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 got so wrapped up yesterday I neglected to mention this. Of Arms and the Law links to the complaint.
1 comment:
Anonymous
said...
Funny I just got done reading the comments on the case that's been filed. Here's where I'm lost on understanding this case. BATFE is making up laws because the AA is clearly within the law. One bullet per trigger pull. BATFE doesn't like the device because it allows the trigger to be able to be pulled very quickly. Nevertheless, the AA doesn't change the fact that the firearm is still operating within federal law, one bullet per one trigger pull. A full trigger pull at that. When this comes up in front of a federal judge. It should be a simple case of, the law states this and BATFE has no law making power. Only congress can make laws and BATFE can only work with the laws on the books. The judge should rule against BATFE because what that agency is trying to do is make new laws. If BATFE doesn't like the laws let them go to congress and have them changed. Which I would have a huge problem with a government going to congress on my dine to have new laws made. A big part of the reason is BATFE has the ability to get time in front of lawmakers more then the average citizens do.
1 comment:
Funny I just got done reading the comments on the case that's been filed.
Here's where I'm lost on understanding this case. BATFE is making up laws because the AA is clearly within the law. One bullet per trigger pull. BATFE doesn't like the device because it allows the trigger to be able to be pulled very quickly. Nevertheless, the AA doesn't change the fact that the firearm is still operating within federal law, one bullet per one trigger pull. A full trigger pull at that.
When this comes up in front of a federal judge. It should be a simple case of, the law states this and BATFE has no law making power. Only congress can make laws and BATFE can only work with the laws on the books. The judge should rule against BATFE because what that agency is trying to do is make new laws. If BATFE doesn't like the laws let them go to congress and have them changed. Which I would have a huge problem with a government going to congress on my dine to have new laws made. A big part of the reason is BATFE has the ability to get time in front of lawmakers more then the average citizens do.
Post a Comment