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.
Two notes: 1. The local library blocked your link to Chuck's page. Strange. 2. He quotes the 4th and 14th amendments.
Please take note that the Bill of Rights contained the words "people" in those which had to do with men (the words woman, women and her are not in the founding documents). "Person" or "persons" were used, but in relation to the Greek and common law reference as the "persona". The 14th Amendment was the first document to define a FEDERAL and STATE corporate citizenship, and jurisdiction, and did NOT use the word "people" (or man or woman), but PERSON. A 14th Amendment "person" (which includes all people subject to other countries' laws, i.e. the case of Yick Wo v Hopkins, as well as "persons" formerly subject to African tribal law) would now be subject to Congress' and the States' statutes, whereas the people in the states were subject ONLY to the common law, as MEN and WOMEN, up to this point. IF people gave up their natural rights and subjected themselves to the corporate Federal or federalized State jurisdiction, and went into court under admiralty or maritime terms, rather than going into court under natural or common law terms, and accepted representation of an ATTORNEY, then they were giving up the rights protected by the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights.
This is what people are going to have to re-learn - their true status before the law, and WHICH law they should be availing themselves of. If people are going to allow themselves to continue being abused under admiralty/maritime law, then they will lose their recourse to any remedies under any law at all. Soon there won't be any use for the protections of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court will declare that for all intents and purposes, the first 10 amendments are null and void (as I've heard one person report that a Supreme Court Justice has already said back in the 80's). -MM
3 comments:
Two notes:
1. The local library blocked your link to Chuck's page. Strange.
2. He quotes the 4th and 14th amendments.
Please take note that the Bill of Rights contained the words "people" in those which had to do with men (the words woman, women and her are not in the founding documents). "Person" or "persons" were used, but in relation to the Greek and common law reference as the "persona". The 14th Amendment was the first document to define a FEDERAL and STATE corporate citizenship, and jurisdiction, and did NOT use the word "people" (or man or woman), but PERSON. A 14th Amendment "person" (which includes all people subject to other countries' laws, i.e. the case of Yick Wo v Hopkins, as well as "persons" formerly subject to African tribal law) would now be subject to Congress' and the States' statutes, whereas the people in the states were subject ONLY to the common law, as MEN and WOMEN, up to this point. IF people gave up their natural rights and subjected themselves to the corporate Federal or federalized State jurisdiction, and went into court under admiralty or maritime terms, rather than going into court under natural or common law terms, and accepted representation of an ATTORNEY, then they were giving up the rights protected by the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights.
This is what people are going to have to re-learn - their true status before the law, and WHICH law they should be availing themselves of. If people are going to allow themselves to continue being abused under admiralty/maritime law, then they will lose their recourse to any remedies under any law at all. Soon there won't be any use for the protections of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court will declare that for all intents and purposes, the first 10 amendments are null and void (as I've heard one person report that a Supreme Court Justice has already said back in the 80's).
-MM
I guess the remaining question is: how high of a body count do they wish for?
What privileges and immunities do you enjoy recognition of that the rest of us do not?
Post a Comment