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.
When I looked at the picture and the article, I noticed several things wrong. First, what exactly is a "secure, encrypted firearms channel"? For help, I searched on the the term and saw that others had expressed similar concerns:
What's the tactical use of the ninja mask? Looks pretty flimsy.
Personally, I believe any man who feels the need to conceal his face and identity while on the job is questionable. Protecting one's face from hazardous materials is one thing, concealment is another thing entirely; and that simple bit of cloth isn't for "protection".
Archer, a quote from Jeff Cooper: "I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as 'ninja' … Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view.”
I have a gun that has an effective range of only 350 ft or so. It's a Daisy, or maybe a Crosman. Haven't used it in years. Maybe they should stop buying ninja masks and pony up the money to get their guys something with an effective range just a bit further out.
They missed the nifty orange folding knife with a pocket clip. If a mundane toted that around in Britain, he/she would be arrested for being "armed."
I think the "effective range" is referring to the conservative figures in Jane's Infantry Weapons. Everyone knows a 5.56 is potentially effective at distances much greater than 107 meters. I've never understood how Jane's came up with their numbers.
6 comments:
So people with guns can act as a deterrent?
When I looked at the picture and the article, I noticed several things wrong. First, what exactly is a "secure, encrypted firearms channel"? For help, I searched on the the term and saw that others had expressed similar concerns:
https://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/3t8yv9/new_elite_uk_cops_with_encrypted_firearms_radio/
What's the tactical use of the ninja mask? Looks pretty flimsy.
Personally, I believe any man who feels the need to conceal his face and identity while on the job is questionable. Protecting one's face from hazardous materials is one thing, concealment is another thing entirely; and that simple bit of cloth isn't for "protection".
Archer, a quote from Jeff Cooper:
"I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as 'ninja' … Let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view.”
I have a gun that has an effective range of only 350 ft or so. It's a Daisy, or maybe a Crosman. Haven't used it in years. Maybe they should stop buying ninja masks and pony up the money to get their guys something with an effective range just a bit further out.
They missed the nifty orange folding knife with a pocket clip. If a mundane toted that around in Britain, he/she would be arrested for being "armed."
I think the "effective range" is referring to the conservative figures in Jane's Infantry Weapons. Everyone knows a 5.56 is potentially effective at distances much greater than 107 meters. I've never understood how Jane's came up with their numbers.
Post a Comment