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.
Again, you demand that someone prove a negative. By this time, you must already know that proving a negative is a logical impossibility. This isn't the way our side, the side of logic and reason, conducts a campaign.
Sure, sit back and Harumpff that so far no one has "proved you wrong" even though your "challenge" starts out wrong and never gets any better.
I had already steeled myself about voting for Trump, but if Jorgenson mounts a believable campaign, I'll vote LP. You should, too. Want to know why?
Because if the LP gets a measly 5% of the vote, the 2024 Presidential debates will, for only the second time, have a voice that sounds unlike either of the two we've been hearing for 30+ years.
And if Trump loses because of my vote? BFD. What has he done for us lately? In fact, giving the Dems a chance to implement their agenda full-bore might be good for our grandchildren. We old geezers will get the revolution we all know is coming before our grandkids have to fight and die to correct what we let happen.
Follow-up comment by Rexxhead rejected. I have no more time to waste on, nor do I owe a forum to, someone who denies the obvious, equivocates, redirects, couches things in stupid word games, and talks around the challenge because he knows he cannot answer it.
All credible evidence and real-world experience demonstrate "immigration" brings in a population that is overwhelmingly anti-gun and the Democrats will pass amnesty with a pathway to citizenship as soon as they are able. Anyone who wants to challenge that, bring proof, not unsubstantiated opinions.
4 comments:
Again, you demand that someone prove a negative. By this time, you must already know that proving a negative is a logical impossibility. This isn't the way our side, the side of logic and reason, conducts a campaign.
Sure, sit back and Harumpff that so far no one has "proved you wrong" even though your "challenge" starts out wrong and never gets any better.
I had already steeled myself about voting for Trump, but if Jorgenson mounts a believable campaign, I'll vote LP. You should, too. Want to know why?
Because if the LP gets a measly 5% of the vote, the 2024 Presidential debates will, for only the second time, have a voice that sounds unlike either of the two we've been hearing for 30+ years.
And if Trump loses because of my vote? BFD. What has he done for us lately? In fact, giving the Dems a chance to implement their agenda full-bore might be good for our grandchildren. We old geezers will get the revolution we all know is coming before our grandkids have to fight and die to correct what we let happen.
Last time I posted this you shut up and ran away:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative
sounds like she is for open borders.
Follow-up comment by Rexxhead rejected. I have no more time to waste on, nor do I owe a forum to, someone who denies the obvious, equivocates, redirects, couches things in stupid word games, and talks around the challenge because he knows he cannot answer it.
All credible evidence and real-world experience demonstrate "immigration" brings in a population that is overwhelmingly anti-gun and the Democrats will pass amnesty with a pathway to citizenship as soon as they are able. Anyone who wants to challenge that, bring proof, not unsubstantiated opinions.
Post a Comment