On Being a Gun Rights Fanatic

MikeB302000 has fingered me as a gun-rights fanatic. I presume this is because I believe that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I presume this is because I oppose “reasonable” measures such as background checks on all gun sales. I presume this is because I don’t think a person ought to have to take a class or fill out paperwork for the state to exercise their right to self defense. I presume this is because I believe individuals should have the right to defend themselves against both criminals and the state . . .

I’ll wear mikes’s attempt at an insult as a badge of honor. I’m deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the government should impose barriers to exercising any right. What reasonable regulations would be acceptable to an individual exercising their first amendment rights? What class should I have to take before I may be secure in my persons and papers? Why should I register my home with the government before I can be certain troops won’t be quartered there? Can I only exercise my right to not incriminate myself so long as I pass a background check?

In America, all governments are entities that derive their authority from the people. That’s the idea, anyway. The people bequeath some of their sovereignty to the state for the purpose of public order. We do that via our states’ constitutions and the US Constitution. These documents are legally binding contracts that, when ratified, had a specific meaning. All three branches of government have a duty to abide by those agreements and all three branches of government have a duty to enforce the terms of the contract when a party or parties are in breach.

I will certainly allow that the application of those meanings over time have been a bit thorny but generally speaking, for most of our history our courts and government officials colored inside the lines. It was during the progressive era of the last century that the constitution began to be viewed as an impediment to progress, rather than a protector of liberty. To assert their will, progressives began to view the constitution as a malleable thing – something to be molded when an otherwise forbidden change was desired rather than a fixed thing that had to be amended to alter its terms.

What I find fanatical is the anti-gun crowd’s disrespect for the rule of law. They are so desperate to affect a change they deem necessary that they’re willing to make a mockery of something as simple as a binding contract between the people and the state. The same kind of thinking that finds “reasonable restrictions” on the right to keep and bear arms can be applied to other rights essential to a free republic. Incandescent fools like Jane Fonda, who benefited greatly from America’s tolerance for unpopular speech have called for restrictions on the unpopular speech of others with whom they disagree politically.

But the bill of rights is a package deal. The 2nd Amendment is not just the crazy old aunt enumerated right polite society doesn’t like to acknowledge. They all rise and fall at the same time. I am not fanatical about gun rights, I am fanatical about rights. Period.

116 Responses to On Being a Gun Rights Fanatic

  1. avatarEric says:

    Very good!

  2. avatarSilver says:

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Remember, when wrong-headed fools disagree with us, it only reinforces our conviction that we’re in the right.

  3. avatarJoe Grine says:

    “What reasonable regulations would be acceptable to an individual exercising their first amendment rights?”

    Yikes! Not a good analogy if you want win your argument, Tim. The First Amendment has many exceptions, qualifications, caveats, etc. I deal with First Amendment issues in my law practice on a fairly routine basis, and I can tell you that the rights set forth therein are not as absolute and unwaivering as you imply.

    • Good point, Joe. Maybe they’ll listen to you.

    • avatarJarhead1982 says:

      Always was one to understand that the abuses of ones rights were what was punishable, not the lawful exercise of those rights as certainly, it is not illegal to yell fire, when there is a fire, it is not illegal to shoot someone in self defense, when the threat was real, and no matter how you spin it, it is not illegal to speak the truth no matter how painful it is……

      Reality is the majority of those useless regulations & laws personified dont apply to felons. The US Supreme Court has a 43 plus year old ruling in Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 that no person was held to follow a law requiring them to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, making oh what, 85% of all existing 20,000 plus gun control laws not applicable to felons. Who then do these laws infringe upon actually, oh geez, only the law abiding, UH WHY?

      So qualify the legal reasons why the law abiding must be punished or controlled for exercising their rights in a lawful fashion when the felons/criminals are not. We really dont expect a logical answer as frankly, none exist.

  4. avatargreg says:

    I’m picking up what you’re putting down.

  5. avatarMatt Gregg says:

    I 100% agree, we must support all rights equally. The problem I have is that neither Of our two major parties support all of the bill of rights. I don’t want to pick and choose which of the first 10 amendments I value most.

    We badly need the libertarian party, it’s the only one that supports the constitution and freedom in general.

  6. avatarOODALOOP says:

    If you listen to Alan Korwin, the best way to frame it is not being a 2A extremist, but being a civil rights extremist (like Tim mentions). That way, if you do end up confronting an anti-gunner, they come off looking like zealots because suddenly they’re “anti-civil rights”, and no one wants to be painted with that non-PC brush.

  7. avatarJason says:

    L. Neil Smith put it best several years back. http://lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html

    • avatarOODALOOP says:

      Good call. A little L. Neil goes a long way. Too bad that so few people are willing to be non-PC and actually say what they think.

    • avatarHenry Bowman says:

      “If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash — for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.”

