search
top

The Great 0.0000013%

The media doesn’t seem to want to let go of this story of threats of violence and broken windows in the wake of health care. It fits their narrative of the Tea Party and other various persons opposed a government takeover of health care being dangerous extremists, so why not hype it up? Conveniently ignored is the fact that there are just as many bozos on the left doing this stuff, and that have been doing this stuff, for years. Just be thankful it wasn’t a free trade agreement getting passed out of Congress!

But I also notice when the call goes out, the great three percent turns out to be the great 0.0000013%. That’s not enough people to have a decent game of baseball let alone enough to fight a revolution. I stand by my assertion that the entire movement is a way to remain emotionally satisfied while sitting on one’s posterior and doing nothing to actually help vote these bozos out of office, and keep voting them out of office until we start pushing back Leviathan.

69 Responses to “The Great 0.0000013%”

  1. Wolfwood says:

    And that’s a fortunate thing for us all, I think.

  2. Peter says:

    And what did you expect, Sebastian? Simply saying things makes you and a bunch others get all sweaty. I’ve read another blogger who promises to shoot Threepers, others declaiming that Mike V doesn’t represent them, etc.

    And have any of you realized that the window breakers might not have a blessed thing to do with the Threepers? No-one has been arrested yet, so nobody has any idea of the actual motivations. If you’ll remember the runup to the 2008 elections, there was that goofball young woman who faked a mugging at an ATM claiming it was because she was an O-gal, and the fella who broke a window in Denver, also an Obot.

    This could be 4 or 5 pissed people, could be some Threepers, and it could also be Democratically inspired agitprop. Mike might be claiming credit, and riding the publicity bus as far as it’ll take him, but nobody knows for sure. I don’t know for sure, and neither do you.

  3. Peter says:

    Sorry, hit the ‘say it’ button too soon.

    Yeah, I know that breaking windows is vandalism, and therefore illegal. Please don’t tell me something I already know.

    A lot more people than GunFolk came out clearly against this so-called health care reform, an unambiguous majority, and guess what? It got passed and signed anyway. Millions of words were written opposing this and it didn’t matter a bit.

    You want to know why there isn’t any serious move to reinstate the AWB? I assure you it wasn’t because of anything any of us wrote. It was the millions of guns that folks went out and bought that caught the Beltway’s attention.

    Talk is not only cheap, it’s worthless. Actions are what counts, and even though it’s only a few windows by persons as yet unknown, they’re listening. They’re spinning it like crazy, but someone, Threeper or not, has gotten their attention.

  4. Fred says:

    Huh, I quit reading you a year ago because I got sick of sanctimonious crap like this. Found you again on someone else’s blog roll, and came to see what I was missing. Nice to see you’re still fighting the good fight against the only friends you have in this thing.

  5. Guav says:

    The main difference between the crazies on the left and the crazies on the right is that the crazies on the left are not encouraged and whipped into a frenzy of anger by Democratic leaders and talking heads on TV, and Democrats don’t string them along and play into their delusions.

    But Republican elected officials and pundits have been busy telling their base for months that Obama is a communist, the healthcare bill is ARMAGEDDON, that it will literally destroy America, and that the Democrats are basically going to execute your grandmother.

    After hearing that for months from the leaders and news sources that they trust, some people come to believe it. And honestly, if someone truly believes that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenyonesia and is the actual antichrist, and the Democrats will destroy America—not incidentally but intentionally—and might very well put your grandparents to death, then really—violence is a perfectly reasonable response (if those things were true).

    There are certainly nuts on both sides, but one side is embarassed of them and ignores or condemns them, and the other side rallies and encourages them.

  6. mikeb302000 says:

    Please Sebastian, when you say stuff like this, your spinning and twisting tendencies are becoming too transparent.

    “Conveniently ignored is the fact that there are just as many bozos on the left doing this stuff,…”

    You can say that, and you can even get into a tit for tat kind of you-did-this and you-did-that backup to it, but I don’t think anyone seriously believes it. I just read a wonderful article, perhaps you saw it about Prof. Sherrilyn Ifill.

    http://www.gunguys.com/?p=3672

  7. Guav says:

    Good article. Wish it wasn’t on that ridiculous blog.

  8. Peter says:

    Mike,

    You’re kidding, right?

    Don’t ever confuse an intra-GunFolks argument with any sort of agreement with your bile.

    And using the GG’s as a source? Did you fall and hit your head?

    “You can say that, and you can even get into a tit for tat kind of you-did-this and you-did-that backup to it, but I don’t think anyone seriously believes it.”

    Considering the lies, distortions and make-believe that you and your fellow travelers regularly engage in, Sebastian was being more than kind. Quit while you’re ahead.

  9. MicroBalrog says:

    Professor Hill is clearly a professor of Law, not of History.

  10. Sebastian says:

    Where have Republican leaders encouraged people to throw bricks at Windows? That call came from a specific source. And Health Care is going to bankrupt the country. How is it not possible to see that? The only way this could end up deficit neutral is by shifting benefits out four years. Between the other entitlements about to go broke, and this, we’re going to be utterly screwed.

  11. Sebastian says:

    MikeB:

    Have you ever watched a G8 meeting, or a WTO meeting? There’s violence on the left too…sorry.

  12. Sebastian says:

    And have any of you realized that the window breakers might not have a blessed thing to do with the Threepers?

    I actually feel bad for those who adopt a label when others from that label misbehave. It was never really fair to smear the whole militia community with McVeigh either.

    The difference here is one of the self-proclaimed leaders of the label, and the person who coined the term, is the one claiming credit for this. So I would not say every threeper is a window breaking vandal. Obviously most of them are better behaved based on the results. But the call to action went out, and four people responded.

  13. mikeb302000 says:

    Sebastian, You’re absolutely right about the anti-global guys. Especially in Europe they’ve done frightening things. But if you think that compares to the righty violence in recent years, I have to disagree.

    But, don’t worry. It’ll become more and more clear.The way things are going we may have a bit more of that “blood in the streets” we’ve been hearing about for so long.

