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.
The results of the last poll are below (click image to enlarge). This one ran for two weeks instead of the usual one week duration because I was on the road last week with limited computer access.
After all the excitement over DHS's website declaration that if you have a Gadsden flag and you don't like the concept of massive government stomping on your rights then you are a "domestic terrorist" I don't even want convicted "terrorists" being denied guns. Only terrorists in government clothing should be denied guns, but then those are the ones setting the rules, so that won't happen.
I wish that I could vote for two AND four on this poll. Both answers reflect how I feel.
However, where is the line between what is criminal and what is honest revolutionary activity, and how do we tell the difference?
In the end, though, the gov't will call ALL of us terrorists, so I'll just have to get used to the label, and avail myself of the black market when the time comes.
Crotalus: Technically, choice #4 is not exactly valid. Once convicted, one is no longer a suspect. One is a convict. The question is: should one lose their rights before due process, that is, when they are still a suspect.
Anonymous: This has already been answered. One description of a terrorist suspect is that they emphasize Constitutional rights. By that definition, probably everyone who reads this blog is already a terrorist suspect.
I agree with Crotalus, that eventually we will all be declared terrorists.
4 comments:
After all the excitement over DHS's website declaration that if you have a Gadsden flag and you don't like the concept of massive government stomping on your rights then you are a "domestic terrorist" I don't even want convicted "terrorists" being denied guns. Only terrorists in government clothing should be denied guns, but then those are the ones setting the rules, so that won't happen.
I wish that I could vote for two AND four on this poll. Both answers reflect how I feel.
However, where is the line between what is criminal and what is honest revolutionary activity, and how do we tell the difference?
In the end, though, the gov't will call ALL of us terrorists, so I'll just have to get used to the label, and avail myself of the black market when the time comes.
What's a "terror suspect"? Is there even a legal definition for that? I can't really vote until that's cleared up.
Or is that term a PC substitute for "Islamofascist"?
Crotalus: Technically, choice #4 is not exactly valid. Once convicted, one is no longer a suspect. One is a convict. The question is: should one lose their rights before due process, that is, when they are still a suspect.
Anonymous: This has already been answered. One description of a terrorist suspect is that they emphasize Constitutional rights. By that definition, probably everyone who reads this blog is already a terrorist suspect.
I agree with Crotalus, that eventually we will all be declared terrorists.
Post a Comment