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.
a mere attempt at an AWB reduces this legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the state in any form. more people need to see the argument for why "limited government" has demonstrated such failure. discussion of secession and firearms are together a good indicator of the ethical inconsistency that arises when you try to convey this particular notion of good government. also there's the fact that nobody signed anything asking for it.
of course the problem with this position, and delivering said example, is that you also have to provide a constructive counterexample, for psychological reasons, to be convincing (to both liberal and conservative (although liberals are largely pushovers because they don't want to argue)).
unfortunately, the whole philosophic underpinning of anarchy is that if i can give you that example, then i'm telling you how it should be, and thus violating my principal anarchist ethic. there ain't no "how it should be." the whole point is to let market forces determine things for us. that translates to less work, and only the productive kind. no politics. amazing, i know.
i'd vote yes and explain all this, or at least the initial idea, but from looking at some of the commentary from other voters, it's obvious that not even the average "no" voter would understand my justification UNLESS i simply said it was about making obama fail.
everybody would get that: it's a rush limbaugh and anti-rush limbaugh talking point. "oh," they blink, "now i see."
I don't see any poll except at the "Newsvine" site. Where did you hide it?
I had a hard time "voting" at Newsvine. They always have to throw something in that makes it not really true. I certainly don't want anyone to enforce all of the other BS "laws."
Murder, rape, theft and assault are already illegal. That's all we need.
okay ... I've heard someone say it here before so I can not take credit for the sentiment: "Pass the AWB already and let's start this thing now before I am too old to fight!"
Reports of panicked gangs wielding "AK-47s" and robbing pharmacies of Tamiflu ought to do the trick. If not now, soon. They'll never back off. I won't back up. Without my rifle, I am not exactly nothing, but with it, I'm quite a bit more. A citizen, a sovereign citizen; a member of the unorganized militia, a constitutional republic's first, and last, line of defense. If they don't trust me with a gun, how can they trust me with a vote, or a car, or a pulse? Maybe they won't. Might as well get it out in the open and get it settled. If I live, I'll work for freedom AND peace. If I die, I'll catch up on my rest. I I I
Dragging it out and letting as many people who would resist die or be too old to fight is exactly one of their strategies. That's why you got to teach and involve the youngns'! They're trying to screw them up, we're trying to tighten them up. And getting as many women involved will be vital. Nothing says no, to gun control, like a red-blooded American Woman.
I voted yes (before you call me a coward, let me give my reasoning):
1) I don't have $700 for a gun with nice furniture. In the case of grandfathering, I won't have $3,000 for the same. So non-issue for me, I'm already in compliance.
2) If the guns are not grandfathered, and I'm willing to violate firearm laws, why would I break those laws for the sake of nice furniture? If I'm going to break the law, I'm getting me an automatic.
18 comments:
It says the page cannot be found. Guess they've taken it down?
Worked for me, and it 75% No new AWB.
I'm voting yes.
An AWB reduces the legitimacy of FEDGOV.
This is a good thing.
a mere attempt at an AWB reduces this legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the state in any form. more people need to see the argument for why "limited government" has demonstrated such failure. discussion of secession and firearms are together a good indicator of the ethical inconsistency that arises when you try to convey this particular notion of good government. also there's the fact that nobody signed anything asking for it.
of course the problem with this position, and delivering said example, is that you also have to provide a constructive counterexample, for psychological reasons, to be convincing (to both liberal and conservative (although liberals are largely pushovers because they don't want to argue)).
unfortunately, the whole philosophic underpinning of anarchy is that if i can give you that example, then i'm telling you how it should be, and thus violating my principal anarchist ethic. there ain't no "how it should be." the whole point is to let market forces determine things for us. that translates to less work, and only the productive kind. no politics. amazing, i know.
i'd vote yes and explain all this, or at least the initial idea, but from looking at some of the commentary from other voters, it's obvious that not even the average "no" voter would understand my justification UNLESS i simply said it was about making obama fail.
everybody would get that: it's a rush limbaugh and anti-rush limbaugh talking point. "oh," they blink, "now i see."
Alright, Which 4 of you jokers voted "Yes" to David's poll?
Cowards are everywhere.
They're useless in a fight, and will stab you in the back first opportunity to lick the boots of the thugs.
No room at all for repealing existing laws, I see.
76 percent say NO!
Why not reinstate it? I'm tired of the waiting. Let them start the war. We're playing for keeps.
Will I obey it? That's another issue altogether.
All the more reason to support the FOURTH AMENDMENT.
I don't see any poll except at the "Newsvine" site. Where did you hide it?
I had a hard time "voting" at Newsvine. They always have to throw something in that makes it not really true. I certainly don't want anyone to enforce all of the other BS "laws."
Murder, rape, theft and assault are already illegal. That's all we need.
"Murder, rape, theft and assault are already illegal."
True, ML. And, how funny, not one of those is even a federal crime to begin with.
Treason, however, is.
III
"existing gun laws are enough"? I couldn't bring myself to say that, even by checking a box.
Gimme a box that says "repeal unconstitutional laws," and I could get behind it, but...
okay ... I've heard someone say it here before so I can not take credit for the sentiment: "Pass the AWB already and let's start this thing now before I am too old to fight!"
Reports of panicked gangs wielding "AK-47s" and robbing pharmacies of Tamiflu ought to do the trick.
If not now, soon. They'll never back off.
I won't back up. Without my rifle, I am not exactly nothing, but with it, I'm quite a bit more. A citizen, a sovereign citizen; a member of the unorganized militia, a constitutional republic's first, and last, line of defense. If they don't trust me with a gun, how can they trust me with a vote, or a car, or a pulse? Maybe they won't. Might as well get it out in the open and get it settled.
If I live, I'll work for freedom AND peace. If I die, I'll catch up on my rest.
I I I
MamaL, right above David's picture in the left margin.
Dragging it out and letting as many people who would resist die or be too old to fight is exactly one of their strategies. That's why you got to teach and involve the youngns'! They're trying to screw them up, we're trying to tighten them up. And getting as many women involved will be vital. Nothing says no, to gun control, like a red-blooded American Woman.
I voted yes (before you call me a coward, let me give my reasoning):
1) I don't have $700 for a gun with nice furniture. In the case of grandfathering, I won't have $3,000 for the same. So non-issue for me, I'm already in compliance.
2) If the guns are not grandfathered, and I'm willing to violate firearm laws, why would I break those laws for the sake of nice furniture? If I'm going to break the law, I'm getting me an automatic.
Post a Comment