  14. Sebastian says:

    What righty violence has there been in recent years? This is the first I’ve heard of in a while.

  15. Guav says:

    Republican leaders DIDN’T tell anyone to break windows. But there is a direct relationship to the rhetoric of the Republicans in congress, right-wing leaders, the right-wing media at Fox and the various wingnut venues and talk radio and the recent uptick in threats and vandalism. You don’t have to trace it. You don’t have to wonder why some people are acting up this way. Sarah Palin is literally putting crosshairs on congresscritters and saying “DONT RETREAT. RELOAD!!!” Rep. Neugebauer screamed “baby killer” during Bart Stupak’s speech, and all of a sudden Bart Stupak’s voice mail and fax machine are overflowing with threats calling him a baby killer. Funny how that works. It does not take much effort to realize that the Republican leadership, both elected and unelected, have ramped up the rhetoric from the already fevered pitch, and the people are reacting.

    And that is my point about the HUGE difference between left wing violence–which is generally aimed at property anyway–and right wing violence, which is frequently aimed at people. The left wing nuts are not encouraged by Democratic leaders and their views are not aired approvingly on TV.

    There’s no way to have a civil debate with someone who wants to euthanize your grandmother because they hate America and want to destroy it. That’s why right wing crazies are telling people to throw bricks through windows, sending nooses and white powder to elected officials, cutting the gas lines at what they believe are representatives houses and ramming their SUVs into cars simply because they have an Obama bumper sticker. And you must know, in the back of your mind, that it’s only a matter if time before someone gets shot.

    The dishonest and over the top rhetoric that has been propogated by the Republicans is directly connected to this. The mainstream left and it’s leaders are embarassed of their fringe nuts. The mainstream right and it’s leaders egg theirs on and air their views on TV and in the halls of Congress, which is why comparisons of left wing crazies and right wing crazies as being pretty much the same is absurd.

  16. Sebastian says:

    I think that’s a lot of emotionally satisfying crap Guav. We’re embarrassed by our crazies just as much as the left is, and our leaders have been rightly condemning the window breakers and various other misbehaviors. See this from Glenn Reynolds to see what I mean. I couldn’t agree more with that.

    Human nature is human nature. No one is immune from it, and one side is not worse than the other. I do worry about someone getting shot. Truth be told I worry about worse than that too. That’s largely why I never embraced Vanderboegh as so many other gun bloggers have. I think he’s a stain on our movement.

  17. Guav says:

    Yes, Republican leaders probably ARE embarassed by the right crazies, but they have no compuntion about pretending they are not and playing along and encouraging them to try to harness their passion for electoral gains. And there are a handful of Republicans in Congress who ARE the crazies.

    And yes, NOW that the crazies are acting on the rhetoric they’ve been happy to promote for the last year, Republicans understandably want to distance themselves from the shitstorm of delusional insanity they’ve helped to create, because they probably also realize that someones gonna get fucking shot within the month.

  18. Patrick says:

    Sebastian,
    I think you are a bit off track here. First of all, Mike came up with a concept. One which really isn’t that far off from the Oathkeepers. The 3% refers to that part of the population who actually waged war on the king. As in fired shots. So while Mike told every one to break windows (and not having broken any himself), that doesn’t mean the “call went out”. Threepers are about overthrowing a tyrannical government, not throwing bricks. You can throw stones at our house but will you be there when it comes time to pick up the gun or will you still be dismissing everyone around you?

    You’ve really bothered me here with your insult throwing. I thought you were better than that. THIS Threeper is writing letters to both state and federal reps. Would you have rathered I picked up my rifle? I’m getting mixed messages from you.

  19. Sebastian says:

    Threepers are about overthrowing a tyrannical government, not throwing bricks.

    I can understand wanting to distance yourself from MVB, but whether you agree with his actions here or not, you’ve adopted the label he created and promotes. If other members want to join in and suggest he’s gone too far, I think that’s a great thing, but I haven’t seen too much of that.

    You can throw stones at our house but will you be there when it comes time to pick up the gun or will you still be dismissing everyone around you?

    I don’t think that should ever have to become necessary as long as the people can change their government through other means. If it comes to the United States dissolving through states leaving the union, should the union become intolerable, that I might support.

    You’ve really bothered me here with your insult throwing. I thought you were better than that. THIS Threeper is writing letters to both state and federal reps. Would you have rathered I picked up my rifle? I’m getting mixed messages from you.

    Not meaning to throw any insults. I’m pointing out that the number of people who think we’re headed toward revolution and are willing to act is unbelievably low, even when it’s a very low level of violence. Maybe that number creeps up if the government takes more drastic action, but right now it would appear to be very small.

    All they’ve done here is give ammunition to those who are trying to smear the entire Tea Party opposition movement as extremist. That doesn’t help anything. That makes me very angry, because I think this is the biggest positive movement for liberty I’ve seen in my lifetime. This might be our big chance.

    I’m glad you’re writing your reps. That’s certainly good. But when I say “involved” I mean more than that. The amount of commitment it takes to work (either by donating time or money) for a candidate is much much less than the commitment guys like MVB ask for when they tell people to start preparing for revolution.

    I’m willing to accept that perhaps Mike isn’t really the leader of this movement, and that it’s grown beyond him. I’d like to see more responsible leaders pick up the mantle and go with it. I don’t think it has to be negative. But right now that’s how I see it.

  20. Patrick says:

    Well, you will be happy to note that I have posted on his blog a question as to why we haven’t heard a window break in Alabama yet, as I do agree with most of my blogger friends (and I do count you one of them even if we don’t “chat”). His blog is moderated and my post hasn’t been posted but others were, so I assume he is not posting “that one” which in itself is quite telling. I posted it again to account for any technical issues and I’ll see where that goes. If he doesn’t answer, post it or otherwise, I will blog about it myself.

    Personally, I can’t denounce his actions as it did the attended thing. Windows got broke and although the “media” is reporting on it negatively and politicians are denouncing it, you got to believe they are talking privately about it. They would have been taking it more seriously if more had done it. None of his “members” are going to denounce him as they believe it is the right thing to do as well. They see this coming to blows and want to head it off at the pass if it is possible.

