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 say, let's just stand around some more, maybe harumph a little, and frown, and harumph some more. That's the standing we've got anyway. We get outraged, profane, blue in the face, but please y'all, let's not do nothin'. Wouldn't be fittin'. Me? I'm just waiting my turn for the knock on the door, you know, so I can get all flustered and disappear down Leviathans throat.
The decision lends itself readily to a one sentence summary which follows:
"This issue cannot be settled peacefully, therefore getting guns anyway possible and using them against us is your only recourse."
And that gentlemen and lady is exactly what the ruling says.
Sort of like Sean, only different a little. I may disappear down Leviathan's hole, but I'm taking company, who will undoubtedly hate being in my company, but that choice is mine. They will leave no other. I am not loath to harm those who harm me.
I believe in killing. Uh huh, not ashamed to say it. I believe in killing. I do not believe in murder. So if someone wishes to remain safe from me, do not justify your own death.
This decision is based on controlling a right by controlling the property needed to express it. A parallel to the First Amendment would be that you have a free press but you cannot buy word processing software, a text editor or even a pencil and paper. Then, because you cannot be arrested for trying, you cannot sue the Federal Government because that would be a "preenforcement [sic] challenge".
This is a malicious decision and an example of Gestapo Law: If you torture the law long enough it will give you the answer you want.
Billy Beck is right. "All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war."
10 comments:
Plaintiff SAF is a non-profit "organization of gunmen?"
WTF?!
I say, let's just stand around some more, maybe harumph a little, and frown, and harumph some more. That's the standing we've got anyway. We get outraged, profane, blue in the face, but please y'all, let's not do nothin'. Wouldn't be fittin'. Me? I'm just waiting my turn for the knock on the door, you know, so I can get all flustered and disappear down Leviathans throat.
"Plaintiff SAF is a non-profit organization of gunmen."
WHAT?
Well, yeah. If you're not the police, who but criminals want anything to do with guns?
Hmmm, and David, is the term "gunman" now automatically meaning a criminal?
Horsemen are those who ride horses...
And Sean, just what is it you are proposing to do about all this? Just curious...
I'm all for tall trees and short ropes. Just need a little help with it. :)
It's the prevalent meaning. The first definition on Merriam Webster:
"a man armed with a gun; especially : a professional killer"
I propose we find a secondary means of communication and go from there.
The decision lends itself readily to a one sentence summary which follows:
"This issue cannot be settled peacefully, therefore getting guns anyway possible and using them against us is your only recourse."
And that gentlemen and lady is exactly what the ruling says.
Sort of like Sean, only different a little. I may disappear down Leviathan's hole, but I'm taking company, who will undoubtedly hate being in my company, but that choice is mine. They will leave no other. I am not loath to harm those who harm me.
I believe in killing. Uh huh, not ashamed to say it. I believe in killing. I do not believe in murder. So if someone wishes to remain safe from me, do not justify your own death.
1425 MST
The referred site seems to have crashed. Are there any other sources?
This decision is based on controlling a right by controlling the property needed to express it. A parallel to the First Amendment would be that you have a free press but you cannot buy word processing software, a text editor or even a pencil and paper. Then, because you cannot be arrested for trying, you cannot sue the Federal Government because that would be a "preenforcement [sic] challenge".
This is a malicious decision and an example of Gestapo Law: If you torture the law long enough it will give you the answer you want.
Billy Beck is right. "All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war."
Post a Comment