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.
To be accurate and fair, Wayne was talking in the context (and shadow) of Columbine, a High School, full of children mostly below the age of 18 who couldn't carry there due to state law regardless. He talks about kids not having unauthorized access, parental supervision, etc, etc.
The entire speech in context is discussing minors taking firearms to schools unlawfully, not adults being armed, though he does mention "trained security" rather than "lawful (adult) carriers" which he needs to correct moving forward if he hasn't already.
But that's totally different then shootings at colleges like the one in Cali. It was at a private college, public high school rules don't apply. It was a college full of people of legal age to possess and transport firearms to and from the school and, if employees, of legal age to be allowed to carry on the premises.
There's no Federal law extant that prevented the college from allowing their staff and students to be armed and able to resist. From what I can tell, it was solely the college's policy and thus solely the college's fault.
I admit I don't know California's private property possession and carry laws, but authorized employees are usually legal and students may be. Either way, that's on Cali and Wayne and the NRA are on record as opposing their restrictive carry laws for adults.
Anyway, it is neither just nor accurate to extrapolate from Wayne's remarks directly about Columbine high school to his position on campus carry by adults in colleges. It's apples and oranges.
"The entire speech in context is discussing minors taking firearms to schools unlawfully, not adults being armed"
Bullshit: "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
Text out of context is pretext. There are enough legit issues to call Wayne and the NRA on, there's no reason or purpose in artificially inflating one.
How is pointing out an equally valid and well-reasoned take on something a third party said, "making excuses?"
I don't give a rats ass about Wayne, but I do try to call the facts as I see them.
I don't understand the urge to go out of one's way to try to score points when there are so many clear-cut examples to use. To me it affects the appearance of credibility. You are dead right on almost everything, why bother with reaching on stuff?
6 comments:
To be accurate and fair, Wayne was talking in the context (and shadow) of Columbine, a High School, full of children mostly below the age of 18 who couldn't carry there due to state law regardless. He talks about kids not having unauthorized access, parental supervision, etc, etc.
The entire speech in context is discussing minors taking firearms to schools unlawfully, not adults being armed, though he does mention "trained security" rather than "lawful (adult) carriers" which he needs to correct moving forward if he hasn't already.
But that's totally different then shootings at colleges like the one in Cali. It was at a private college, public high school rules don't apply. It was a college full of people of legal age to possess and transport firearms to and from the school and, if employees, of legal age to be allowed to carry on the premises.
There's no Federal law extant that prevented the college from allowing their staff and students to be armed and able to resist. From what I can tell, it was solely the college's policy and thus solely the college's fault.
I admit I don't know California's private property possession and carry laws, but authorized employees are usually legal and students may be. Either way, that's on Cali and Wayne and the NRA are on record as opposing their restrictive carry laws for adults.
Anyway, it is neither just nor accurate to extrapolate from Wayne's remarks directly about Columbine high school to his position on campus carry by adults in colleges. It's apples and oranges.
"The entire speech in context is discussing minors taking firearms to schools unlawfully, not adults being armed"
Bullshit: "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
Text out of context is pretext. There are enough legit issues to call Wayne and the NRA on, there's no reason or purpose in artificially inflating one.
The only pretext here is your excuse-making.
How is pointing out an equally valid and well-reasoned take on something a third party said, "making excuses?"
I don't give a rats ass about Wayne, but I do try to call the facts as I see them.
I don't understand the urge to go out of one's way to try to score points when there are so many clear-cut examples to use. To me it affects the appearance of credibility. You are dead right on almost everything, why bother with reaching on stuff?
Because it's not a reach. Words have meaning. There is no context in which that statement could be made that it does not mean exactly what it says.
Post a Comment