    Personally, as I have said, I’m not about breaking windows but I can see the point and possibly the need. It is about as non-violent as you get without sending a letter or a dollar to someone war chest. As Mike V. said, it was a warning before something worse happens. Will they listen? Maybe. Maybe not. They, of course, have to denounce it or it gives the act power.

    As for being active to funnel money or time in someone’s campaign, I’ve not yet found someone I feel is worthy in Ohio. The 2-party system leaves me jaded when another party has not chance to break the GOP/Dem vise-like grip. I vote against those two parties every chance I get for someone of a more Libertarian feel, but I expect to be disappointed as they won’t win.

    As for the threeper label, it might have been his coin, but I spend the currency as I see fit. It’s a label and he doesn’t “run” anything. I am not military or law enforcement so I can’t be a part of Oath Keepers who mean a lot to me as well. They should you too. Look up what they are about and tell me they are wrong. Labeling myself a threeper just means that should it come to that, count me in. I however will make the choice for myself, as will you, for when that time comes. I don’t march to MV any more than I march to you or Jay or Breda. I value all your input though. You have all brought a lot to my table and I consider everything you all write.

  21. mikeb302000 says:

    Does anyone else think it’s funny to talk of 3%ers and “window breakers” in the same discussion? I think most of the 3%ers are just a bunch of tough talkers, but the ones who are serious deserve respect. They talk of a noble effort, which in my opinion is misguided and paranoid, but is praiseworthy nonetheless. The suggestion to break window brings it down to the level of petty hooliganism. It becomes a joke.

  22. mikeb302000 says:

    Sebastian said, “What righty violence has there been in recent years? This is the first I’ve heard of in a while.”

    I suppose that means you’ve somehow disassociated from the right such incidents as the Holocaust Museum shooting and the killing of Dr. Tiller and the dozen or so other high profile murders over the last year or two. Don’t forget Jim Adkisson.

    If you’ve done that, you’ve gone beyond a little spinning for the cause.

  23. Sebastian says:

    The guy who shot up the holocaust museum was just crazy.

    Tiller would be an example of right-wing violence, yes. I didn’t think about that. Truth be told as a pro-choice person I tend to think of those people as not being on my side, but yeah, it’s a right issue, so my bad.

  24. Bob S. says:

    MikeB302000,

    I would have thought you would be all behind the window breakers.

    Here is a group of people breaking the law – like you did — while calling for people to respect their rights.

    Oh, I see the problem.

    You don’t want to respect people’s rights. You want to take away rights — such as the right to keep and bear arms — because the criminal actions of others.

    You post — repeatedly — on your blog stories of ‘gun violence’ and try to say we need to only address the gun part of the equation.

    In order to be consistent with the window breakers, you need to address how we are going to control the rocks or bricks that are being used — just ignore the fundamental restrictions of our rights that is underlying the violence.

    You are good at that.

  25. Patrick says:

    MikeB said “Does anyone else think it’s funny to talk of 3%ers and “window breakers” in the same discussion? I think most of the 3%ers are just a bunch of tough talkers, but the ones who are serious deserve respect.”

    See, it’s that kind of talk is why I think these window breakers feel the need to break windows. YOU think it’s a joke and a game. YOU think they are just a bunch of tough talkers so it is OK to continue to destroy the Constitution and this country because NOBODY will do anything about it. It is people like this that GOAD them on. And again, before anyone starts typing furiously, I don’t condone it, but I do understand it.

    Many people are angry and apparently some do not know how to stop this direction short of violence. Many Americans agree this is the wrong direction so this isn’t a case of a minority group not getting their way. Throw that excuse right out the window. This is not a bunch of children that got their binkie removed. These are angry Americans who have been taught honor, integrity, and know how this country was won in the first place.

    The biggest problem here is people who don’t take this seriously won’t until it is to late and the first shots have already been fired. Once that happens, it’s to late to go back.

    And you won’t win your case by telling them how horrible they are or how horrible the war will be or what they stand to lose. They feel they would be doing it for god and country which means more to them than anything else. By saving country, they secure a free state for their family but yet they are willing to take the chance of losing it all to save the country. You can’t talk people like that down. You cannot continue to be corrupt and expect more from them.

    Thank you for letting me continue to say my peace, Sebastian. While we disagree, it means a lot to me that you allow me to use your soapbox instead of my own. If you want me to take this to my own blog, I will. But the discussion is here and I do not mind carrying it on here.

  26. Sebastian says:

    I’ll actually join Patrick and say that those opposing the Obama/Pelosi agenda need to take the grievances seriously. A lot of the nonsense I’ve seen from the media and various other institutions is only going to make people angrier.

  27. Brad says:

    I wish MikeB302000, the resident of Italy, would keep his nose out of American affairs. He is a troll and a provocateur, peddling strife and conflict in America. Why anyone pays attention to his one man crusade against American gun rights is a mystery to me.

  28. Patrick says:

    Please do not make Sebastian shutdown this thread because of MikeB’s presence here. Feed a troll….. Just ignore Mike and continue with the discussion. It wouldn’t surprise me if that was his intent. Show up and get the conversation moderated because of others getting vocal of his actions.

  29. mikeb302000 says:

    Brad and Patrick, You’ve got me wrong and I don’t think Sebastian is about to “shutdown this thread because of MikeB’s presence.”

  30. Sebastian says:

    I very rarely shut down threads, for the record. Also very rarely remove comments, though I did in this thread because I will remove comments that could conceivably constitute a threat or incitement to violence.

  31. Bob S. says:

    Hmmm,

    Is it telling that Mikeb302000 does not say that I have him wrong?

    “You don’t want to respect people’s rights. You want to take away rights — such as the right to keep and bear arms — because the criminal actions of others.”

  32. Patrick says:

    @MikeB – I was talking to Bob S. and Brad who feel the need to deflect you every time you post because of your insane ability to stir the pot. Bob can’t help himself when you show up. I think you wear a cologne that drives us gun nuts crazy.

