compromise my morality to force me to say nice things about products and services I don't mean simply in exchange for filthy lucre. If you believe that, leave now--you're not smart enough to be here. Bottom line, aside from welcoming a sponsor, I will do no posts related to their products or services, or reviews of what they offer.
About "The Only Ones"
The purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it's also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they're involved in gun-related incidents.
Comment House Rules
Keep them on topic. No spam. No threats against anyone except me. Do not feed trolls--I'll take out the trash. Try to keep it clean. I'm the final arbiter. If you don't like the rules, start your own damn blog.
Link Policy
WarOnGuns reciprocates links with liberty-oriented sites promoting the right to keep and bear arms for all peaceable individuals. If you have linked to me and don't see your site below, it's probably just because I haven't noticed it yet. Shoot me an email via the "Contact Form" (see above in this sidebar) if you want to fix that.
As a general rule I remove links for blogs that have been inactive for over one year.
I have a question, too. Why would anyone, ever consider voting for any of the anti-gun Demopublicans? Either vote Libertarian or vote for Ron Paul. Anything else is worse than "wasting your vote", it is voting for the enemy.
because Wayne views a win by an anti-second amendment candidate as a win for the NRA. They get to keep the problem while bemoaning the problem while begging for more money to fight the problem at those dinners with "important" people they get invited to.
Imagine the money Wayne could raise when gunowners are declared mentally ill and thus would run afoul of HR 2640, claiming they never foresaw such an outcome when they were lobbying for its passage.
Gentlemen, its called "dialectics", which is more properly termed "Hegelian dialectics" which is the so-called "science" of opposition and synthesis.
As it is used here, it is the generation (false) of controversy to achieve an end that the people themselves would never agree to if they understood the goal.
The challenge that ought to be given to Wayne LaPierre and the rest of the NRA leadership is to put their money where their mouth is. The only way they can prove that they really are about supporting the Second Amendment is to serve in the NRA for free. If they will defend the Second Amendment without pay, and without reimbursement for incidental expenses (gas, copies and time) and give their speeches for free, then I will believe that they are somewhat serious about defending the Second Amendment. Otherwise, I will continue to view them as traitors and turncoats, or worse yet, false operatives who actually work for the destruction of our liberties.
I would like to see Wayne LaPierre have a year like I have had, and I wasn't the one the government was gunning for. It has been expensive, time-consuming, sleep-depriving, and my boss was very unhappy with me. The only way it could have been worse would to have been in Wayne Fincher's position; at least I'm not (yet) in jail. Of course, we do know how much money Wayne Fincher had to pay for his defense in our robber baron legal system.
The bright spot is that I have met some people that will sacrifice and put their money where their mouth is -- particularly when they understand the need.
I think it's about time someone called these jerks to the carpet.
I make no comment about Rudy as he is no better then either of the Arkansas hucksters, whether it is the one that was, or the wannabe.
I need to correct the order of statements in my previous post.
"The bright spot is that I have met some people that will sacrifice and put their money where their mouth is -- particularly when they understand the need.
I think it's about time someone called these jerks to the carpet."
Should be:
"I think it's about time someone called these jerks to the carpet.
The bright spot is that I have met some people that will sacrifice and put their money where their mouth is -- particularly when they understand the need.
I didn't quite catch it on the preview. My apologies to anyone who might take it incorrectly.
The jerks are the NRA leadership, not the good folks who have supported Wayne Fincher in his fight for the Second Amendment.
I'll expose a lack of knowledge here. In response to "Any questions?" I'll ask, who's in the photo? I'm not really good at recognizing people. thx. MichaelG
7 comments:
Yeah, I have a question: Why doesn't Wayne LaPierre call him out on that?
I have a question, too. Why would anyone, ever consider voting for any of the anti-gun Demopublicans? Either vote Libertarian or vote for Ron Paul. Anything else is worse than "wasting your vote", it is voting for the enemy.
because Wayne views a win by an anti-second amendment candidate as a win for the NRA. They get to keep the problem while bemoaning the problem while begging for more money to fight the problem at those dinners with "important" people they get invited to.
Imagine the money Wayne could raise when gunowners are declared mentally ill and thus would run afoul of HR 2640, claiming they never foresaw such an outcome when they were lobbying for its passage.
Answer your question,pistolero?
Gentlemen, its called "dialectics", which is more properly termed "Hegelian dialectics" which is the so-called "science" of opposition and synthesis.
As it is used here, it is the generation (false) of controversy to achieve an end that the people themselves would never agree to if they understood the goal.
The challenge that ought to be given to Wayne LaPierre and the rest of the NRA leadership is to put their money where their mouth is. The only way they can prove that they really are about supporting the Second Amendment is to serve in the NRA for free. If they will defend the Second Amendment without pay, and without reimbursement for incidental expenses (gas, copies and time) and give their speeches for free, then I will believe that they are somewhat serious about defending the Second Amendment. Otherwise, I will continue to view them as traitors and turncoats, or worse yet, false operatives who actually work for the destruction of our liberties.
I would like to see Wayne LaPierre have a year like I have had, and I wasn't the one the government was gunning for. It has been expensive, time-consuming, sleep-depriving, and my boss was very unhappy with me. The only way it could have been worse would to have been in Wayne Fincher's position; at least I'm not (yet) in jail. Of course, we do know how much money Wayne Fincher had to pay for his defense in our robber baron legal system.
The bright spot is that I have met some people that will sacrifice and put their money where their mouth is -- particularly when they understand the need.
I think it's about time someone called these jerks to the carpet.
I make no comment about Rudy as he is no better then either of the Arkansas hucksters, whether it is the one that was, or the wannabe.
I need to correct the order of statements in my previous post.
"The bright spot is that I have met some people that will sacrifice and put their money where their mouth is -- particularly when they understand the need.
I think it's about time someone called these jerks to the carpet."
Should be:
"I think it's about time someone called these jerks to the carpet.
The bright spot is that I have met some people that will sacrifice and put their money where their mouth is -- particularly when they understand the need.
I didn't quite catch it on the preview. My apologies to anyone who might take it incorrectly.
The jerks are the NRA leadership, not the good folks who have supported Wayne Fincher in his fight for the Second Amendment.
I'll expose a lack of knowledge here. In response to "Any questions?" I'll ask, who's in the photo? I'm not really good at recognizing people. thx.
MichaelG
Michael G--that's probably because Rudy Giuliani still had hair in that picture.
Post a Comment