“I’m a gun-control advocate. How do you get ‘wannabe tyrant’ from that?” – mikeb302000 in a TTAG comment yesterday
mikey is a wannabee tyrant only because he can’t be a real one.
Never said mikeb was a tyrant, I said he was trying………
Extremely trying at times …
I say that phrase whenever I’m unfortunate enough to talk with anti-gun people. That gets most of them to to stfu and reassess the stupidity of their agenda. How can any sane human being want to deny a woman walking around alone the right to defend herself?
I absolutely L-O-V-E talking with anti-gun people.
Especially when there are a bunch of fence-sitters in on the conversation.
aaaand mikeb doesn’t respond because this is a simple, short argument, and thus he can’t find one of his little, nitpicking infantessimal faults, such as grammar or a wording mishap, if not a single, solitary, opinionated word like “Freedom” to center his couterargument upon. in the words of somebody famous whom I can’t remember, “What a li’l bitch.”
I feel obliged to point out the spelling should be “infinitesimal,” not “infantessimal,” though in a Palinesque way it actually works, given the nature of the guy you’re talking about.
Either way, you get bonus points for correct use of the pronoun “whom.”
mikeb needs to criticize others (however irrational his arguments) so to make himself feel better. He is using the cheapest tool available to deal with his low-life self. mikeb is a little boy morally and emotionally.
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to insult him in that manner. He’s clearly intelligent, articulate, and passionate about his cause, misguided as that may be.
What grounds do you have to suppose he is intelligent? He often says ridiculous things and knows almost nothing about US firearm laws or our constitution. I doubt he’s passionate about his cause: He took on the anti-gun shtick a few years ago, self-admittedly, when he discovered it generated lots of blog hits and camaraderie.
Who’s to say how much gun control is enough? Your definition of sensible gun control may be vastly different from somebody else’s. You give the government an inch, they take a mile. Why would you trust the government to tell you that they know exactly how much and what kind of gun control to administer? If you support lawmakers who favor gun control, you just gave them permission to limit my 2A rights.
I wish that every law abiding citizen would carry, and if you don’t want to, then don’t. I would not force you to. But you assume it’s ok for you to do the reverse to me. Why? I obey the law, but you support laws that are more and more repressive. Is that fair?
Mr Pierogie says:
“Who’s to say how much gun control is enough?”
The Constitution. And what it says is any is too much.
I can’t understand how some people seem to believe that that’s up for debate. If they want to deny us our God-given unalienable right to keep and bear arms, let them propose amending the Constitution. Until then, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
For the “It’s the miliiiiiiiiiiitiaaaaaaa” (to be said in that whiny “for the chiiiiillllldruuuuuuunnn” voice) crowd, let me explain. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is what’s called a subordinate clause. It doesn’t restrict the right of the people in the least. It explains, well at least cites, the reason why ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These are at least twofold:
Since the Militia comprise armed citizens, it’s necessary for the citizens to be armed.
When some tinpot sociopath declares martial law and sends the storm troopers to break down your door and toss your house looking for subversive materials, you can draw a bead on them and say, “Think again, Bucko!”
If MikeB302000 was ever attacked and humiliated for his property he would never tell anyone about it, because right then and there his arguments against the right of self defense, especially by firearm, would be conquered.
Good luck out there, Mike, it’s a dangerous world we live in.
Another opportunity to roast Mr. Michael Bonomo. I will resist the tempation to light another torch. However, I really wish either the said Mr. Bonomo and/or Robert would give us some real biographical information about him. He could be anyone from a unemployed 20 year old in his parents basement to mafiosa in the WITSEC program. Does he have job? Has he really commited felonies whether convicted or not? Is he RF’s evil twin brother? Come on Robert (or Mikey) give us the straight biography!
Actually we know exactly who Michael is, but posting documentation is not allowed on the site. He likes the anonymity of the internet because the details of his life are nothing he is proud of. Moralizing comments by a ne’er-do-well ex-criminal? It’s a bit Alice In Wonderland, isn’t it?
I’m sure Robert would be ok if Mr. Bonomo posted a general bio of his crimes for us to see. I’m not looking to talk to his version of Mary Shannon.
MikeyB, we all know that it’s not about the guns and never really has been, it’s about control. Here’s are a couple of quotes, personal favorites, on which you should ruminate;
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H. L. Mencken
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S. Lewis.
I suspect that Lewis’ theory would hold up just as well against impotent moral busy-bodies.
“I’m a gun-control advocate. How do you get ‘wannabe tyrant’ from that?” – mikeb302000
He’s just one of the many who want to force others to live a certain way to satisfy his irrational fears and biases. I mean it’s not as though the pro-guns are forcing everyone to own a gun, rather the pro-guns are just trying to defend their way of life from those who seek to encroach upon it. Also someone who forces the unwilling to accept a certain lifestyle can be referred to as a tyrant.
I probably have a much darker definition of Gun Control than what the T-shirt in the photo has written on it.
I have not really put my mind ot eloquence, but…
Gun Control- The act of the totalitarian control of the populace by eliminating their lethal weapons to challenge the governmental monopoly on violence and ensuring that only authoritarian elements have the necessary means to enslave their citizens.
Apparently Mikey has elevated trolling to an art form. 😉
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.