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.
"follow the konstitution"?! Sigh! That's the friggin' problem; they ARE following that POS scrap o' parchment, and its Hamiltonian "implied powers", "general welfare" clause, "commerce" clause, ad nauseum! I got a better idea: close it all down and get the F outta town!!
rkshanny, I'm no big fan of the Constitution (my understanding is that the Constitution was put in place via coup de tat, subverting the Articles of Confederation), but the Constitution still encumbers government with heavy, limiting chains... IF it were indeed followed. The "general welfare" clause is in the preamble, which is not part of the law (e.g. preamble is the mission statement, but the body contains the delegated permissions. You can't violate delegated permissions based on the mission statement); the "commerce clause" is farcical at best (based on Wickard v Filburn, wherein "a farmer participates in interstate commerce by NOT participating in interstate commerce"), and "implied powers" still cannot contradict explicit limitations such as the apparently not-quite-crystal-clear shall not be infringed.
The Constitution isn't perfect... but it most emphatically is not being obeyed by those occupying offices created and only made possible by that same Constitution. Demanding that officeholders obey it is a good starting step, and one that has more chance of success than my personal preference of scrapping the Constitution and restoring the rightful law in the form of the Articles.
3 comments:
"follow the konstitution"?! Sigh! That's the friggin' problem; they ARE following that POS scrap o' parchment, and its Hamiltonian "implied powers", "general welfare" clause, "commerce" clause, ad nauseum! I got a better idea: close it all down and get the F outta town!!
rkshanny, I'm no big fan of the Constitution (my understanding is that the Constitution was put in place via coup de tat, subverting the Articles of Confederation), but the Constitution still encumbers government with heavy, limiting chains... IF it were indeed followed. The "general welfare" clause is in the preamble, which is not part of the law (e.g. preamble is the mission statement, but the body contains the delegated permissions. You can't violate delegated permissions based on the mission statement); the "commerce clause" is farcical at best (based on Wickard v Filburn, wherein "a farmer participates in interstate commerce by NOT participating in interstate commerce"), and "implied powers" still cannot contradict explicit limitations such as the apparently not-quite-crystal-clear shall not be infringed.
The Constitution isn't perfect... but it most emphatically is not being obeyed by those occupying offices created and only made possible by that same Constitution. Demanding that officeholders obey it is a good starting step, and one that has more chance of success than my personal preference of scrapping the Constitution and restoring the rightful law in the form of the Articles.
-PG
Well that's typical.
And on this topic, I thought Gov. Kasich was a conservative.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/11/19/kasich-at-the-rga.html
Guess not.
Post a Comment