  33. Bob S. says:

    Patrick,

    I try not to feed the troll so much as identify the species to others.

    MikeB302000 can appear, at times — and actually be at times, a lucid and observant commenter.

    But in the end, his trollish nature does come out. I just take steps to point out how much of a troll he is and if that saves a few people from having to visit his site to figure it out, all the better.

  34. Guav says:

    I generally tend to not assign the name “troll” to someone simply because they are diametrically opposed to the topic of a specific blog and post a lot of contradictory comments.

    However, I do think that MikeB302000 actually is a troll when it comes to the gun discussion—not necessarily because of the comments he leaves here, but because I started reading his blog for a while, and became convinced that he posts those entries—filled with questions—as a lure to get us to go there and waste our time there. I think he already knows the answers to half the questions he asks, and don’t think he’s asking them in good faith just because he’s curious.

  35. Weer'd Beard says:

    Guav figgured it out. Yep MikeB302000 is a troll in the attention whore sense of the word. He wants to generate comments and attention to himself, and he’s very unconcerned about what people actually think of have to say.

    I had to ban him from my blog simply because he’d post an inane comment, it would generate 5-6 well thought-out discussion questions, and he would simply not respond back to own up to his claims. It was wasting my reader’s time so I did what I felt was necessary.

  36. Guav says:

    Yes, I forgot to mention that important part, because it’s exactly what made me realize he really is a troll—his refusal to actually engage in point by point discussion or debate of the responses he gets to the questions he asks. He’s clearly just trying to tie us up and waste our time.

  37. mikeb302000 says:

    Guav: “He’s clearly just trying to tie us up and waste our time.”

    That’s the trouble with a lot of people, not just gun owners, but many people. You’re passionate about your own ideas and you cannot stand the fact that someone doesn’t agree with you. Then you go into the mind-reading bit, sure that you know where the other guy’s coming from.

    Guav, you don’t like my leading questions that I already know the answer to, and based on that I’m a “troll?” So what’s that leave us with, Helmke and Sugarmann and the other major gun control guys are liars. I’m a “troll,” whatever you mean by that. (Sebastian did an exhaustive post on that very question once).

    Is there an example of a gun control voice that you respect. Is there one whose argument is presented in such a way that although you disagree, you have respect for him and his pocition and don’t feel compelled to do name calling and personal attacking?

    Or is such a thing not possible, and of course it wouldn’t be your shortcoming it would be his for makang such inane arguments in the first palce and for being so wrong? Is that it?

  38. Sebastian says:

    MikeB, what I found frustrating about you is the same thing I find frustrating about people on my own side of the issue. You don’t seem to realize that political struggle is a game. It’s all a game. Sure, there are some ground rules to the game, and some methods of play which work better than others, and still others that are generally against the rules or out of bounds if you want to play.

    The Brady folks play the game, the VPC plays the game, FSA (or whatever it is now) plays the game, and we play the game. What’s the goal of the game? To convince 218 Congressmen and 51 Senators to buy into your agenda, and now to get 5 out of 9 justices as well. The means to get there? Well, that’s the tricky part, and what we’ve been doing lately is more effective than what the Brady folks have been doing lately.

    My frustration with you, Mike, is that you’re not really playing the game. Or perhaps the game you’re playing really isn’t the same as the Brady folk. But you’re not alone. A lot of people on my side aren’t playing either.

  39. Bob S. says:

    What is important to MikeB302000?

    I’ll let his own words tell you

    I’ll make a deal with ya, Bob. You stop removing the link back to my blog when I comment, and I’ll come around more often.

    I’d really like to do it, but I just don’t feel completely welcome when you do that.

    http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=1720&cpage=1#comment-15060

    It isn’t discussing the issues. It isn’t reducing violence. It isn’t supporting people’s rights.

    It is simply traffic on his site.

    Doesn’t it appear that way to anyone else?

  40. Sebastian says:

    I think you guys spend way too much energy fussing about MikeB :)

  41. Guav says:

    “you cannot stand the fact that someone doesn’t agree with you.”

    Shows how well you know me—I love the fact that people disagree with me, because I enjoy discussing and debating things. If everyone agreed with me I’d be bored.

    That’s why I put your blog in my RSS reader in the first place, because you disagreed with me, because I wanted to discuss the topic with the opposition. But it soon became clear to me that it was completely one-sided—people will post long replies (some well formulated and thought out, some less so) addressing the points you raise or answering the questions you posed, only to be greeted with absolute silence. Every once in a while you’ll drop a one or two-sentence reply, usually just to ask another question for them to spend time answering, which you will then ignore.

    What I cannot stand about you is not that you disagree, but that you have absolutely zero interest in actually discussing or debating the topics you present in your blog, and won’t even defend your positions and propositions.

    That is what led me to believe that you don’t pose these arguments or questions in good faith; that you’re not truly interested in furthering your position or refuting ours—just in giving us the runaround and leading us on a wild goose chase to waste our time (which, I must say, is a completely valid tactic).

    Of course, I don’t read minds, so I could be wrong—maybe there is nothing nefarious or malicious about the fact that you refuse to engage in discussion with the people who you implore to discuss things with you. But if so, the fact remains that it’s a monumental waste of time for me to even bother reading it, let alone commenting.

    “Guav, you don’t like my leading questions that I already know the answer to, and based on that I’m a “troll?” “

    No. I like the questions. It’s based on the afore-mentioned behavior that I think you might just be a troll. Imagine attending a debate where, after the first person made their opening argument, they got up and walked out of the building. How could I take that seriously?

    “Is there one [gun control voice] whose argument is presented in such a way that although you disagree, you have respect for him and his position and don’t feel compelled to do name calling and personal attacking?”

    I used to blog quite heavily, and I would frequently get into very long debates with various people in my largely liberal readership on the gun topic—sometimes hundreds of comments in a thread. I respected (and liked) many of my adversaries—some of which were my “friends”—and I never resort to personal attacks or name-calling.