      I absolutely, 100% agree with this!! I would apply this statement to all you folks on this very site that think it’s a step too far when it comes to felons.

  8. avatarStant says:

    Well Said!

    It was a good point well made.

  9. avatarRopingdown says:

    I find that MikeB a waste of my time.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      I get some of my best blog ideas from MikeB, so, he does serve the pro-rights purpose.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        MikeB does not have an “about me” on his website, nor does his facebook page linked to the site tell us anything about him. MikeB is a ghost. When he appears, the waste of my time begins. He isn’t a particularly erudite anti. He’s already been neutered by the laws the upper and political classes have passed in the UK and Italy, his bases on the net. He’s irrelevant. He’s also anti-hunting, as are his followers. Giving him time is an insult to me without a corresponding benefit.

        • Wow, “not particularly erudite” was a bit nasty, but “irrevelant,” that really hurt.

          What’s funny is how much time and effort some of you guys spend on trying to insult me.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          It requires little time and absolutely no effort.

        • avatarRuffRidr says:

          Yes, he is very secretive about his identity. That has not stopped him from allowing “outing” post of others on his blog however. That’s the kind of hypocrisy we are dealing with in Mike.

  10. avatarWheelgun says:

    Couldn’t agree more. Why does it make you a “fanatic” if you believe simply what is written in our Constitution? It’s the law of the land but they somehow want to pervert it into being unreasonable and fanatical. They truly don’t understand. I am always perplexed by the great void between “liberals” and those who understand the law of the land.

  11. avatarIdahoPete says:

    “These documents are legally binding contracts that, when ratified, had a specific meaning. … To assert their will, progressives began to view the constitution as a malleable thing…”

    When one party to a contract ignores and voids the terms of that contract, the remaining party is under no obligation to abide by that contract. The government’s authority over the American people is only that granted BY the people through the Constitution. If the government voids their part of the contract, the people owe no further allegiance to the government.

    You have to wonder how frickin’ stupid the progressives are, that they cannot see what they are doing to their own interests by ignoring the rule of law. Hey, the Constitution is a fairly simple contract – nowhere near as complex and impenetrable as, say, the Obamacare law. Why should any American citizen obey any of the laws enacted over the last 40 years, since the majority of them are unconstitutional? Prohibition was constitutionally enacted by the amendment process, and the public ignored it – because it was an infringement on their liberty. What are all of the “for your own good” laws enacted since that time, if not an unconstitutional infringement on liberty?

  12. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    Agreed. The only “reasonable” restrictions of our inherent rights are where the exercise thereof infringes upon the inherent rights of someone else.

    Although I have to disagree regarding the sanctity of our Constitution. That contract has never been followed and was being violated before the ink was even dry (RI ratification). It has never been able to stand as a bulwark against tyranny and that truth is now becoming more and more pronounced. Our arguments should be focused on defending all natural, inherent rights regardless of their status within the Constitution. If the authoritarians could ever look past their own ego, they would fully embrace the Constitution and then amend the shit out of it… taking the air out of all the “Constitutionalist” sails.

  13. avatarGuywithagun says:

    “MikeB302000 has fingered me as a gun-rights fanatic”.

    Well don’t be rude… It would be impolite of you not to give him the finger in return.

  14. avatarDerry M says:

    Good post! Good comments! Starts the day on a positive note. Thanks!
    We must be radical for all rights without compromise or hesitation 7/24/365.
    Period.

  15. Tim, I find your post a bit all over the place. Why is it necessary to compare to the 1st amendment. Is that your best argument for the 2nd?

    As far as my side disrespecting the rule of law, that’s a bit weird. Is that because we don’t want unfit people to have guns and would inconvenience you a little bit to accomplish that?

    Rights don’t rise and fall at the same time. Do need to give examples?

    • avatarSilver says:

      “As far as my side disrespecting the rule of law, that’s a bit weird. Is that because we don’t want unfit people to have guns and would inconvenience you a little bit to accomplish that?”

      It’s because the Constitution IS the law, and you attempting to play tyrant is more unlawful than anything anyone on this board has ever done. You’re the criminal, mikey, which is why you try so hard to project that subconscious defect onto others. And the fact that you think you can define who is “unfit” speaks volumes about your arrogant thirst for power over others. I think people like you are unfit to practice the 1st Amendment, but you don’t see me calling to put restrictions on it.

      Regardless, we all know what liars and deceptive scum antis are; you lie, make up numbers, and seek only your own sick agenda at every turn, why would we ever trust any compromise on “gun control?” The anti mindset is not based in fact or logic, it’s a mental disease based on irrational hoplophobia, fear, and mental conditioning…gun control cannot fix that, because you’re not actually looking to solve anything; you’re looking to feed your own emotional desire for control. So it will never stop. Regulation upon regulation will be demanded until there’s total banning.

      But I don’t need to tell you that; it’s been your goal all along, and every anti’s goal, no matter how insistently you lie.

