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.
It's amazing how swift and accurate you are in this challenging and contentious subject.
Even though i find myself rooting and supporting the other side i honestly and wholeheartedly congratulate you on you excellent writing. Most amazing clarity and cohesion i have seen in a long time.
Yes, it all goes back to 1939 and the arrest of the moonshiners. And you are absolutely correct about the SCOUTS decision where one of the most substantial arguments used for the ruling was:
" ``We cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument,`` the Supreme Court ruled. No evidence had linked sawed-off shotguns to possible military use."
No evidence had linked it because no evidence was presented during the proceedings !!!
It's obvious that such evidence could have been gathered during their time (and if you want i can forward you some solid research on those weapons with pictures and descriptions) but the judges regarded themselves not the experts in the field and since the defense wasn't there to argue the case they had to rule this way.
This is the only reason this ruling overturned the previous verdict (finding the defendants not guilty on the basis of the Second Amendment's protection) and the subsequent Federal Administrations used and abused it's course to the point where it's impossible to buy a rifle just like the one our boys use in Iraq today (M16) if it was manufactured after 1986.
Now that's disarmament by government rule: something the Second Amendment was designed to forbid. Just like the First Amendment was designed to protect your right to publish your thoughts and hear my response: however libelous or treasonous we may sound.
2 comments:
I wrote her a reply:
Ms Woolner,
Extremely well written piece.
It's amazing how swift and accurate you are in this challenging and contentious subject.
Even though i find myself rooting and supporting the other side i honestly and wholeheartedly congratulate you on you excellent writing. Most amazing clarity and cohesion i have seen in a long time.
Yes, it all goes back to 1939 and the arrest of the moonshiners. And you are absolutely correct about the SCOUTS decision where one of the most substantial arguments used for the ruling was:
" ``We cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument,`` the Supreme Court ruled. No evidence had linked sawed-off shotguns to possible military use."
No evidence had linked it because no evidence was presented during the proceedings !!!
It's obvious that such evidence could have been gathered during their time (and if you want i can forward you some solid research on those weapons with pictures and descriptions) but the judges regarded themselves not the experts in the field and since the defense wasn't there to argue the case they had to rule this way.
This is the only reason this ruling overturned the previous verdict (finding the defendants not guilty on the basis of the Second Amendment's protection) and the subsequent Federal Administrations used and abused it's course to the point where it's impossible to buy a rifle just like the one our boys use in Iraq today (M16) if it was manufactured after 1986.
Now that's disarmament by government rule: something the Second Amendment was designed to forbid. Just like the First Amendment was designed to protect your right to publish your thoughts and hear my response: however libelous or treasonous we may sound.
She replied:
Thanks so much for your email. It's especially welcome given the tone of some of
the other messages I have received! AW
Post a Comment