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.
So, following the same logic, words sent vial internet would not be protected speech - only words written by hand on paper, and the spoken word. Idiots.
So they get us debating about technological minutia and thereby avoid having to explain away the prefatory clause. The prefatory clause clearly indicates that part (but, according to the Federalist Papers, all) of the need for specifically enumerating the right to keep and bear arms was the need for a "properly regulated" militia. "Properly regulated" in the 18th Century had nothing to do with rules and regulations and EVERYTHING to do with proper function. Since no military organization could possibly function properly if equipped with vastly inferior weaponry, clearly the founders would have considered limiting the RKBA to weapons available at the time of the drafting to be a serious and unacceptable infringement. I cannot but believe that the founders would have viewed the NFA as a serious violation of the Constitution. THAT is what we need to be debating and not nit-noy arguments over technology.
4 comments:
Don't forget the Puckle Gun! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
They had grenade launchers. Musket with a cup for the grenade on the end of a short barrel that could launch a grenade 50 to 100 yards.
So, following the same logic, words sent vial internet would not be protected speech - only words written by hand on paper, and the spoken word. Idiots.
So they get us debating about technological minutia and thereby avoid having to explain away the prefatory clause. The prefatory clause clearly indicates that part (but, according to the Federalist Papers, all) of the need for specifically enumerating the right to keep and bear arms was the need for a "properly regulated" militia. "Properly regulated" in the 18th Century had nothing to do with rules and regulations and EVERYTHING to do with proper function. Since no military organization could possibly function properly if equipped with vastly inferior weaponry, clearly the founders would have considered limiting the RKBA to weapons available at the time of the drafting to be a serious and unacceptable infringement. I cannot but believe that the founders would have viewed the NFA as a serious violation of the Constitution. THAT is what we need to be debating and not nit-noy arguments over technology.
Post a Comment