      And yes, rights do rise and fall at the same time. Any grammar school student’s look at European, Asian, and South American history reveals that, though I know I can’t count on you to put forth the intelligence or logic of a grammar school student.

    • avatarElliotte says:

      Seriously Mike? One right is equal to any other. If restrictions are good for one right, why not for the rest?

      You say you want unfit people to exercise a right and are all for inconviencing people in order to accomplish that. Should the state require you to take a training class before you can exercise your right to free speech?

    • avatarBrett says:

      Mike, we don’t need an argument for the second amendment. It exists, the same as the other 26. They are all valid laws, and all should be treated equally. There are a lot if peple that some would say are unfit to exercise their first amendment rights – would it be okay to inconvenience the rest of the population to do so?

      • Jesus, Brett, can’t you leave the 1st Amendment out of it.

        People who are unfit to own guns lose their right to own them. That has nothing to do with free speech or freedom of religion or anything other then guns and gun rights and the 2A.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “Jesus, Brett, can’t you leave the 1st Amendment out of it.”
          —–
          Yeah, Brett! Having to treat all Constitutionally-protected rights equally is DAMNED inconvenient for MikeB’s argument here. You oughta be ashamed, you big bully!

          [/sarc]

        • avatarBrett says:

          Yes, unfit people lose their gun rights. The issue is that you want to place prior restraint on a right. Name any other constitutional right that you need a background check for. Name another right that you need a license for. Name another right you have to pay fees or taxes to exercise. You can’t, because it is illegal to do so. What makes this right so different from all the others?

        • avatarMatt Gregg says:

          The Feds already tried to place prior restraint in the form of a registry on the mail during the red scare. They wanted anyone who wished to receive mail from communist organizations to register with their local post office, otherwise the offending mail would be withheld. This was quickly ruled unconstitutional in Lamont v Postmaster General.

          A gun owner registry would be unconstitutional for the same reasons.

        • avatarTom says:

          Jesus, Brett, can’t you leave the 1st Amendment out of it.

          People who are unfit to own guns lose their right to own them. That has nothing to do with free speech or freedom of religion or anything other then guns and gun rights and the 2A.

          As far as I am concerned, as a Libertarian, an assault on one aspect of the Constitution and the ideals put forth in the Declaration of Independence ( Original Version ) usually results in an assault on the other aspects of the Constitution. As Ron Paul states that this is an example of ” Incrementalism”.

      • avatarTim McNabb says:

        A person cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater. He cannot incite to riot. He cannot make threats on another person or property. He cannot slander. None of these things are protected speech.

        Since a person can do great harm if they exercise their first amendment rights, should we pre-screen people before they exercise this right to make sure unfit people do not misues their right?

        • avatarLevi B says:

          By Jove!, I think you’ve got it!

        • avatarTakurou says:

          I read it. It comes down to this: Tell one branch of gornenmvet EVERYTHING about yourself. They will share it with an un-controlled second branch and compare everything against the third, Federal, group. If data aren’t identical, you cannot legally possess a firearm.Care to guess what they already know? Is it correct? Do they protect your data?Have a Sealed record? NOT ANYMORE! They get to read it.But wait! If you were fired from a job for poor judgement , no gun for you!Treated for mental health problems, no gun!None of this affects bad guys who just ignore these laws anyway.

    • avatarHenry Bowman says:

      “unfit people??”

      Just who would deem them “unfit?” Throughout history there have been many democratically elected leaders who did some pretty screwed up things to “unfit people.” Those pesky undesireables are always getting in the way of progress.

      • avatarDaveL says:

        +1

        Exactly the same problem as “some people shouldn’t be allowed to breed” and “why do we let these idiots vote?”

    • avatarmikeyt95608 says:

      Troll food!
      It is not only necessary, but vital to compare all of the rights in the same light. As for examples, yes please. Feel free to actually support your position with some kind of validation.
      The idea of a “progressive” deciding that the law is an impediment to progress is hardly a new concept.
      For example…

      http://patdollard.com/2012/03/the-constitution-is-the-problem-justice-kagan-cited-as-editor-of-bells-early-critical-race-theory-publication/

      When we neglect to offer support for the Bill of Rights in any part, politicians tend to see that as an invitation to take more control.
      And then we have…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act

      Then, just in case the last assault on liberty has gone without notice…

      http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/president-obama-signs-executive-order-allowing-for-control-over-all-us-resources

      The essential dissolution of the Bill of Rights as the Commander in Chief whips out his pen and decides that the simple laws of habeas corpus becomes so much obscure and obsolete restriction.
      This is why people who support reasonable government restriction to be keeping our employees aware of just exactly who works for whom. Otherwise we have things like this to face…

      http://content.bitsontherun.com/previews/vvy0FSoM-svqBtzyp

      In short, keeping our rights (all of them) intact is not just something that happens because our government works diligently to that end, but rather because we have an obligation to our own security.
      If that is too great a concept for your expatriated mind to comprehend, then just stay where you are and live in peace.
      Troll.

