Uncle. TTAG’s Armed Intelligentisa has spoken: I can’t write a post quoting MikeB302000’s opinions on gun control without it becoming about MikeB302000. The posts antagonize TTAG commentariat, raise false charges of page view pandering and I simply can’t delete the flames fast enough. So . . . that’s that then. While MikeB302000 is welcome to post comment hereabouts without fear of flames, I will no longer “feed the troll.” As for the pic above, it’s incendiary because God damn, she’s hot. Trigger and muzzle discipline? Stone cold. But you can’t always get what you want. Mike. [NB: I’ve deleted ALL the comments under this post so y’all can start fresh. I apologize to those of you who answered the original Question of the Day. Many with extreme eloquence and insight. Feel free to discuss this decision without fear of deletion. Within reason.]

43 Responses to Incendiary Image of the Day: This Used to Be A QOTD About Mike B Edition

  1. Mikeyb. What more needs to be said. Mikeyb does more for the gun owners in this country by simply being mikeyb than the NRA does. And this guy is so full on bat shit crazy he actually thinks he’s winning converts and influencing people to his way.

    RF’s pro gun site gets what, close to 900,000 hits a month? And mikeyb’s anti gun site gets what, even with his constant trolling here?

    Now Illinois is getting bitch slapped by the federal court. We’re winning this war to restore our civil rights and it’s causing people like mikeyb and hmmmmm to bleed out their eyes at the thought of it.

    And really RF, am I the only one getting bored with these two? We need a better quality of troll on this site. Helps to keep us sharp.

    • 100% agree. Especially the last remarks. We deserve some quality trolls. Let’s start with the one in the picture and work our way up…………

    • Well MikeyBumbers is entitled to his opinion, but to be honest it seems to get old. Illinois took a big step. Hopefully it will go a full 180 days and become constitutional carry. I believe someone had mentioned that it could if no legislation is reached. Wouldn’t that be a hoot. Going from Chicago’s ban too Constitutional carry.
      Just look at the reaction to the Oregon shooting. While some media, or groups like ceasefire are calling it a massacre or something else, the officials at least are calling like they see it. They were quick to point out that the shooter in fact stole the weapon. The appropriately labeled the clothing and firearms involved. That right there shows the intelligence they are showing, and their overall opinion.
      This country is getting back to it’s freedoms again. Slowly…
      NYC, CA, and other liberal strongholds will be the last to go, but they are going…

  2. I’ve learned in my years that the best way to win an argument is not to talk back, but to ask the right questions, starting with the most basic ones.

  3. Bravo, RF. There is a difference between allowing someone their voice and giving them their voice, and I believe this decision brings you down on the right side of that line.

    Now, on the topic of the photo above… Someone made mention in one of the now-deleted comments about some special significance to the bracelet on her wrist, but it means nothing to me. Would someone mind educating me?

    Also, I clicked through to the source of that photo, and I’d just like to say “I <3 Michelle Viscusi."

  4. I agree that there are irresponsible people who need to be held accountable for their actions but we all cannot be forced to give up our rights because of them.

    However, with the current state of law, I feel that the mentally ill are the only people who should not have the right to keep and bear arms, period. Right now government supports the mentally ill choosing not to take their medication to keep from infringing on their right of freedom. On the flipside, how is this supporting my right to not be mauled or shot out in the street? I think that they should be forced to be treated for their conditions, and regularly checked to make sure they are taking their medication when they get out of the mental hospital.

    My dad and I have been talking about this for a while. Dad worked in a psych ward of a hospital for five years, and brawls weren’t an uncommon thing. People would just snap all of the sudden, and start throwing punches left and right. My dad once temporarily paralyzed a man with a hard slug to the spine; and the same man, now medicated, felt terrible about the incident, apologized to my dad and said he didn’t know what he was doing. They are prisoners of their mind without their medication. There is no freedom for them without medication, and not making them take it is not only putting them through their own personal hell, but endangering everybody around them.

