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 learned I lived in a state where the President of the Senate was the brother of the head of the murderous Irish Mob, I knew it was time to move somewhere where I could be armed.
“Update: Hunt clarified late Tuesday that the bill in question was filed on behalf of a constituent exercising her right to directly petition the legislature. Massachusetts’ constitution allows citizens to author and introduce bills directly into the state legislature. A legislator is still required to sign and file a citizen’s bill. Most legislators file citizen bills even when they do not necessarily support the underlying legislation.”
I don’t buy it. Hunt is snowing Reason, and to those who know the procedural dogwhistles, it’s obvious. Here’s the proof:
When a Massachusetts legislator is forced by this constitutional codicil to file a bill he doesn’t agree with, he uses a code phrase: “filed by request.” It tells his colleagues that the bill isn’t his idea. Here are examples of bills filed with this language:
If that's the case I'd think the name of the constituent should be public record. Also if that's the case, gun owners could flood these SOBs with bills so that they have little time for anything else-- maybe that's something to look into.
3 comments:
When I learned I lived in a state where the President of the Senate was the brother of the head of the murderous Irish Mob, I knew it was time to move somewhere where I could be armed.
Reason updated its article:
“Update: Hunt clarified late Tuesday that the bill in question was filed on behalf of a constituent exercising her right to directly petition the legislature. Massachusetts’ constitution allows citizens to author and introduce bills directly into the state legislature. A legislator is still required to sign and file a citizen’s bill. Most legislators file citizen bills even when they do not necessarily support the underlying legislation.”
I don’t buy it. Hunt is snowing Reason, and to those who know the procedural dogwhistles, it’s obvious. Here’s the proof:
When a Massachusetts legislator is forced by this constitutional codicil to file a bill he doesn’t agree with, he uses a code phrase: “filed by request.” It tells his colleagues that the bill isn’t his idea. Here are examples of bills filed with this language:
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/S207
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H523
Note that the publisher also adds the disclaimer, “presenting member is not a sponsor of this legislation,” in case you aren’t savvy to the code.
Now, here’s the same subject page for Hunt’s bill:
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H3719
Do you see “by request?” Do you see “not a sponsor of this legislation?” No, you don’t.
Hunt has been embarrassed, and is trying to weasel his way out of it. We should not let him.
If that's the case I'd think the name of the constituent should be public record. Also if that's the case, gun owners could flood these SOBs with bills so that they have little time for anything else-- maybe that's something to look into.
Post a Comment