    • avatarSilver says:

      I’m responding again before my other post is even showing up.

      mikeb, I’m done. I finished the last post and realized that arguing on here gains nothing and only burns daylight. I work and have some projects on a deadline here, and I simply can’t put any effort into random online arguments with people who frankly aren’t worth it. I have things in my life more important than trading barbs with some guy, especially when neither side will ever agree with the other.

      So respond to or ignore the last post, I really don’t care, no more venom from here on out. I’ll defend the 2A to the bitter end, but I’ll also pick my battles and focus on the ones that are worth it, and random online time-wasting jabs aren’t it.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      Sorry you don’t understand, Mike, but candidily, you are not the audience.

      This is written to my fellow civil rights fanatics to provide some grist when they are arguing with anti-civil rights fanatics, particularly those who fanatically try to put government in charge of who exercises their constitutional rights and when.

  16. avatardevheart says:

    I think it’s interesting that you only point out so-called “liberal” policies that you see targeting and infringing upon civil liberties, yet fail to acknowledge the conservative backed “red scare” and suppression of anti-authoritarian thought and speech during the McCarthy era and throughout the Cold War, as well as the more recent systematic push by business-minded conservative elites to destroy the power of the judicial system for the citizen and to pervert our justice system to heavily weigh in favor of the corporation and against the individual.

    • avatarTim Tritt says:

      History has proven McCarthy more right than wrong – as much as it may pain you to admit.

      You may want to update your reading of history -

      http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X

      As to your second point, it is all hyperbole – state some facts or instances to which you refer.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      I do not carp about conservatives who work to deny constitutional rights because that would make them “progressives”.

      Please don’t bother to roll out old Tailgunner Joe as your shining example of “conservative” meanie. How many blacks did Joe McCarthy throw out of Federal jobs (Wilson). How many Japanese did McCarthy inter into camps (FDR).

      I am still pondering just how bad Joseph McCarthy was – the fact is that Hollywood and many branches of government were riddled with those who sympathized with a political system ultimately responsible for over 100 million deaths all around the globe. McCarthy may have been an asshole, but his understanding of the threat of Communism was born out by the giant stack of bodies littered all over the world.

      If McCarthy had been rooting out Klu Klux Klansmen, he’d be your *&^%$ hero. I doubt your issue is the method, but rather the target.

      • avatarCarlosT says:

        I do not carp about conservatives who work to deny constitutional rights because that would make them “progressives”.

        This statement just lowered my opinion of you tremendously, Tim. The work I’ve seen from you on this blog had led me to expect better from you.

  17. avatarST says:

    The liberal mindset inherently opposes freedom as we know it.In order for the liberal utilitarian philosophy of an an advanced human society led by an all powerful & benevolent government to be realized,individual liberty must be severely limited.Notice that those of the the progressive way are opposed to *all* expressions of individual tliberty,not just firearms.Not only do progressives despise the 2nd Amendment,they despise the ENTIRE bill of rights.

    How can a benevolent government know who’s a terrorist if it needs a warrant to search a person or ther property?
    How can an all powerful utopia government insure everyone if people can choose better?

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      Not only do progressives despise the 2nd Amendment,they despise the ENTIRE bill of rights.

      If this is true, why were the ACLU pretty much the only ones fighting the al-Awlaki assassination before it happened? Why did they sue to try to preserve due process, instead of allowing the Obama administration from arbitrarily decreeing al-Awlaki guilty and summarily executing him? Why have they been fighting the Obama administration and the Bush administration before that on their abuses on illegal searches and seizures?

      The ACLU is pretty much the epitome of an progressive organization. Conservatives have used “card-carrying member of the ACLU” as a slur in the past to paint opponents as unrepentant liberals. Your statement is ridiculous on its face. While there are plenty of progressives who are hostile to the Second Amendment for misguided reasons, making the completely absurd accusation that all progressives are hostile to the entire Bill of Rights severely undercuts your credibility.

      • avatarTim Tritt says:

        The ACLU does seem to pick and choose its battles depending on the amendment though.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          True, and I fault them for that. Their support for the Second Amendment is lacking and I would never say otherwise. The point still stands emphatically, however.

      • avatarDaveL says:

        Note: Conservative talking heads have fairly recently taken to redefining the term “progressive” wholesale. By this new definition the ACLU is not progressive except when it opposes gun rights (something I, too, fault them for) but Al Quaeda is.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          Al Qaeda is as conservative as it gets. There’s nothing progressive about them whatsoever. Those guys want to go back to 1100 AD.

        • avatarDaveL says:

          I know that, you know that, but that’s not how the word is being used now in right-wing circles.

