His latest entry complains about people who think that Symantec is being evil for having its web nanny block pro-gun sites and not anti-gun, yet want to have religion be a greater part of American life than he would like. Guess what, wbw? I agree that it's not consistent.
I, too, think that it's deeply wrong for Symantec to take sides in the debate over gun control by silently squelching one side. This amounts to corporate-funded lobbying, something I'm sure wbw would complain about in other contexts, and yet when big media corporations lobby for so-called gun control, leftists look the other way.
I'll follow his rant off-topic here: No, I don't believe that everyone should be forced to own a firearm, let alone 500 of them. Owning a gun is a deeply personal decision with profound responsibilities and potential consequences, and I believe every gun owner has a duty to carefully consider when and how he will use his weapon. I know of no firearms rights advocate who believes anything different. As for the crux phrase of the Second Amendment being "well regulated", what he fails to realize (or flat-out ignores) is that those words have only taken on their modern meaning, that of "well-controlled by written rules", since about 1950. Before that, they meant "well-equipped and well-trained". An individual right to keep and bear arms supports that attribute of a citizen militia - of which, under Federal law, he is a member, whether he admits it or not - quite well, as those who carry and use arms are likely to be more familiar, and more proficient, with them than those who do not when the need arises.
I need not debunk the entire anti-Second Amendment argument here; Professor Sanford Levinson, a leading legal light of the ACLU (so beloved of leftists), has done so thoroughly in his essay, The Embarrassing Second Amendment. His conclusion is that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right, and to conclude otherwise is downright silly - as silly as concluding that the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press is only a guarantee that the government can run newspapers.
Back on track, along with wbw: I agree that religion and the government should be and remain separate, and am profoundly uncomfortable with those on the right who would turn the US into an overtly Christian state. My answer to the Pledge controversy would be to remove the words "under God" and let the rest stand on its own. I believe the Founding Fathers would agree, and would never have put them there in the first place.
As for "most viewers of Fox News [being] delusional and hav[ing] a tenuous grasp on reality", I can only say that that statement shows wbw to be as bigoted and closed-minded as those he decries. A different view of how the world should work does not automatically equate to a delusion, except in the eyes of leftists who know better than the rest of us and aren't afraid to tell us so.
Want to broaden your horizons, wbw? Time to break out of your little worldview, or at least look beyond it? Go read Professor Levinson's essay, and if you still disagree, lay out arguments against it that aren't "but that means we can't regulate guns, and guns are icky and shouldn't be in the hands of the masses". In other words, think about the issue.
As for Symantec, they should either 1) turn off the option that blocks pro-gun sites but leaves anti-gun sites alone by default, 2) change the list so that a truly balanced view of the issue is presented, or 3) at the very least, clearly label the fact that they block pro-gun sites and not anti-gun sites in the documentation where users will read it and describe which switch to flip. I doubt any of this will happen, but it's nice to dream.
Oh, and one other note: My result of the furry meme comes up "wolf".