Regular readers (both of you) know that I'm not much of one for terms like "gun crime," or "gun criminal." I advocate the repeal of all gun laws, and believe that any crime worthy of the name should be punished the same, whether or not a gun was involved.
That said, I reserve a special measure of contempt for a violator of gun laws, who is also an outspoken, passionate, relentless advocate of gun laws. Who preaches from the lofty altitude of the saddle of his high horse about the evils of the gun culture*. Who incessantly demands that peaceable, responsible gun owners "share the responsibility" for the violence committed by lawless, predatory thugs. Who demands that, for the good of society, lawful gun owners are simply going to have to accept being "inconvenienced," and vilifies them for resisting those demands. Who has not, as far as I can tell, ever found a gun law (either on the books somewhere, or proposed) that he does not support.
I suppose I can kinda see such a person's point of view--why not advocate draconian gun laws? They're no skin off his nose--they only affect the poor, dumb saps who actually obey them--not him.
Such a person is Mikeb302000.
I could go on and on, with examples and explanations, but a) I have already spent far too much time on him, and b) others have superbly documented his dishonor, and my duplication of their efforts would be silly.
For those interested, read:
From Weer'd Beard--Liar, or Criminal Liar?, and Criminal Mindset
From Bob S.--Does Honesty Matter, Part 2
From Linoge (and anyone who knows the history between Linoge and me knows that it takes rather a lot for either one of us to link to the other, except in a throwing-down-the-gauntlet kinda way)--mikeb302000, lying criminal
If I've missed anyone, feel free to let me know.
Actually, in the interest of fairness, I should probably not exclude the response from our favorite "Gun criminal" for draconian gun laws, himself--Mikeb and the Illegal Guns
Hopefully, I am more or less done with this entire dishonorable business.
*To the point of admitting that increased gun education would save lives, but opposing it anyway, because he fears it will lend support to the gun culture he so despises
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
'Gun criminals' for draconian gun laws
Stumble it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Great post! And thanks for the link!
Ditto what Weer'd Said.
Thanks for the link.
Unfortunately, the world's full of these kind of guys.
I worked with a guy who advocated turning all firearms in. Then a couple sentences later admitted to carrying a handgun from Iowa to New York while driving cross country.
He didn't appreciate me calling him a hypocrite, either.
45superman, You are a great writer, the best of my critics, I think, but "special measure of contempt" is a bit over the top.
I would think a guy who opposes all gun laws and claims to value freedom would have a bit more of a live-and-let-live attitude. I would think a guy like you, so into individual rights, would acknowledge my right to think what I want and say what I want, even if it differs from your position.
How many times have we heard pro-gun guys describe how their having transitioned from an anti-gun position after reading and studying the facts, gives their opinion more value. Kleck does that and so does Weer'd Beard, not that I put Weer'd in the same category as the Professor.
Why then shouldn't my admission increase my credibility?
You see, you and your friends fall into the same trap you denounce in others, the old double standard trap.
Anyway, I like your blog very much and I value your input on mine. Thanks for the link.
MikeB,
It isn't that you owned firearms illegally that is the main issue.
We can live and let live on many issues.
What earn you the scorn and derision is your continued lies.
You repeatedly denied saying you owned firearms illegally.
You attacked those of us who questioned you on your illegally owned firearms....something you said in your commenting policy you don't do. Yet another lie and an example of your hypocrisy.
You advocate for laws that you personally and directly would not did not obey. Another example of your hypocrisy.
That said, I reserve a special measure of contempt for a violator of gun laws, who is also an outspoken, passionate, relentless advocate of gun laws
Seems to say it quite well.
"You repeatedly denied saying you owned firearms illegally."
"Repeatedly" what, Bob? Even if you take my comment to Weer'd as a denial of the fact that I'd owned firearms illegally, that would be once. The fact is, as I mentioned, I was calling Weer'd a liar about saying that I had been "bragging all over the internet." Now I'm calling you a liar for the use of "repeatedly." Prove me wrong if you can.