        • avatarST says:

          Indeed the liberal/communist/statist/progressive system of thought I was referring too has adopted many names which are entirely opposite of the Socialist perspective . It used to be the word “liberal” referred to an entirely different political viewpoint than it is commonly used as today.

  18. avatarBob says:

    I’ll let a few other people say it better than I can:

    “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” — Winston Churchill

    “I believe that being despised by the despicable is as good as being admired by the admirable.” — Unknown

    “Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.” — Unknown

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      “Well, would you rather they were killed with knives, little girl?” – Archie Bunker

  19. avatarStant says:

    “can’t you leave the 1st Amendment out of it.”

    Ha

  20. avatarMichael B. says:

    He sullies the name of Michael B.s everywhere.

  21. avatarDaveL says:

    MikeB might be surprised to find that I support reasonable gun control. Now, there are ways of considering whether any given security measure, including gun control, is reasonable. These include:

    -Effectiveness : Does the measure actually address the threat in question? Is it easily defeated or bypassed? Does it increase other threats? Is its scope rationally related to real-world outcomes or is its focus artificially narrow?

    -Cost: Is the cost of the measure warranted by the threat reduction it provides? Who bears the cost and who gets the benefit? How burdensome or costly is it to circumvent?

    Pretty much every proposal I’ve been hearing from gun control advocates fails on not one, but usually at least three or four of these points. They talk of “gun violence” as if being stabbed were a day at the spa. They propose banning weapons based on some hopeless mishmash of irrelevant design features. They demand manufacturers invest millions in equipment that criminals will defeat with a nail file. They really seem to think that a man with mass murder in his heart is going to balk at disobeying a ” no guns” sign.

    I’m not against reasonable gun control. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to accept whatever you dream up as reasonable on your say-so.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      DaveL – I think there is a serious flaw in your position. You are providing a utilitarian rationale for prior-restraint on a protected right, which is ceding ground unnecessarily.

      That you set the bar high is not the issue – there ought not be a bar to clear BEFORE a right is exercised, at least as the 2nd Amendment (and all the other rights) is written.

  22. avatarcaffeinated says:

    It all goes back to projection. Mikeb “can’t keep it in his pants” as the saying goes. He therefore assumes no one else “can keep it in his pants” either. Enough said.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Or it all goes back to neutering: MikeB lives in jurisdictions in which he has no right to own a gun (Italy) or no right to use any gun in self-defense (the UK), so his comments are pointless rationalizations of his situation. I live in a commonwealth whose constitution affirms the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Why should any of my bandwidth go to MikeB’s jabber. Buffalo’s me. Does it amuse people?

      • avatarcaffeinated says:

        That’s really a good point. Do we even know if he is a US citizen? If not then anything he says is pointless. He might as well be focusing on gun control in Somalia or the tribal regions of Pakistan.

        • Good question. You don’t know a thing about me, not a single one. And why should it matter. What I say makes sense and stabs you guys where you live. Is it any less painful if I don’t share your citizenship?

          No.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          What you say makes sense to you. We enjoy our right to self defense here. As far as I know, Northern Ireland is the only place in the UK you have a right to self defense; anywhere else will land you in the lockup.

          If you like the laws in the UK and Italy, then by all means live there. Don’t try and change the laws somewhere it does not concern you.

        • He can come over here to live in a “gun free utopia” so long as you’ll have me in exchange.;-)

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          The freedom loving citizens welcome you. Our government, well that is another story.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Mike, your comments aren’t painful. They’re basically a waste of time. As for not knowing a thing about you, that’s an interesting point. Neither your website nor the linked Facebook page has an “about me” page or any detail of who you are. But you do know lots about Farago and many contributors because we do not hide ourselves. You are a ghost. Often an insulting ghost. Generally a spitting ghost. Time for me to find out who you really are and what you really have done with your life. I’ll hand off that job. And I’ll ignore your comments until I receive the answers.

        • As I said, you don’t know anything about me and it should stay that way. Respect my privacy.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          Actually, we know quite a bit about you based on your posts here and elsewhere. Once it’s on the internet, my friend, it’s in the public domain forever. Right, wrong or indifferent.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Not a chance I’ll read your insults and hypothesis about some of the comment writers’ characteristics, very personal, and yet respect your privacy.

