TTAG has a large, enthusiastic audience. (Latest stats: 411,705 Unique Visitors per month generating 1,192,652 Pageviews). Not a fan: gun blogger Weer’d Beard. The Weerd one weckons TTAG is a false flag operation; we pretend to support the Second Amendment whilst providing a platform to anti-gunners like MikeB302000 (whose posts and comments we publish). We’re going to take our own advice on this one and avoid an unnecessary confrontation with an armed opponent. Wait. Oops. Anyway, here’s why [via ol.co.za]: “The State alleges that Nene, a security guard with Protea Coin Group, shot Van der Spuy three times after refusing to shave his beard and cut his hair on the grounds that he belonged to the Ebuhleni Shembe International church and was not permitted to cut his hair.” These bearded guys take that shit serious. FYI: TTAG’s staff are both clean-shaven and bearded, but not at the same time.

47 Responses to TTAG to Weer’d Beard: We’re Sorry

  1. Why did Nene want Van der Spuy to shave his beard? I’m a proudly bearded man who’s been doing that fur thing since I was 15, but I think the moment a firearm comes into play, I’m out. Beards ain’t bulletproof.

  2. I don’t know Weer’d Beard, but I think he’s a good person. All gun rights advocates don’t have to be fans of this blog, so I don’t really know the point of this post except to bully him. I’m sure a good amount of people are annoyed about the amount of coverage that MikeB302000 is getting here.

  3. I have been proudly bearded (with either a full or Van Dyke beard) since the first Nixon administration, excluding time spent in the United States Air Force defending America from the ravages of the Viet Cong. Facial foliage rules! If anyone wants me to shave off my beard, I tell them “come and take it.” With apologies to Leonidas, who I’m sure would agree.

  4. Well the friendly stance with Mike B. can be rather off-putting. Something about TTAG feels off. The gun and gear reviews are fine. But the soft little digs at those you claim to speak for are an issue. Mainly denigrating the NRA for not being “urban” enough. That and trying to suggest that criminal aliens should be allowed to possess firearms.

    • Necro, but still…

      Honestly, I have a hard time faulting anyone for speaking out against the NRA. I do it myself at almost every opportunity.

      In essence though, my issue with the NRA is partly that I don’t like the ILA rep for PA (who is also the rep for NJ, NH, and several other states) due to his long-standing habit of only acting in a counter-productive manner (this is well documented in multiple places, much as the NRAILA has tried to deny it).

      The larger issue though, is that the NRA is, first and foremost, an organization built with the primary goal of providing quality training in how to operate firearms safely and effectively. This becomes a problem when they get into politics and seek to pass themselves off as the sole defenders of the 2nd Amendment. In short, I feel that they are improperly suited to this task due to their obvious conflict of interest — they have, in several instances, advocated for statutorily mandatory training (both successfully and unsuccessfully) for things like carry permits.

      So, while I criticize the NRA, I at least am doing it based on factual arguments.

      As for the rights of criminal aliens, I think we can mostly agree that CURRENT laws prohibit them from possessing firearms — they are, after all, fugitives from justice at the very least, and that alone is a prohibiting factor under current law.

      That said, I believe that there are a vast many laws, including immigration laws and gun laws, that need to be pruned, updated, and/or largely vacated.

  5. I’ll say I am glad TTAG allows anti-gunnies to comment here including MikeB302000. The gun control lobby survives by trying to drown out every dissenting opinion. Way to take the high road and publish MikeB here. When you know you’re right, letting somebody else voice their opinion shouldn’t be a problem.

    • +1 Although I generally disagree with MikeB302000, occasionally we can find small areas of agreement. Remember his posts about teaching his son about guns – That was a very intelligent and enlightening conversation.

      By the way, MikeB302000 is not an extremist anti-gunner. He’s definitely not an irrational hoplophobe! I imagine there are a few things the Brady Commission has said that Mike would find a little extreme.

      I’m glad Mike is around to provide a well-spoken ‘other side’s’ view occasionally.

      • Strongly agree. I love the 1st amendment as much as the 2nd, and love that TTAG doesn’t censor anti-gun comments or any civil comments for that matter.

        • They do censor a lot of pro-gun comments.

          Anti-gun stuff is never an issue.

          Also so much for Robert asking permission before he steals copyrighted images.

          Yet another lie from Mr. Farago.

        • You don’t have to ask permission under the Fair Use Doctrine. If I did have to check with every photo or excerpt source it would slow this site down to a standstill. Besides, this works both ways. People scrape our content and photos all the time. Ca fait rien avec moi. As for politeness, I am unflaggingly polite. Except when I’m not.

        • You seem to be confusing “legal” with “appropriate”/”polite”/”moral”.

          That’s your problem, and it says a lot about you.

        • Scraping images without permission is appropriate: the entire blogging world depends on the Fair Use Doctrine. The “polite” thing to do with an image: credit the photo back to its originator, which we do in the captions. Moral? This is the Internet, created by and for the porn industry.

    • “I’ll say I am glad TTAG allows anti-gunnies to comment here including MikeB302000.”

      Me too. Nothing more boring than everybody sitting around repeating the same mantra.

      I have to say I really enjoyed MikeB302000 post about his son and wanting to shoot.