If you can't then accept this as a good illustration of what you, some of you gun guys do. You accuse your opponent of the very thing you yourself are guilty of.
Says Mikeb, straight face presumably still bravely hanging in there:
I would think a guy who opposes all gun laws and claims to value freedom would have a bit more of a live-and-let-live attitude.
Live-and-let-live? Sure, I have that attitude--I don't advocate killing you. Or were you thinking that if the Culture War (and your disdain for my culture is something of which you've made no secret) ceases to be a cold war, and goes "hot," that my side might adopt Bill Clinton-style Serbian Rules of Engagement, in which propagandists for the other side are considered legitimate targets, and you would be our own Tomoslav Mitrovic? Possible, I suppose, but, at risk of hurting your feelings, I have to tell you that you would be a rather low-value target.
I would think a guy like you, so into individual rights, would acknowledge my right to think what I want and say what I want, even if it differs from your position.
You certainly have that right, just as I have the right to find your positions contemptible, immoral, irrational, and hypocritical.
Says Mikeb (how's the straight face holding up, I wonder?):
Even if you take my comment to Weer'd as a denial of the fact that I'd owned firearms illegally, that would be once. The fact is, as I mentioned, I was calling Weer'd a liar about saying that I had been "bragging all over the internet." Now I'm calling you a liar for the use of "repeatedly." Prove me wrong if you can.
What happened to the attitude of disapproval toward characterizing distortions (if there were any distortions in this case) of degree or number as lies, rather than merely "exaggerations," Mikeb? That attitude is one I've come to see as something of a hallmark of yours. I guess that's another dispensation that you apply very selectively.
And of course MikeB won't say how, why, and where he owned his criminal guns.
Was it so simple as a failure to submit a registration, or some other minor non-compliance, or was Mike running drugs, committing extortion, or an enforcer for his Uncle Gino?
That's a lot of wiggle room, Mikey! And on top of all of that, you blame us for "Gun Flow" into criminal hands, and advocate more laws....but you freely admit to walking right through those very laws you advocate.
Live and let Live? Like Kurt said, I have no intentions of killing you Mike, but you're certainly have no issues with asking us to follow laws you have no respect for.
Also where did the guns go when you left? Did you dump them in the park where some kid might find them? Did you sell them to another criminal so they could commit crimes? Did you sell it in a gun buyback?
I'm sorry, but by being unclear about your past actions, your behavior could very well have gotten people killed or hurt.
I won't stand for that, why do you?
I just realized another thing. All these comments are about me and several recent posts are about me, what I've done in the past and whether I've lied about it and whether that damages MY credibility.
Did you guys forget we were talking about guns and gun control. When did the focus get on me to the exclusion of all else. Do you guys realize how much you do that, abandon the issue at hand for the chance to attack personally. You do it the Helmke continually. Aren't the issues enough? Isn't my saying that "all the 2nd Amendment justification is bullshit" enough for you to argue with. Isn't my saying that "you're mainly a bunch of paranoid nuts who just THINK you need to carry guns when you really don't," enough to discuss?
I'm not going crazy about the beowulf / 45superman thing. Imagine if I had done that, you guys would be on it like white on rice.
My advice is get over this ridiculous obsession you all have with my past and let's get back on to the things we really like to argue about. How about it?
Demonstrating the opposition's character flaws is a quite valid debating tool. There's a reason that in court proceedings, the accused often brings in character witnesses to vouch for him, even when said witnesses have nothing else to offer about the accused's guilt or innocence. If a detached reader questions your character, your motivations and veracity also come into question (as they should), and that's a good thing for our side.
As for "going crazy about the beowulf / 45superman thing . . . "--I just assumed that the reason you did not was simply that you're bright enough to know that you would just look silly if you did. There's nothing dishonest about commenting under two different noms de plume--especially since I didn't make a habit of commenting on the same thread under both names, in order to give the appearance that my view was more widespread than it actually is.
