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.
John Haughey at Outdoor Life's "The Gun Shots" asks a few about some of my Gun Rights Examiner columns... [More]
2 comments:
straightarrow
said...
Didn't want to register there but as you know I hold what I believe to be more pure view of the Second Amendment than most. I do not believe anyone's 2A rights should be denied outside prison.
There are principled reasons for this stance, but I have found that principles do not resonate with most people. But, there are also some very practical reasons for my view.
Gun control laws only exert control over law-abiding citizens, they exert zero control over those of criminal intent. Therefore, it doesn't matter where the violent criminal gets his gun. Get it he will. Providing the latter with an unarmed victim pool is nothing sort of aiding and abetting his criminal acts. Gun control laws make accomplices to crimes of violence of every law enforcement officer who enforces them, and every politician who wrote, voted and passed them.
I don't care if a violent thug got his gun from a gun store or in a back alley, and ultimately it makes no difference to the victim either. Requiring that victim to be at the mercy of the thug is criminal in all but our legal system it seems. It is certainly morally criminal.
Many convicted offenders never were and will not in the future be a physical threat to other citizens. It makes no sense and is morally reprehensible to require he and his loved ones be at the mercy of violent thugs for the rest of his life, relying only on chance that they will not be selected for victimhood.
Some convicted of violent crime will not repeat, but there is a hard core or repeat offenders who will and nothing we have done in our 234 years has come close to preventing these types from arming themselves. Therefore, not only is denying the tools of self defense to any citizen morally irresponsible, it is worthless as a policy of disarming the truly violent and criminally bent in our society.
While this denial is worthless to the peace and security of the public it is of great value to the violent thug. Is that really what we want?
That is not a rhetorical question, because I do believe that is exactly what we (the state) wants. They have a use for the violent thug. Some they put in uniforms to do their direct bidding, others they allow to roam free among an unarmed public to create panic and make the public more amenable to surrendering more liberty and rights to the power of the state. If this were not so why does every "cure" for the problem always involve the innocent becoming more helpless and less self-reliant while doing nothing to curb violent crime?
The only times we have seen a downturn in violent crime are those times and venues where the innocent citizen can fight back and protect himself. None of the government programs or gun control laws have had any effect, but the simple expedient of citizens being armed has been successful everywhere it has been done.
So, it loses us nothing to restore rights to a convicted felon who has completed all state supervision. If he will never commit another violent crime he is no danger to us; if he will we can't stop him from arming up anyway, as we have proven for many many years now.
2 comments:
Didn't want to register there but as you know I hold what I believe to be more pure view of the Second Amendment than most. I do not believe anyone's 2A rights should be denied outside prison.
There are principled reasons for this stance, but I have found that principles do not resonate with most people. But, there are also some very practical reasons for my view.
Gun control laws only exert control over law-abiding citizens, they exert zero control over those of criminal intent. Therefore, it doesn't matter where the violent criminal gets his gun. Get it he will. Providing the latter with an unarmed victim pool is nothing sort of aiding and abetting his criminal acts. Gun control laws make accomplices to crimes of violence of every law enforcement officer who enforces them, and every politician who wrote, voted and passed them.
I don't care if a violent thug got his gun from a gun store or in a back alley, and ultimately it makes no difference to the victim either. Requiring that victim to be at the mercy of the thug is criminal in all but our legal system it seems. It is certainly morally criminal.
Many convicted offenders never were and will not in the future be a physical threat to other citizens. It makes no sense and is morally reprehensible to require he and his loved ones be at the mercy of violent thugs for the rest of his life, relying only on chance that they will not be selected for victimhood.
Some convicted of violent crime will not repeat, but there is a hard core or repeat offenders who will and nothing we have done in our 234 years has come close to preventing these types from arming themselves. Therefore, not only is denying the tools of self defense to any citizen morally irresponsible, it is worthless as a policy of disarming the truly violent and criminally bent in our society.
While this denial is worthless to the peace and security of the public it is of great value to the violent thug. Is that really what we want?
That is not a rhetorical question, because I do believe that is exactly what we (the state) wants. They have a use for the violent thug. Some they put in uniforms to do their direct bidding, others they allow to roam free among an unarmed public to create panic and make the public more amenable to surrendering more liberty and rights to the power of the state. If this were not so why does every "cure" for the problem always involve the innocent becoming more helpless and less self-reliant while doing nothing to curb violent crime?
The only times we have seen a downturn in violent crime are those times and venues where the innocent citizen can fight back and protect himself. None of the government programs or gun control laws have had any effect, but the simple expedient of citizens being armed has been successful everywhere it has been done.
So, it loses us nothing to restore rights to a convicted felon who has completed all state supervision. If he will never commit another violent crime he is no danger to us; if he will we can't stop him from arming up anyway, as we have proven for many many years now.
What straightarrow said.
Post a Comment