    (Sorry for bringing this topic back up but I felt this had to be discussed)

    • I have to respectfully disagree.
      I’m sure there is a portion of the population who:
      “Are prisoners of their mind without their medication.”
      However, I take issue with your statement:
      “There is no freedom for them without medication, and not making them take it is not only putting them through their own personal hell, but endangering everybody around them.”
      They have the freedom to choose not to take their meds and live with the consequences. I simply can’t abide the thought of giving the government a mandate to decide who needs to be on medication and who doesn’t and then enforce that mandate. In theory, the truly ill would be helped and no harm would be done. In practice though, I can’t see such a plan ending well for anyone.
      Who decides what illness is severe enough to require such enforcement? Who decides which citizens are no longer competent to make their own medical choices and need to have the government choose for them?
      Our current system is imperfect. The issue being that I see your suggested policy as benefiting a few while negatively impacting many more.
      Freedom to me is the right to live in whatever self-destructive or beneficial manner you choose, save that it not impede anyone else from doing the same. It is also the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law. If a person is so badly impaired that they violate those rules then they should be confined and treated humanely and with dignity until either their debt to society is paid or they are judged mentally capable of taking responsibility for their own actions.
      As with most such issues, YMMV.

        • Thanks.
          and to answer your question, there can’t.
          Freedom to only make the right decision isn’t freedom.

    • I’m about 99% certain that one of the legal consequences of involuntary commitment to a mental institution is the loss of the right to own firearms.

  5. RF..I commend you for your decision. Whether anyone else likes it it is your decision and I respect that.
    As far as MikeyB is concerned he does a lot for us whether he realizes it or not!!

  6. In theory I like mikeb in that he raises counterarguments and debate. In practice however, his counterarguments are pathetically weak and unsupported, so in that respect he is a disappointment.

  7. Robert, I guess you gotta do what you gotta do. I appreciate the tolerance you’ve always shown me and I appreciate whatever amount you show me in the future. I think my more enthusiastic detractors around here are not representative of the readership, but you know the old saying – the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

    • Don’t fall for it Robert…he continues to kiss your butt here, only to get the chance to continue to spew his unintelligent, overly-biased and insulting anti gun rhetoric (in a way that is disrespectful to a majority of your readers – responsible gun owners).

      You know what they also say Mikeb – “Your hypocrisy insults my intelligence.” How about – ““He loves a witch hunt as long as it’s someone else’s witch being hunted.” Lastly, ““… the worst possible heritage to leave: high moral or spiritual pretensions and low performance.”

        • I’m sure you were sincere in saying that you appreciate the opportunity to spew your anti-gun rhetoric in a place that will get the biggest rise…feeds your own internet ego. I don’t however think I “got you all wrong”. It’s the continued anti-gun, moral high ground you try to substantiate in a fervently biased way (with incorrect facts/figures/assumptions) that I find hypocritical and insulting. Lastly, most people would clearly state their opposing position towards a body of people (who are gathered in support of a particular site’s topic) AND THEN MOVE ON. Mike, we get it. We know your positions on all of the subjects this site covers. Your rhetoric and presence is getting old.

        • I enjoy debating you over at your blog, so I can only welcome your presence here. Ideas must be able to stand up to scrutiny. I do wish you’d engage the points that we make more often, rather than dismissing them or questioning the psychology of the person making them.

    • I’d enjoy debating some good pro-gun control arguments. They do in fact exist. I don’t agree that they are better than arguments against, but the quality of the argument is separate from whether or not it is the best argument.

    • “I think my more enthusiastic detractors around here are not representative of the readership”

      You are SO out of touch it’s laughable.

    • “I think my more enthusiastic detractors around here are not representative of the readership…”

      I think your more enthusiastic detractors simply comprise a small subset of the very large class of “people who disagree with mikeb but have given up on trying to talk to him.” Of course, I have no numbers to back up my theory, but I suppose that puts us on equal footing.

  8. “I think my more enthusiastic detractors around here are not representative of the readership”

    Um, OK. Yet one more argument that presented with no factual basis. M#, along with most antis, does not want to have a legitimate discussion about guns. He and his ilk want you to accept gun control (aka disarmament) based on “facts” and figures created apparently out of thin air, easily refuted with hard data found in multiple places. A lot of which was created by people who are not “pro-gun” in any sense (Adam Winkler, the US DOJ).

    Any, WRT the pic, I’d have to say her CCW guns are definitely printing!

  9. Becoming about MikeB seems to be his intent, and like Charlie Brown, we can not resist trying to kick the football. But, being fair, within civilized boundaries, is a good thing. An opposing view does not necessarily mean opposition to a principle. Comments, when trying to be brief, can look more like bumper stickers. Don’t depress the button. It already feels bad enough.

Leave a Reply

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