        • avatarmikeyt95608 says:

          Would you like a kleenex? You demand that we respect the privacy of a felon (self admitted) as you demand that the law abiding disclose all details of our lives in order to own a firearm? Did the years of drug abuse damage your cerebral function? No chance. You post here in nothing less than rude tones, insulting us at whim, then hide behind some smug pseudo-identity as you claim innocence. The fact that you have already been caught in a lie(s?) makes any credibility hard to accept. If any of what you have written has truth to it, then you are a felon, drug user and have no right to even vote, much less present legislation that would infringe upon our rights. You have no “stabbing barbs” that cut to the bone, rather you are more akin to a cockroach; a hold-over from pre-history with no real practical application in modern society.
          Trolls need not expect courtesy simply because they demand it.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Mike, we know you are a self-admitted prior gun-law violator. We know you are a self-admitted prior drug law violator. We suspect you were discharged from the Marine Corp under less than ideal circumstances. Those records are public. I intend to pull them. We suspect you cannot lawfully buy a gun anymore. We know you are a US citizen. We know you are so flaky even The Daily Kos banned you. Would you like me to keep going? In your travels you’ve tried to flee from your past. You used to speak of it until you realized it wasn’t really so smart. Too late.

        • avatarTSgt B says:

          I have a family member like you, Mikey. As with you, his moral and intellectual compasses are so screwed up I question whether he can find his way out of a parking lot.

          Sensible, you say? To whom? Certainly not me. And just who are you to dictate what defines “sensible”? If you don’t like guns, freedom, and liberty, by all means, cast them away. DON’T TRY TO TAKE MINE.

        • avatarIamApostle says:

          http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4488

          There’s a little story you may enjoy reading.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          That explains a lot. So someone with a felonius past that assumes all of us will be as he once was?

          This is more than just a case of projection. I’ll try to compile some of this and run by a couple of board certified psychologists and psychiatrists to get their opinions.

        • avatarmikeyt95608 says:

          Suspect credibility? I would absolutely LOVE to take moral direction from a drug addled ex-pat that has no concern for the broader spectrum of civil liberty. Compile this with the whole “Blood running in the streets” and you have the same old same old- just another troll looking to make the world better by accusing us of his behavior. Mikeyb- (flame deleted troll), please understand that not all of us took the time to cook our brains, some of us actually did serve honorably and have managed to live our lives without committing crimes. Can you (mikeyb) say that with any kind of honesty? Quit trying to save us from your mistake(s).

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          Thanks so much for that link! One wonders if that felony will catch up with him when he heads out to see family in Nevada…

        • If you guys spent as much time arguing the issues instead of attacking me personally, you might convince someone.

        • avatarcaffeinated says:

          Well Mike, we typically agree on the issue. We’re getting bored nodding heads and decided to beat on the troll for a little while. Thanks for being a target.

        • avatarmikeyt95608 says:

          Am I reading this right? Is a troll crying in his beer as we compile angst for his (it’s) persistent attacks on our position? Oh, the bitter irony of living large in the salad days…
          Sort of reminds me of the loud mouth at the bar that likes to push people around, right up until he gets pushed back. Then the accusations of assault come out. This story has written itself too many times to be interesting.
          Your hobbyist approach to this topic is at best annoying.
          By the way, it is impressive that you have actually faced your own demons, now quit projecting your own misdeeds upon us.

    • avatarRuffRidr says:

      Caffeinated, you are definitely on to something. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to MikeB having had some issue with guns in the past. Naturally, he won’t talk about it. Whatever event this was seems to have triggered his projection and his support of gun control.

  23. avatarTom says:

    Incandescent fools like Jane Fonda, who benefited greatly from America’s tolerance for unpopular speech have called for restrictions on the unpopular speech of others with whom they disagree politically.

    I always loved Hanoi Jane. Really a Great Actor being a Great Politician. She really has a following. Not I.

  24. avatarSteve says:

    I looked at MikeB’s blog this morning. I read a post and then looked at the one comment…by MikeB?
    Mike, there is a time to make a stand against impossible odds and there is a time, like right now, to realize that you’re a jack off.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Yes, encourage this realization.

    • Thanks Steve for the visit and the kind words. Although my little blog is nothing compared to TTAG, it’s not quite as insignificant as you described. But that’s typical of you, isn’t it?

      As far as my being a “jack off.” Why is that exactly? Why is it so difficult for you to accept that somebody disagrees with you and what you stand for? I’ll tell you why. It’s insecurity. Someone, like myself, who questions what you’re about, shakes you to the core, and you respond with lies and namecalling.

      • avatarSteve says:

        Yes Mike, I’m shaken to the core…thanks for the laugh.

      • avatarBill says:

        Nothing you say shakes us to the core Mikey. We all realize you are a drug addled criminal fool who has serious issues with things like freedom and responsibility. You are like a clown, amusing and somewhat funny in a weird sort of way. We can agree to disagree on certain issues, but fundamental human rights are off the table. Now please take your booze and drug addled brain, or what’s left of it, and get some help.

  25. avatarTim McNabb says:

    I think we can come against MikeB’s addled views on constitutional rights without being overly personal.

    • Tim, Why don’t you start then my not calling my views “addled?” That’s pretty personal, not to mention hypocritical.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      Mike, carefully review the structure of my sentence. I believe I wrote the sentence to say that you “views on constitutional rights” were addled, not you.