    I’ve never personally attacked you, and I didn’t refer to you as a “troll” as an insult (ghoul, ogre, goblin, troll) but rather as a current term used to describe someone who trolls for comments, as one trolls flea markets for bargains, or trolls for fish by pulling a lure or baited hook from a moving boat (which is where the term originated as it pertains to the Interscape Tubes).

    Personally, I don’t understand why Bob always brings up the “Mike owned illegal guns!” thing because to me, it’s totally irrelevant and I don’t care—pointing out that someone is a hypocrite doesn’t refute their argument—facts do. You could be an axe-murderer for all I care—either your arguments have merit or they do not. I’m interested in addressing and debating arguments, not the people who make them.

    But you, on the other hand, are not interested in debating them. So no, I don’t respect you as a voice for gun control. At the least the Brady Campaign, Protest Easy Guns, the Gun Guys, etc are honest about the fact that they’re not interested in debate by just not allowing any at all.

  42. Weer'd Beard says:

    “I think you guys spend way too much energy fussing about MikeB :)”

    We would be if bloggers like MikeB302000 weren’t so predictable.
    http://anothergunblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/sad-but-predictable.html

    Much like the gun packed to stop a mugger, might just as easily be used to stop a charging pitt-bull. pointing out the oddities that Make MikeB302000 tick often are shared by others like him.

    At least that’s why I do it!

    Well that and it’s fun! Who’s gonna argue with fun?

  43. Bob S. says:

    Sebastian,

    Isn’t you who points out this is a game?

    Mikeb302000 has a game plan — in my opinion — to deprive us of our rights.

    He sounds sincere to the casual reader and raises some good points. But he also trolls for hits on his blog, refuses to discuss the issue in good faith, lies, deletes comments that uses his logic against him (try getting a comment approved on his moderated blog that asks him about his shared responsibility for child pron) and on and on.

    If allowed to go unchecked, people who have not researched the issue could be swayed by his rhetoric.

    Aren’t you the one who recommends a pragmatic approach, an incremental approach?

    By answering his comments — when ever and where ever he makes them — we are showing folks what behavior to expect from him.

    Do you not think it is a little hypocritical of him to question current gun owners about how the store their firearms yet refuse to discuss how he stored his legally owned firearms?

    I asked that question on your blog and he refused to answer. Shouldn’t people who advocate the restriction of our rights be shown for the hypocrites they are?

    Be it too much time or not, isn’t it part of the game you advocate?

  44. Sebastian says:

    Mikeb302000 has a game plan — in my opinion — to deprive us of our rights.

    I don’t think that’s his game plan at all. I think his agenda is something else entirely.

  45. Guav says:

    Oh, and one more thing—I don’t know if you’ve noticed Mike, but I probably don’t agree with Sebastian on a whole lot of things besides firearms (this post being a perfect example), and in general you and I are probably closer politically on most other issues, but I like and respect Sebastian just fine because I believe he argues his position in good faith even when I disagree with him completely. And I’m sorry, but I just don’t get that feeling from your blog at all.

    My point is that it’s quite obvious that simple disagreement does not upset me, nor do I characterize any contradictory opinion as trolling.

  46. Sebastian says:

    Bob:

    I agree with engagement, and I have no issue with engaging MikeB and refuting him. But he’s not much interested in being refuted, or refuting.

    Ultimately I don’t care much about whether MikeB is a criminal, or a hypocrite. The guy is just some dude who blogs on the Internet. If you guys want to refute his points in his comments so others can see who the reasonable party is, knock yourself out. That’s a productive endeavor. But I get the impression this is becoming more about MikeB than his ideas.

  47. Guav says:

    Do you not think it is a little hypocritical of him to question current gun owners about how the store their firearms yet refuse to discuss how he stored his legally owned firearms?


    Hypocritical? Yes. Relevant? No.

    Actually, even as it pertains to hypocrisy, maybe the answer is no. So between 1970 and 1985, when still very young, he possessed firearms illegally—before he even held the anti-gun positions he currently espouses. That’s not actually hypocritical at all as far as I’m concerned.

    When I was 17, I drank, smoked weed and ate meat. I’m 37 now and do none of those things. Am I hypocrite? Should anything I say on the topic of vegetarianism or clean living be dismissed, or should the merits (or lack thereof) of what I am saying be assessed and addressed?

    I think the emphasis should be on the arguments, not the person making them.

  48. Guav says:

    And don’t get me wrong Bob—it would be quite hypocritical if Mike currently owned illegal guns, and it would be relevant in that it’s hard to take arguments seriously from people who don’t live the values they espouse (although I still wouldn’t use that as a replacement for refuting the argument or and excuse to dismiss it offhand, just as a supplement—kind of a P.S. :)

    But I really just can’t manage to give a shit that he had an illegal gun in 1970 when he was 17.

  49. Bob S. says:

    Guav,

    If that was the only thing MikeB302000 was hypocritical on it wouldn’t be a big deal.

    But the list is long and growing.

    How about moderating comments on his blog, then complaining because others don’t link to his blog.

    How about asking questions about how firearms are stored and then refusing to answer questions about how he stored his firearms.

    How about inquiring about our supposed illegal activities and then not being willing to talk about his confessed illegal activities.

    In part, Sebastian is right …. this is partly about MikeB302000 but it is that way because of what me portrays himself to be.

    Pointing out that not just his ideas are flawed — I mean come on let’s face it if the government can’t stop the flow of illegal drugs what makes anyone think they can stop the flow of ‘illegal’ guns — but that his approach is a shame.

    I don’t particularly care that he illegally owned a firearm decades back but isn’t it a relevant question to determine how he purchased that firearm and how the laws he advocates would prevent someone else from doing the same?

    A question that he still refuses to discuss.

  50. Sebastian says:

    A question that he still refuses to discuss.

    I have a theory as to why he refuses to discuss it. Because it drives you nuts that he won’t discuss it. I view MikeB as a kid with an antfarm. What do kids do with antfarms? They shake the hell out of them every once in a while and watch the creatures inside scurry to preserve their fragile, pointless existence. We’re the ants.

  51. Guav says:

    How about moderating comments on his blog, then complaining because others don’t link to his blog.

