|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Amazon Partner GoDaddy Allegedly Kicks Pro-Gun Site Off Servers
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Web hosting service and Amazon partner GoDaddy allegedly removed AR15.com from its servers, forcing the site to shift to a backup URL to say visible. The Washington Examiner reported that AR15.com presents itself as “the world’s largest online firearm community.” It is a place where members can get ask each other questions about guns and gun accessories, and enjoy a vibrant exchange of ideas related to the Second Amendment. But the site is now searching for a new hosting service. |
Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(1/12/2021)
|
GOOD! ar15.com is a bad forum anyway run by some real lowlifes no better than zuckerberg. It's not a pro liberty board by any stretch and they worship government as bad as the moveon commies. AR15.com is populated by just a tiny group of paranoid old guys who like their echo chamber. They're ultra paranoid and it's extremely difficult to even get an account there. I noticed that almost no email address domains are allowed when you try to register. Opinion censorship is over the top, just like farcebook has become. It's one of those dark spots on the web where only the clubhouse regulars who have 10k posts matter. They finally got karma'd. Kinda funny. Couldn't happen to a worse bunch. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|