      I imagine you can balance a checkbook, change your oil and love your mama just fine. I do not think there is anything wrong with you that merits the government inconveniencing you as you exercise your constitutional rights (assuming you are entitled to them as a US citizen).

      However, you hold views of the constitution that are addled. Change your mind, or live with the fact that some of us charitably think your views addled.

      Nothing personal.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Over the brief weeks I’ve read this site and submitted comments, I’ve found MikeB302000′s comments remarkably personal. He doesn’t discuss or state a view in the abstract, i.e. “I think X is really the truth.” Nope. He repeatedly say “you….” He often includes an accusation as to what derogatory attribute he ‘supposes’ about a given person he is commenting upon. All of that is very personal. It invites close scrutiny of his existence which crossing the line from comments to degrading insults justifies. You may like him as a furor-raising troll. I don’t know. Comment from an a position of relative anonymity, Michael Bonomo, but don’t insult from that position and expect anonymity. That’s over.

  26. avatarJJ Swiontek says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

    The Armenian people were slaughtered by the Turks via gun control. First they required registration of all weapons. Then the turks ordered all weapons of Armenians to be collected. Then they slaughtered them.

    Old Armenian saying, “The person who wants your gun, wants your life.”

    Who exactly does mikeb302000 want killed?

    • avatarcaffeinated says:

      Many totalitarian regimes have started with gun and weapons control. It’s not a recent thing either.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Weapons control was actually what allowed the Angles and Saxons to so quickly take over England. The Romans disarmed the population, but later withdrew, leaving an unarmed and unskilled-with-weapons population.

  27. avatarIMHO says:

    The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
    PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
    “THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..”

    Amendment II “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

  28. avatar101abn says:

    A Free State may form and regulate a militia. The People have the right to keep and bear arms. ( No matter how I read that, it still says the same thing). There are two statements in one sentence. “Shall Not Be Infringed”, covers both.

  29. avatarLow Budget Dave says:

    I agree with you up to a point. I agree that self defense is a right, but I believe the state should be able to impose restrictions. We do not let people buy guns who are drunk, pre-teen, or convicted rapists, for example. To argue that those restrictions are unconstitutional is to argue that the second amendment takes priority over all others. In addition, I think you are misreading the Constitution when you say that it gives you the right to defend yourself against the government. If this were true, then any convicted felon (a terrorist, for example) could shoot any law enforcement officer, based on the theory that the law officer is sworn to take away the terrorist’s firearm. It is an absurd argument, but it is the only logical conclusion once you say that the second amendment takes priority over the defense of the citizens.

    • avatarcaffeinated says:

      You can’t just cherry pick the amendments you like. You get all 10 with the Bill or Rights. Reread the part about defending yourself from the government. It is a tyrannical government, not just government. I understand the hyperbole you are using to make your point. As it stands, most of us don’t want criminals and terrorists running around with guns and it also happens to be against federal law.

      Unfortunately traffic fatalities outweigh firearms deaths so in the grand scheme of things, shouldn’t we focus on that as the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect a “Right to Motorvehicle Transportation?”

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      LBD has a point, though a limited one. I think it is clear that full constitutional rights apply only to those who are fully able to be responsible – those of the age of majority, as cited.

      As to fighting the Government, that is one of those “God I hope it never comes to that again” sort of deals. Confederate sodiers were not individually tried for treason or sedition. They were in rebellion as part of their state militias.

  30. avatarLow Budget Dave says:

    I agree with you up to a point. I agree that self defense is a right, but I believe the state should be able to impose restrictions. We do not let people buy guns who are drunk, pre-teen, or convicted terrorists, for example. To argue that those restrictions are unconstitutional is to argue that the second amendment takes priority over all others. It misreading the Constitution to say, for example, that it gives you the right to defend yourself against the government. If this were true, then any convicted felon (a terrorist, for example) could shoot any law enforcement officer, based on the theory that the law officer is sworn to take away the terrorist’s firearm. It is an absurd argument, but it is the only logical conclusion once you say that the second amendment takes priority over the defense of the citizens.

    • avatarThomasR says:

      No L.B. Dave, if the person is an immediate threat, they should be in prison, once they have paid their debt to society, they should get all their rights restored, voting and second amendment rights, anything less is a complete violation of a human beings dignity and self respect.
      The definition through all of history of a free person versus slave is those who lawfully keep and bear arms and those who by the law can’t.
      By denying the ability of a person to KABA once they’re out of prison, they are being forced into the lowest and most despicable of positions, where anyone can assault, abuse or kill without consequence and if they use the most effective means to defend themselves, they go back to prison.
      Especially in the case of this insane war on drugs where a person can lose the right to vote and To bear arms for life in a victimless crime.
      In the end, prior restraint laws do nothing to stop a bad guy from doing bad things, it only penalizes those who don’t intend to do anything bad and gives government and criminals that much more power over the rest of us, since the criminals will ignore those laws and the government will use those laws to control everyone else.