    Hypocritical.

    How about asking questions about how firearms are stored and then refusing to answer questions about how he stored his firearms.

    Not hypocritical or relevant. Just as nobody is under any obligation to answer his question, he’s not obligated to answer ours.

    How about inquiring about our supposed illegal activities and then not being willing to talk about his confessed illegal activities.

    Well, nobody who is smart is going to give any specifics about anything illegal they may have done in the past or may be currently doing on the internet, to strangers—especially ones that are adversaries. That goes for the people he asks too. The fact that he doesn’t take the bait no matter how many times the worm is dangled in front of him just means he’s not a complete fucking idiot :)

    I don’t particularly care that he illegally owned a firearm decades back but isn’t it a relevant question to determine how he purchased that firearm and how the laws he advocates would prevent someone else from doing the same?

    That is a perfectly valid and relevant question when posed like that. But we don’t actually even need to know the specifics of what he did to ask it, and yes, he should be able to answer that in general terms without incriminating himself. The fact that he doesn’t probably just means that he realizes you’re right on that point.

    But I feel like more often than not his admission is brought up as a way to bludgeon or smear him as a debate tactic itself, and I’m not sure how accurate it is for some of you to constantly refer to him as a “criminal,” unless we have evidence that he currently engages in unlawful behavior.

  52. Bob S. says:

    Guav,

    Is Roman Polanski any less of a scum bag because he sexually assaulted a young girl 30 something year ago?

    Again, I’ll confess that pointing out MikeB302000’s issue is part attacking the messenger however it is also part attacking the problem.

    We have a person who admitted — not something we found out about and posted — but admitted on his own blog that he illegally owned firearms.

    As far as not talking about the details, I’m going to call bunk. There are many ways of expressing what was done without outright admitting it “If I was to have broken the, it might have been done this way”.

    Or he could just outright admit it, the general statute of limitations for crimes in New Jersey (where I believe the crime happened) is 5 years. Prosecutors bargain down and throw out gun charges all the time, does anyone really think they would go after some guy supposedly living in Italy after all this time??

    Of course, this is the same person who calls questions our honesty when I and others state that we have not illegally owned a firearm. — It gets back to the values in which a person lives his life.

    Kinda like Rosie O’Donnell calling for gun control laws while retaining private armed security — does that affect how believable the message is?

    Time and Time again, we fail to call gun control advocates on their lies – we end up fighting the issue on their terms.

    If they lie about blood in the streets, no one has a problem calling them on that, right?

    If they lie about the permitting process not being onerous in Washington D.C., no one has a problem calling them on that right?

    So, why not call people on the other lies they say.
    Sebastian says that dirty tricks and politics are acceptable in the defense of our rights.

    Is showing the true character and moral fiber (or lack there of) a strident gun control advocate fair game?

    That

  53. Patrick says:

    Yeah, Mike lost me when he asked the thread if we had ever done anything illegal pertaining to guns and when I said “no”, flat out called me a liar because someone ELSE said that gun laws were so difficult that nobody could “not” be illegal at one time or another. I would have to snort cocaine to even understand that rationale. Because of that and his general combative nature with others, he could be dying of thirst in a desert and I wouldn’t piss in his throat.

    Anyway, since this thread has derailed as I assumed it would, I’m done with it. Thanks guys.

  54. Guav says:

    Is Roman Polanski any less of a scum bag because he sexually assaulted a young girl 30 something year ago?

    I don’t find that to be a terribly compelling analogy. First of all, Polanski was a full grown adult at the time of the crime, not a minor. Secondly, his crime—which was much more serious than Mike’s—had a victim: he anally raped a 14 year old girl. On top of all that, he refused to take responsibility for what he had done by fleeing the country and remaining a fugitive from our justice system for 30 years, so I would say it’s completely accurate to refer to Polanski as a criminal in the present tense.

    Or he could just outright admit it

    Sure he could. Or he could keep fucking with you by ignoring you.

    Of course, this is the same person who calls questions our honesty when I and others state that we have not illegally owned a firearm.

    Let him. If it’s just wild speculation with no evidence to support the accusation, then he looks like the asshole.

    Kinda like Rosie O’Donnell calling for gun control laws while retaining private armed security — does that affect how believable the message is?

    Yes, because O’Donnell’s hypocrisy is current and ongoing. That absolutely effects her argument and should be brought up in any discussion concerning her views. But if Mike had a gun illegally before he was anti-gun, then he was never even hypocritical at all as it pertains to that. It’s only useful to ask him how any gun laws would have stopped him from storing a gun illegally.

    Time and Time again, we fail to call gun control advocates on their lies – we end up fighting the issue on their terms.

    And we’re still winning!

    If they lie about blood in the streets, no one has a problem calling them on that, right?

    I never said you shouldn’t call people on specific lies.

    Sebastian says that dirty tricks and politics are acceptable in the defense of our rights.

    I would disagree with Sebastian on that. In my view, the more dirty and dishonest you have to be to win, the flimsier your position probably is. Compelling arguments backed by evidence and facts have less need for that. If you have to lie to win, then your case is weak. Furthermore, if you think that shit is acceptable, then you’re not in any position to complain when your opponents utilize them. Personally, I like having the moral high ground.

    Is showing the true character and moral fiber (or lack there of) a strident gun control advocate fair game?

    YES! Absolutely.

    I just don’t think the actions of a 17 year old kid in 1970 is evidence of that person’s “true character” or tells us the first thing about his moral fiber as an adult in 2010.

  55. Weer'd Beard says:

    My personal stance is that the real issue with MikeB302000’s criminal ownership is how this flies in the face of everything he calls for. He wants stricter gun laws to limit the acts of criminals. We point out that criminals walk right through laws and do what they will. He’s living proof, no matter what the circumstance of his criminal behaviors.