  6. @ON:
    “Well the friendly stance with Mike B. can be rather off-putting. Something about TTAG feels off. ” meaning that you don’t like that this site is not stormfront.org about guns?

    “Mainly denigrating the NRA for not being “urban” enough. ”
    nice radicalized code language ON, i wonder what your biases might be?

  7. Wow, RF, a lot of people really don’t like you. Might be worthwhile to work on those people-skills, even if you didn’t do anything to deserve the animosity.

    Personally, I think your ever-so-slightly-left-of-the-extreme-right stance is exactly what we need.

    Oh, and pay no attention to Nuovo. I’m gonna be nice and say that he has no idea as to the ramifications of his beliefs.

  8. Robert, any response to Weer’d Beard’s claim that TTAG censors pro-gun comments?

    Weer’d Beard, can you substantiate that claim – screen shots, perhaps? And I have to wonder how your would know anti-gun comments are never censored.

    • “And I have to wonder how your would know anti-gun comments are never censored.”

      See most of the posts by Magoo. He was given quite a bit of latitude on this site.

      • It’s not like there’s any shortage of pro-gun content, either. If we’re to believe pro-gun comments are being censored despite a wealth of pro-gun comments, surely we can’t rule out the censorship of anti-gun comments based on the existence of anti-gun comments.

    • Sure He deleted a bunch of my comments during the Jadegold exchange. My comments were disagreeing how Mr. Farago runs his show, but not impolite…meanwhile if you read them you know what Jadegold spouts.This is my first series of comments since then.My friend Bob has some much more well-documented encounters here: http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4627He was banned for simply discussing a difference of opinion. MikeB302000 a man who lives in Italy, has admitted to illegally owning guns when he was in the states, has hinted at owning said guns to facilitate an illegal drug business, and who has repeatedly and without remorse called for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment and the confiscation of lawfully held guns: He get’s a guest post.Bob, who’s a strong 2nd Amendment supporter Military Veteran, father of two Marines, and on the board of directors for a local gun club gets banned.Hell Mr. Farago needed to be persuaded to remove Jadegold’s vile, antagonistic posts….but I’m unsure if even these posts will remain.Is there any doubt where his heart lies?

      Heck can you even show me a significance to this whole post other than Robert casting flames at a true 2nd Amendment supporter?

      • Weer’d, I find it disingenuous to accuse Robert of censoring “pro-gun comments” when you admit the censored comments were directed at Robert and how he runs the blog. The latter might indicate a problem accepting criticism, but hardly an anti-gun bias.

        Also “Mr. Farago needed to be persuaded to remove Jadegold’s vile, antagonistic posts” – so were Jadegold’s posts not “anti-gun” or does that not count because he “needed to be persuaded?”

        • It doesn’t really matter if JadeGold’s post were pro- or anti-. The problem with his posts were that they were highly inflammatory. Anyone responding to his comments were usually censored, while his remained with no explanation. Censor or do not censor, I don’t care. I just ask that the site admins treat everyone the same. I don’t think this was the case with Jadegold and other handles he used here after his ban.

    • The same purpose as continuing to allow mikebunchesofnumbers there to continue his personal attacks largely unabated – it/they generate dissension, which generates traffic, which generates money.

      In this, Bobby’s motives’re rather “pure”

      • I am so not making money on this site. Nor would I gin-up controversy to “inflate” numbers. On the other hand, I do what I like and how I love it. As do our writers and commentators—within the bounds of civility of course.

        • Nor would I gin-up controversy to “inflate” numbers.

          You have before, you are here with this very post, and you will continue in the future. Actions speak louder.

        • You mistake me Sir. I will gin-up controversy, but not to inflate numbers. I do it for the children.

        • Something rubbed me the wrong way about this post and I did not even know Weer’d Beard before.

          Maybe it’s just too petty even though I don’t mind if people get tweaked and he doesn’t mince words himself.

          And I like it that MikeB3o2ooo gets a chance to give it his best shot—it’s nice of him to try the impossible and present intelligent anti-gun arguments.

  9. Unlike Robert Farago and most of the commenters around here, Weer’d and Bob S. cannot stand the fact that other people have differeing opinions. These guys are so bad in that regard, they cannot even accept that other pro-gun folks can accept people with differing opinions.

    I enjoyed the post and comments very much.

  10. 1. Regarding mikeb… so what? I support universally sanctioned free speech as much as I support universally sanctioned self-defense… I’d expect any non-hypocrite regarding freedom to feel the same way.

    2. Stealing pictures on blogs and fighting about blogging on blogs… It would seem that these are the primary two uses for the internet after pornography and shopping. Also the idea of “stolen” implies some actual demonstrable value to the item “stolen”. I guess technically everyone’s an artist on the verge of fame and fortune, but come on. Let’s just look text about guns and look at some pictures of them too.

    3. The “you are with us or you are against us” mentality is infantile and will lead to the destruction of everyone’s mutual interests. I’m all for a healthy dose of paranoia but you’ve got to understand that while “they’re out to get me” not “everyone’s out to get me”. I’m not important enough for “everyone” to “be out to get me”.

    Can’t we all just get along?
    -D

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *