Folks, we have a first (but I'm sure not to be last) 2, that is right TWO time winner of the coveted TROLL OF THE DAY AWARD.
This win pushes the Candidate ahead in the standings for the first Annual Troll of the Year Award.
Today's winner is once again MikeB302000 -- long time friend of criminals and foe of the law abiding.
How do I reach that startling statement? After reading his blog for a long time, seeing him defend criminals time and time again while attacking the law abiding. Nearly every defensive gun use is meet with derision and doubt, questions about legality and cover ups.
Background information -- MikeB estimates that has many as 10% of law abiding gun owners are criminals or criminals in waiting. That would be about 8,000,000 gun owners folks . Even though the Bureau of Justice Statistics only show a total of 500,000 or so firearm related crimes a year and the FBI estimates that 80% of crime is gang/drug trade related.
This comment puts MikeB over the top for today's award.
Get that Folks? Instead of waiting for people to misuse their firearms---that is actually commit a crime, MikeB thinks they should be disarmed because the POSSIBILITY that they will misuse their firearms is just too high!!!
Never mind waiting until people break the law, never mind due process, never mind that MikeB pulled his 10% out of a body orifice normally kept concealed from public view-- just the possibility of misuse is enough in his opinion to disarm people.
Monday, July 6, 2009
25 comments:
-
Weer'd Beard said...
-
You notice that yet another next-of-kin of a shooting death has arrived on his blog?
I'm starting to smell (yet another) rat with that one. -
July 6, 2009 at 5:40 AM
-
Unknown said...
-
I'm honored to be singled out by you and your friends, but "troll" seems inappropriate.
Why don't you call me "wrong" or "mistaken?" -
July 6, 2009 at 8:19 AM
-
Bob S. said...
-
MikeB,
When you declare that people should be disarmed because the POSSIBILITY of them doing something illegal is HIGH, you earn the title of troll.
You won't give up your computer and camera because some percentage of the population will produce child pron, will you?
Is that because you are part of the flow of child pron?
Your hypocritical posts are what is singling you out. You provide excuses for known criminals, yet want to disarm people because they might do something someday that might be illegal.
You were "wrong" or "mistaken" months ago when we first started talking....now you know better.
Now, you are just a troll. -
July 6, 2009 at 8:35 AM
-
the pistolero said...
-
MikeB has showed so little respect for the Second Amendment that I must say I do not find it at all surprising that he would throw the rest of the Bill of Rights out the window as well.
-
July 6, 2009 at 9:02 AM
-
Mike W. said...
-
And yet Mike gets pissed when I say that he's a proponent of "Guilty until proven innocent."
He gets pissed when I lump him in with child porn criminals. Hell, there's always the possibility he might be misusing his computer right? -
July 6, 2009 at 9:05 AM
-
Weer'd Beard said...
-
"MikeB has showed so little respect for the Second Amendment that I must say I do not find it at all surprising that he would throw the rest of the Bill of Rights out the window as well."
Try and name ONE 2A hater that doesn't see the rest of the BOR as 100% flexable for getting thier lofty goals accomplished.
Hell there are only 2-3 anti-gun web pages (none of them devoted anti-gun blogs, just political blogs that occationall dabble in gun talk) that have open comment section.
All the devoted anti-gun sites (Gun Guys and Brady are the big ones, but MikeB's content is certainly deserving of a anti-gun-blog label) all moderate or simply not allow comments or discussion on their blogs.
They all belive in guilt before proof. Most advocate forfiture of 4th Amendment rights for anybody who might concevibly own any guns.
Oh the list goes on. Maybe ONE right they DO respect is the 3rd, but that's only because everybody takes that one for granted.
BTW I demand access to MikeB's computer, I suspect he IS surfing AND distributing Child Porn, as well as contacting his friends in the Black market gun industry! -
July 6, 2009 at 11:09 AM
-
ASM826 said...
-
Maybe he will cut off his balls because there's just too much chance that he'll become a rapist.
Sorry, mikeb302000, but I'm keeping my guns and my balls, the behavior of criminals doesn't influence my decisions. -
July 6, 2009 at 12:00 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
To multiate a quote of a very famous Captain, "I think calling him that is an insult to the troll community."
That said, the shoe does fit... His inane scribblings have definitely taken on a flair of, "Maybe this will get a reaction out of them!" as if he were desperate for the attention, or the traffic, or the comments, or all three and more. Now that we have moved into the realm of suspending people's rights based on a suspicion, he has well and truly proven himself to be a spineless troll - we might as well arrest men for being "possible" rapists, or women for being "possible" prostitutes.
Of course, given MikeB's complete and utter failure at understanding logical analogies in the past, something tells me those two will sail right over his pointy little head... -
July 6, 2009 at 2:56 PM
-
Reputo said...
-
Bob s,
Do I get points for drawing the Troll out? -
July 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
-
Bob S. said...
-
Reputo,
Sorry for not recognizing your contribution, my sincere apology for that oversight.
You get major kudos and points for drawing out the truth from MikeB.
It is now very clear that he doesn't even want to wait for people to break the law -- if they are gun owners-- before he violates their rights.
Great Job Reputo. -
July 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM
-
Reputo said...
-
Bob S.
Not only that, but apparently we can't even trust the cops who we hire to uphold the law. Gosh, you would think this nation is about to turn into Somalia or something, run by warlords and such. Perhaps I have a large enough stockpile of guns and ammo that I could control the Midwest. Any competitors out there? -
July 6, 2009 at 9:39 PM
-
Unknown said...
-
You guys are something else. Thanks for the laughs. Bob, you really should consider that comment moderation. Your blog has quickly degenerated. If it continues, you'll be proof of the old stereotypes about gun owners. Remember when Pistolero named Weer'd his hero because of the "snark rat there?" The "snark" was that I'm home surfing kiddie porn on the computer. Do you really want to encourage that.
When I called people liars, 2 times now, I pointed out exactly what I was talking about. What you're encouraging here goes way beyond trying to balance out my premise that gun owners share in the responsibility, a premise which I have backed up and explained. What you guys do has nothing to do with that.
So keep up the good work, Bob. You'll be known as one of the cesspool gun blogs where vile people meet who can't make their points intelligently without resorting to personal attacks and name calling. You've got plenty of examples of gun blogs where respectful discussions happen, but yours is quickly moving to the other end of the spectrum. Good luck. -
July 7, 2009 at 3:53 AM
-
Weer'd Beard said...
-
"but he'll pretend to first see it an be spitting mad tommora morning.
Also he won't address the gun issue on any substance, and he will call me a name."
Just thought I'd quote myself to point out MikeB's predictability. -
July 7, 2009 at 4:31 AM
-
Bob S. said...
-
So MikeB,
What are you doing to keep the discussion respectful and on track?
Are you discussing the issues and showing evidence of your claims?
NOPE.
Are you being positive in your comments and moving the discussion forward?
NOPE.
Are you providing citations or statistics to support your position?
NOPE.
Are you living up to the standard YOU SAY YOU WANT TO HAVE ON YOUR OWN BLOG?
NOPE.
You call names, you make personal attacks, you don't provide anything of substance to add to the discussion, you avoid responding to the issues.
I won't moderate your comments or anyone else's for just that. I wanted to point out you are violating YOUR OWN COMMENTING POLICY here on my blog.
Little bit of a double standard isn't it?
I think that I've made my points quite often without calling names...yet when you are asked to provide counterpoints, you don't.
So, when I do award you the Troll tag it is only after you've deserved it.
You are now talking about preventing people from exercising their rights because the POSSIBILITY they MIGHT commit a crime.
Yet, you have still not taken any responsibility for the crime(s) you've committed-- That is what Weer'd is pointing out.
Yet, you have still not taken any responsibility for the flow of computers/cameras to those criminals doing child pron.
Are you going to take responsibility for your actions?
Are you going to address the points in any way or continue to call names and act all upset because you are being given apt descriptions? -
July 7, 2009 at 5:04 AM
-
Weer'd Beard said...
-
Bob, you got it backwards! We need to take responsibility for Mike's criminal behavior, while he rests on his laurels!
Remember, Mike is just a victim of society, that's why he does bad things, he can't be held responsible JUST because he's RESPONSIBLE!