    He talks about “Shared Responsibility” essentially claiming that lawful gun owners should be punished for the deeds of criminals because if it wasn’t for us, somehow the criminals wouldn’t exist (quite the whopper logical fallacy that is to begin with), but yet he admits to owning guns outside the law. Where did they go when he moved to Rome? Without the circumstances of his ownership and laws violated, hard to say. But there’s a damn good chance that if Mike didn’t commit violent acts with his guns under his ownership, they were likely disposed of on the black market where they likely WERE used violently. Yet he claims to be exempted and above the personal responsibility.

    He talks about 10% of all gun owners being ill suited for it and dangerous. Its a bullshit post, but wouldn’t he be part of the 10%?

    Mike asks how 2nd Amendment supporters could be against “Common Sense gun control”, and my short response is because of people like him.

    So that’s the crux of the relevance of Mike’s past, and while I feel it’s worth repeating. Its simply a statement in his own words that directly contradicts most things he proposes.

    Oh and on a side note, you blog, Guav, often leaves me SPITTING mad, you’re such a left-wing commie (heh), but I do greatly enjoy reading it because you’ve come by your beliefs honestly, and I know that if I have a rebuttal to give, you’ll be back in good time with an honest response. You’re living proof why there are two parties. Neither side can be 100% correct otherwise there would be only one. Its like the Chevy fans vs. the Ford fans. If there was actually THAT much difference between the two there would be only one. (tho one is now owned by the Government, and being a Ford driver, that I gloat! ; ] )

    For Bob, I gotta agree with Sebastian on this one. I don’t think Mike gives two flaming shits about guns, gun rights, violent crime, gun control laws, or even odd topics he also comments on like Vegetarianism, commercial farming or capital punishment.

    MikeB302000 shows all the signs of a clinical narcissist, so the only thing that he cares about (at least to the online world) is MikeB302000. So he wants blog hits on his site meter, and he wants to stir up big poop-storms like this in comment sections, and he wants it all to have links back to his blog so he can have more people to fuck with and more site-meter hits.

    I overall try to avoid his blog, and have personally banned him from my blog because of his trolling activities, but I do rather enjoy these little tussles and discussions, and he does supply some very incriminating blog fodder in these mindless comments, so I am not strong enough to ignore blog comments.

    I can justify this by pointing out that I was once fooled by his innocent facade, and he had me going for a damn long time as he feigned ignorance and good-nature. So I could claim I’m here to warn those not familiar with his antics. Tho frankly his moderated comment section filled with the vitriol of the likes of Jadegold and Laci the Dog’s owner (other textbook narcissists) its not hard to see that its yet another partisan hate site on the internet.

    That’s how I see it. Any suggestions from you, Sebastian?

  56. mikeb302000 says:

    Sebastian, It was a few of the other commenters who turned this thread into a Mikeb discussion, but I’d be lying if I said I don’t enjoy it. And you can ask Weer’d and Bob, I never lie.

    Guav, Your description of how I run my blog, asking provocative questions and then abandoning the thread is not very accurate. Maybe that’s happened but it’s not the general rule. I do try to avoid that tit for tat excessively petty bickering, but to say I don’t engage and then to decide I’m a “troll” as a result, is just not right.

    In fact, not only do I engage in debate over there but I even admit when I’m convinced about something. For example the idea that the NJ one-gun-a-month law was bullshit because they already had so many hoops to jump through that nobody could buy more than one a month anyway, I accepted that after some back and forth. Same with the exaggerated claim that 90% of Mexican guns coming from the States and the definition of assault weapon being the big problem with the AWB. Those are all examples of things I’ve learned from the pro-gun bloggers I’ve argued with.

    So, please come and give us another look, man. I appreciate very much what you said to the other guys about their over-the-top personal attacking. And I agree with you about Sebastian. I like his style too.

  57. Weer'd Beard says:

    100% truth-free. But nice try, Mike!

  58. Guav says:

    Guav, Your description of how I run my blog, asking provocative questions and then abandoning the thread is not very accurate.

    Bullshit, Mike.

    Maybe that’s happened but it’s not the general rule.

    No, it really is the general rule, and all one has to do is go to your blog and look how rarely you show up in the comments. You barely ever respond to any substantial comment that someone has taken the time to write. On the rare occasions you do leave a comment, it’s usually a couple of sentences—frequently just including more questions for them to answer, which you then ignore—and half the time it’s just to agree with a pro-gun control commenter. But more often than not, you don’t acknowledge that anyone has said anything at all—you’re just not there.

    Or, for example, here, where I leave three separate comments—one addressing your original post, and—since you ignored that—two addressing a comment that you left someone else (a rare occurance). The only acknowledgement you give that I actually said anything at all is to quote me to Bob saying something that bolstered your position, but completely disregarding anything else that I said about the actual topic. You do leave a substantial comment after that, but it’s just pertaining to you and Bob’s never-ending pissing contest.

    I used those examples because they are all from the time frame that I was reading your blog. Perusing the other posts from that time, it’s plain to see that you often don’t reply to any of the comments people leave you. And looking at your recent entries, nothing has changed.

    I do try to avoid that tit for tat excessively petty bickering …

    “Tit for tat bickering” is what you and Bob do, and you’re perfectly happy to engage in that, apparently. What I am talking about is “point by point debate.” This you avoid.

    … but to say I don’t engage and then to decide I’m a “troll” as a result, is just not right.

    You don’t engage, and my decision that you’re just baiting everyone is not “right” or “wrong,” it’s my opinion and will remain my opinion unless I see evidence to the contrary.

    So, please come and give us another look, man.

    Uhm, no. If I want to talk to myself, I don’t need to go to your blog to do it.

  59. Patrick says:

    I can’t believe I’m going to post on this thread again but Guav has said something that I believe needs set straight. Mike said he was 17 when he went into the Marines and didn’t have to go to Vietnam. When he got out (we can assume that he was 21 or so when he got out of the Marines), he owned guns legally and illegally for about 15 years. Those are words from his mouth. So I’m going to say that from the his words, he owned guns, legally and illegally, from 21 to 36 years of age. Hardly the minor you keep pointing him out to be.