  31. avatarLow Budget Dave says:

    I think it hurts the argument when people say “liberals are trying to take away my guns.” It is an unfair characterization of me, for example, and an unfair framing of my argument. All I want to do is deny the right to buy guns to convicted gangsters, children, and other lunatics. Children are not responsible, by definition. If they were responsible to make adult decisions, we wouldn’t call them “children.” Similarly, people who have been convicted of a violent felony have been judged by society to be making some pretty bad decisions. To sell them a gun is to deny the purpose of society in the first place.
    People then claim my argument is an incremental attempt to take away all guns. That is silly. It is like saying that we should not pass any law, ever, because it will eventually lead to a totalitarian dictatorship.

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      Aren’t felons and the mentally ill already prohibited from possessing firearms? Also, which definition of “children” are we using right now?

    • avatarThomasR says:

      L.B.Dave, sorry, but your wrong, it always starts with “reasonable” prior restraint, the children, the criminals, the mentally unstable; I owned, carried in the woods and shot a .22 LR rifle when I was twelve years old, it was legal and expected for most of our history that a pre-teen could responsibly handle a gun: for most of our history, criminals(usually after a few years} would get back their gun rights if they stayed out of jail; as for the mentally unstable, like I,if they are an immediate threat, put them in prison, otherwise, we just have to wait until they actually commit a crime, innocent until proven guilty; prior restraint only empowers the criminal, “gun free zone” anyone? And empowers government to control everyone else, “gun free zone” anyone?

  32. avatarLow Budget Dave says:

    I think it hurts the argument when people say “liberals are trying to take away my guns.” It is an unfair characterization of me, for example, and an unfair framing of my argument. All I want to do is deny the right to buy guns to convicted gangsters, children, and other people judged to be incompetent. Children are not responsible, by definition. If they were responsible to make adult decisions, we would allow them to sign real estate contracts. Similarly, people who have been convicted of a violent felony have been judged by society to be making some pretty bad decisions. To sell them a gun is to presume that the purpose of the Constitution is to enable bad decisions.
    People then claim my argument is an incremental attempt to take away all guns. That is silly. It is like saying that we should not pass any law, ever, because it will eventually lead to a totalitarian dictatorship.

    • Low Budget Dave, your reasonable voice is a welcome change from what we’ve been getting around here lately.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Agree that Low Budget Dave’s comments are moderate. Yours generally are not. Surprised you welcome change of that kind.

      • avatarThomasR says:

        Reasonable MikeB? I think not, I remember when I was a child growing up, I’m in my fifties, not so long ago; on the coastal mountains in California, driving a big wheel tractor at eleven years old,with a trailor full of apples five miles down the road to the local cider press. (Notice the proposed laws by the Dept. of Labor that would outlaw this for pre-teens)
        Carrying a .22 lr rifle at twelve years old, when ever I wanted with asking my parents permission, carrying a pocket knife in elementary school, being to pull it out in class to sharpen my pencil with out a panic and calling the cops; getting into a fight with one of the other students and simply being talked to by the principal, being told to shake hands and then to go back to class. no expulsion, no cops.
        It was legal until the sixties to open carry a loaded pistol in public in California without a permit, until the Black Panthers carried them at city hall as a protest and the legislature outlawed the carrying of a loaded pistol, (notice, one could still carry it unloaded, with a mag in ones belt, a just passed law now makes it’s against the law to carry it even unloaded) (notice, the first gun control laws in the eighteen hundreds was to dis-arm freed blacks).
        Notice MikeB, that all of the things I and everyone around me accepted as the norm is now considerd a crime, all the things you and L.B.Dave accept as “reasonable” prior restraint I see as a gross voilation of all people involved, from children to the adults, you sir, and all people who think like you are the apoligists and the supporters of all things that devolve into tyranny.
        There is a reason that the great republics of the past, Greece and Rome fell into tyranny, dictatorship and mass death.
        The little trip down memory lane is that example, we go from a time when personal responsibility was the accepted norm, even of children; to a time in the present where no one is expected to take personal resposibility, even the adults and the only ones to have the power in ones life are designated “Agents of the State.”
        History will not be kind to people like you MikeB, history will look back and rightfully see you as destroyers of freedom. People like you brought to power Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol-Pot.
        We here in the U.S of A might be different, this re-awakening of people to the importance of the second amendment and the ever growing expansion of right to carry laws and the responsibility that goes with this right, gives me hope we might be exception to the rule that all republics end up destroying themselves, we will see.

    • avatarBill says:

      First of all, if a person cannot be trusted without a custodian, why are they not still in prison? Then you go off on children, where this has ever come into the discussion will forever remain a mystery.

  33. avatar101abn says:

    Sort of like arguing religion with a true believer. Quit responding to Mikeb, waste of time.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.