I mean that's hardly fair! We need to SHARE that! -
July 7, 2009 at 5:20 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
You'll be known as one of the cesspool gun blogs where vile people meet who can't make their points intelligently without resorting to personal attacks and name calling.
The hypocritical irony... it burns... it burns!
You've got plenty of examples of gun blogs where respectful discussions happen, but yours is quickly moving to the other end of the spectrum.
So sayeth the man who has not even bothered to engage in "respectful discussion" concerning his desire to abridge due process and the concept of "innocent before proven guilty". So sayeth the man who claims other data-gathering systems are lying, and then completely fails to provide any substantiation or evidence of those lies. So sayeth the man who avoids or outright ignores discussions when he starts to have his nether regions handed to him on a silver platter.
Yeah, bucko - you are definitely one to talk. So how about you actually attempt to address the multitude of problems inherent in attempting to abridge countless individuals' rights all based off a possibility. It is posssible you could be a rapist in the future - should we just go ahead and preemptively lock you up? -
July 7, 2009 at 5:25 AM
-
the pistolero said...
-
the cesspool gun blogs
Actually, most folks I've seen commenting on Bob say he's a pretty good guy who makes a valuable contribution to the gun blogging community. So if this is a cesspool gun blog I wanna be a cesspool gun blogger too. -
July 7, 2009 at 11:31 AM
-
the pistolero said...
-
And while I'm at it, I will note that you still have given no explanation of why exactly you have no problem with violent criminals and other ne'er-do-wells walking the streets as long as they allegedly cannot procure a firearm.
WV: demer. Yeah, gun controllers really are some of the demer members of the population. -
July 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM
-
Bob S. said...
-
Pistolero,
Thanks, that means a lot.
There are many things to discuss out there. I try to bring factual information to light and then provide my (admittedly limited) insight.
To have the readers that I do stop by is simply amazing to me. You folks are the ones I started reading, the ones who helped me get started.
If this is the cesspool, I'm in pretty good company. -
July 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM
-
Mike W. said...
-
Pistolero - Mike's comments here remind me of DE Liberal. Accusing us of doing EXACTLY what he does on a regular basis.
The child porn analogy is still 100% valid and I will continue to use it. Plus, it clearly pisses MikeB off that he can't logically refute it. -
July 7, 2009 at 12:05 PM
-
Unknown said...
-
Mike W. I have logically refuted it. That was here on this blog. Did you miss it?
-
July 8, 2009 at 9:12 AM
-
Bob S. said...
-
MikeB,
What a crock. You gave an explanation, sure...but that isn't a refutation of the logic.
Let's suppose I am a gun owner that supports "reasonable restrictions" but am very irresponsible in the storage of my firearms.
By your definition, then I'm not responsible for the "flow of guns" but a gun owner who is responsible in the storage of his/her firearms is!
How does that make sense? -
July 8, 2009 at 10:36 AM
-
Tam said...
-
What it all boils down to for mikeb is as follows:
He wants to make it 99% impossible for bad guys to shoot good guys, and 100% impossible for good guys to shoot back. To him, this is a reasonable tradeoff. To me, it's not. More importantly, push-come-to-shove, he'll donate to stand up for his ideal, and I'll shoot to protect my viewpoint. -
July 8, 2009 at 1:57 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Apparently MikeB is as unfamiliar with the definition of the word "refuted" as he is with the definition of the word "logically". Somehow, this is not surprising.
-
July 8, 2009 at 3:43 PM
-
Reputo said...
-
Tam,
I think it is closer to 50% bad guys not shooting good guys and 100% good guys not shooting back.
All,
I started a series of posts to show the fallacy in mikeb's argument "guns are bad news for women" at http://myreputo.blogspot.com. I would appreciate any comments/corrections and other issues I should bring up. I have two parts right now and I expect it to be 5 or more (all depends on how excited I get with the tables and charts - I can't supress that engineer in me). Thanks! -
July 8, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reputo asked, "So are we to believe that you are under the impression that 10% of police officers shouldn't be police officers?"
Actually I would guess it's far higher among the police.
Your example of how few actually get dismissed misses a point I've made a few times now. The 10% folks are not all committing crimes. These are people who shouldn't have guns because the possibility that they will misuse their guns is just too high. You remember my categories.