    And it is relevant when you consider the arguments that he comes up with for others to point out that he is being a hypocrite. That is all Linoge, Bob, and Weer’d have done is point out his hypocrisy. I just wish they hadn’t done it on this thread since they have so many others. They do spend way to much energy on him but it’s their energy so more power to them. Mike made his bed. I find it humorous that he continues to point out that they have targeted him like nobody else can see that. Unfortunately for him, we also know why. I would not call it “unfair”.

  60. Patrick says:

    Guav,
    A) How are you quoting? and
    “Uhm, no. If I want to talk to myself, I don’t need to go to your blog to do it.”
    B) Laughed my ass off

  61. Guav says:

    Patrick, your clarification is important, thank you. If he wasn’t anti-gun at the time, I still don’t believe it makes him a hypocrite—we all change our views over time, sometimes specifically as a result of things we have done ourselves—but it certainly can’t simply be filed under “youthful indiscretion” as I have been doing.

    However, since he’s clearly said (to Bob, for example, in the thread I linked to above) that he has absolutely no intention of ever providing any more information about it, then continuing to ask him for more details is a monumental waste of time.

    You can quote something by using these HTML tags before and after the portion you want to quote:

    <blockquote> Quoted text here </blockquote>

  62. mikeb302000 says:

    Weer’d the psychiatrist said, “MikeB302000 shows all the signs of a clinical narcissist.” Which is really funny because I just had a new idea reading Guav’s forceful insistence that I don’t comment on my own arguments. I wondered if in the short time he was visiting my blog I inadvertently ignored him and a furious indignation ensued. I could easily provide examples of comment threads on which I participated, but I hate that tit-for-tat shit and won’t be sucked into it. I usually just say what’s what, as I see it, and if someone wants to prove me a liar by picking and choosing examples like Guav did, I honestly don’t have the energy or inclination to respond.

    Anyway, let me assure you I’m not saying stuff I don’t believe just to stir you up and I’m not just trolling for traffic. I believe guns are a big problem and that you guys are part of that problem. I believe the 2nd Amendment has been distorted through the years into something unrecognizable and that god hasn’t given you the right to own guns any more than he’s given you the right to own screwdrivers.

    Believe it or not, as much as I like all the attention, I really prefer discussing the issues. Most of what we have here is personal attacking, nothing more.

  63. Sebastian says:

    The comments accept HTML tags, though if you add a link, the spam filter is likely to catch it.

  64. Bob S. says:

    MikeB302000,

    I believe guns are a big problem and that you guys are part of that problem.

    So, then you won’t mind presenting some evidence that we are part of the problem, eh?

    I’m sure you can show were the vast majority of crime is caused by those that hold firearm ownership licenses or firearm carry permits, right?

    I’m sure you can show where the vast majority of firearms used in crimes were sold by law abiding private citizens to criminals, right?

    I’m sure you can also show how the laws you advocate so often would stop or reduce crime right?

    You want to talk about the issues, let’s talk about them. Not just post story after story and say that “this would solve the problem”. Show us how your ideas would solve the problem.

    I have personally invited you multiple times to a straight up debate of the issues.

    I’ll repeat that again — I’ll even let you pick the topics — what do you say — 3 to 5 topics and we both present our information, ideas and supporting evidence.

    You post on your blog — so you can control the comments — and I’ll post on my blog. Or I’ll host the entire thing if you are unwilling to deal with the comments. You can email me your post and make sure that I post it word for word.

    What do you say Champ, do you really want to debate the issue or not?

  65. Weer'd Beard says:

    I’d say Guav’s comments are pretty solid. And if anybody wants to venture into your blog for further data they’ll find his assertions to be very consistent.

    I’ll respectfully request people not go to your blog, as you’re a troll and that would be feeding you.

    I will also admit that my extending this thread I too am feeding the troll, just in a medium more widely read then your blog, and one you do not moderate to control the narrative.

  66. Guav says:

    mikeb302000 the psychiatrist said,

    I just had a new idea reading Guav’s forceful insistence that I don’t comment on my own arguments. I wondered if in the short time he was visiting my blog I inadvertently ignored him and a furious indignation ensued.

    Not at all. I was just bored. When you didn’t address any of my comments, and I noticed that you hardly ever responded to anyone else’s either, I realized that it’s not your “thing.” And hey, that’s fine—your blog, you can do whatever you want in it. But you have to understand how I find that totally and completely uninteresting, not to mention a pointless waste of time.

    I could easily provide examples of comment threads on which I participated

    I don’t doubt that in the 1,565 entries you’ve made over three years there are probably a number of entries where you may have actually engaged your commenters. My contention is not that you never, ever engage in debate—which you call “tit for tat bickering”—just that you don’t do it at nearly a significant enough ratio for me to spend my time writing you comments in the hope that you might bother to drop me a few sentences every tenth comment or something haha

    When I blogged regularly, anyone who asked me a direct question or posted a rebuttal or opposing viewpoint got a reply—if they wanted to keep discussing it, I would keep discussing it and defending my position. Sometimes they would learn something or concede that I was right, sometimes I would learn something and concede that they were right. But the point is, we often got somewhere.

    There’s nowhere for me to go on your blog.

    Anyway, let me assure you I’m not saying stuff I don’t believe just to stir you up and I’m not just trolling for traffic.

    Fine, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take that as face value. Still doesn’t make me want to read your blog, because if I’m looking for a discussion, I have much more dependable places to go for them. Sorry dood.

  67. Weer'd Beard says:

    Mikeb302000 is too busy “Debating the Issue” (that a quick look at his comment section of any post shows he isn’t doing) that he’s too busy to really debate the issues.

    Sounds to me like somebody is a liar! ; ]

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Mike Vanderboegh Does Not Respond - Where Angels Fear To Tread - [...] I told Sebastian here that I had posted to Mike’s blog with a single question.  “Why haven’t we heard…
  2. 3 Boxes of BS » Blog Archive » Not a Joke — Open Debate Challenge - [...] Believe it or not, as much as I like all the attention, I really prefer discussing the issues. [...]
  3. 3 Boxes of BS » Blog Archive » MikeB302000 responds - [...] Hmm, I think that Guav answered this portion quite well here [...]
top