MikeB, about your whine of "what happened to live and let live", (probably not a verbatim quote, but accurate as to meaning), that only works when the other side is willing to "live and let live".
You have stated publicly that you are not willing to "live and let live".
None of us care if you are armed or not, none of us care if you have a different opinion with the exception we believe you to be wrong. Where you lose credibility and can be charged with chicanery is the fact that you call for enactment of laws that deny us rights and would result in armed men enforcing them. What the Hell is "live and let live" about that?
That is pretty despicable on your part to want the benefits of tolerance you are not willing to extend.
That you can't see it tells me you are amoral at best, immoral at worst.
Straightarrow made the point I should have, Mikeb. With your relentless advocacy of attacks on our liberty, you are the aggressor. "Live-and-let-live" doesn't enter into it, because that only applies when the other party is "living-and-letting-live," which you ain't.
What you insist on calling "inconveniences" would inevitably, at some point, keep lifesaving firepower out of someone's hands when he/she (or they) need it most.
Talk all you want about "greater good," and the cold calculus about the loss of some, to save a greater number, but that "some" is a human sacrifice engineered by you.
Well, not if I have anything to say about it, and I intend to say a lot.
MikeB,
Did you guys forget we were talking about guns and gun control.
No, we are talking about our rights and those who advocate restricting our rights.
We are talking about your honesty and integrity because you claim that 10% of gun owners cross the line.....and you fail to own up to the fact that you are part of the 10%!
Repeatedly refers to the number of times you talk about Weer'd attacking you....and saying that he was doing it for NO reason.
He questioned you about your ownership, repeatedly and you repeatedly stated it was an unjustified attack.
Isn't that repeatedly denying the issue?
Isn't my saying that "you're mainly a bunch of paranoid nuts who just THINK you need to carry guns when you really don't," enough to discuss?
You admitted to owning (and if I can remember where) actually carrying your illegally owned firearms...yet you call us paranoid for carrying firearms.
Isn't that the height of hypocrisy?
45 and straightarrow, You're right about my being the one who fails in the "live and let live" category. I admit it and will back off that line of argument.
But the hypocrisy Bob accuses me of I don't agree with. My mysterious past is exactly that, the past. My opinions now are what they are. Hypocrisy would be if I carried a gun illegally NOW and kept spouting off all this anti-gun stuff.
Mikeb,
I do have one important question for you. It is a serious question. Why, when there is a plethora of nations that have adopted the very restrictions that you desire do you wish to change the laws of the ONE nation that has the right to keep and bear arms written into it's founding documents? Why can't you, and admittedly others who share your opinions go off to these presumably safer nations and let us neanderthals live in the manner in which we choose to live?
Gregg,
This is part of the hypocrisy that MikeB302000 lives.
He actually, according to him, living in Italy and has lived there for 20 years.
That is right, someone who doesn't even live in America is advocating for strict laws that won't affect him and that HE has admitted to not following in the first place.
But the hypocrisy Bob accuses me of I don't agree with.
See MikeB302000, when you talked about 10% of the gun owners breaking the law, you failed to mention to everyone that YOU WERE/ARE one of them.
When you talk about shared responsibility, you never owned up to what happened to your illegally owned firearms....were they used by criminals?
Also MikeB advocates laws that wouldn't have stopped him from doing criminal acts in the first place.
That IS hypocritical by definition.
Bob is misquoting me again:
"See MikeB302000, when you talked about 10% of the gun owners breaking the law, you failed to mention to everyone that YOU WERE/ARE one of them."
What I actually said is 10%, and deep down I think it's more like 30%, of lawful gun owners should not have guns. Then I outlined the reasons.
That's different than what Bob just said, that's Bob who continually calls ME a liar.
MikeB,
And why should they not own guns?
According to you they are likely to break the law, right?
So what we're saying is every year about 1 million gun owners out of the 80 million get in serious enough trouble to lose their right to bear arms. If you have trouble with that, look at the crime stats, add the felonies up and divide by 2, estimating that half the men own guns.
Or this statement:
Not every one of the members of the group will go bad, and certainly not this year, but it is from their ranks that we see so many national headlines.
You say this people shouldn't have gun because they will go bad.
So, which portion of gun owners gone bad do you fit into?
You admit to illegally owning firearms....a crime...a person gone bad. Which fits MikeB?
Who did you sell those illegally owned firearms to? Did you sell them to other criminals?
Isn't it interesting that even way back in Sept of 2008 you were lying.
Remember your great gun survey?
Here is your statment about the neutral gun incidents:
B. 2 - Marine Corp training, summer of 1970. I'm counting it a one, but it was a lot more than that as some of you know. And, I had about five or six trips to the shooting range in Indiana using legally owned guns, one of which was used on my friend who made it on Column A.
Failed to mention the illegally owned guns and how they were used.
Which column did those gun uses/incidents fall into ?
You've lied about owning guns repeatedly. You lied repeatedly when Weer'd called you on your owning them.
Now, you are skirting the truth again. The reason you think certain people shouldn't own firearms is because they will break the law eventually, right?
You broke the law, you admit to breaking the law.
All I'm trying to do is find out which of the categories of law breakers you put yourself in.
Fess up MikeB302000, what type of lying criminal are you?
And if you want to continue this...why not do it on my blog. I posted about this.
The reason you think certain people shouldn't own firearms is because they will break the law eventually, right?
That sounds about right, Bob.S--he'd prefer a Minority Report-esque Department of Precrime approach to law enforcement. I suppose that makes a perverse kind of sense--with the gun law violations of his past, he has an incentive to shift focus away from punishment for crimes already committed.
Yeah Bob. I'm a liar but you only exaggerate to make your points. That's it.
MikeB,
Show my exaggerations!!
I've used your own words and shown them for what you are meaning.
You don't want "certain" people to own guns. You've stated repeatedly that people flow from legal to illegal, from law abiding to criminal and the ONLY way to reduce that flow is to reduce the number of guns.
In the mean time, you lived that flow. At one point you were a law abiding gun owner, then you owned guns illegally.
You committed the very crimes you try to get more laws to stop.
You lied. Why didn't you include your illegally owned guns in your Great Gun Survey? Omitting their uses was a lie.
Bob, The Great Gun Survey contained three categories of personal gun experiences: A bad, B neutral and C good, nothing to do with legal or illegal. They were gun experiences period.
So that's your exaggerating. You can't stop. You obsessively write at length accusing me of things I did not do, in this case, not admitting something in the Great Gun Survey. The only problem is, The Great Gun Survey didn't ask for that.
You did the same with the Famous 10%, which I already explained.
And, let me remind you, you have no idea what exactly I've done or have failed to do in the past. You're letting your fantasies run away with you. And let me remind you of another thing, in spite of the fact that I give you more than ample material to debate, several posts a day, you spend most of your time attacking me personally.
MikeB,
So you personally owned guns (illegally), yet didn't mention them at all in your count.
Isn't that being dishonest?
How long did you own them, how often did you shot them, did you carry them?
Not once did you mention the illegally owned guns. You mentioned the legally owned but not the illegally owned ones, right?
You talked about neutral experiences, your column "B" and had this to say
B. 2 - Marine Corp training, summer of 1970. I'm counting it a one, but it was a lot more than that as some of you know. And, I had about five or six trips to the shooting range in Indiana using legally owned guns, one of which was used on my friend who made it on Column A.
Now, if you owned firearms besides what was listed, you didn't include them in your survey. Right?
Because you only listed the Marine Corp and LEGALLY owned firearms.
So, were you lying on your survey, lying about owning firearms or lying now?
As far as attacking you personally, sorry you rate mentioning and discussion occasionally but I spend for more time on other things.
Unless you have proof?????
Post a Comment