2008 Idiotic Commenters Review #2
I think we all know this guy was a shoe in:
I bring you Mike W. I hate to pick on a handicapped kid, but in the age of equality it is open season on this freak. There are litterally hundreds of comments from this tool/troll. 1463 to be exact, and that doesn’t include the ones that were blocked. That was just from July of 2008!
Mike W. was the first person we “banned” after giving him a time out. There some serious internal debate about what to do with Mike. I even said we should just ignore him. But the little fella didn’t know when to quit so, we had to quit Mike W. Here are just a few of his most idiotic comments and believe me, there are tons.
Ladies and Gentlemen we now present you with “Murderboy’s” best:
The comment that I believe started it all….
Submitted on 2008/07/09 at 10:54am
Americans have inherent and inalienable rights. The right to keep & bear arms is one such right. Everyone should be able to excercise their 2nd Amendment rights unless the government has proven, through due process, that the rights of a certain individual should be restricted.
Submitted on 2008/07/09 at 11:33am
Dana- Go ahead and repeal the 2nd Amendment. (let’s hypothetically assume there are enough votes to do so.) You are apparently ignorant of the concept of Constitutional Rights.Repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t make it go away anymore than repealing the rest of the Bill of Rights would allow the government to kick in my door and rob, beat, imprison and torture me with impunity. The 2nd Amendment is inherent and inalienable just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Words on ink & parchment don’t “grant” me the right to keep & bear arms, they merely codify a pre-existing right. My rights, all of them, exist independent of the Constitution.
Submitted on 2008/07/10 at 2:54pm
Right, and what stops the government from ignoring the rest of the BOR? Force is a wonderful deterrent and has been throughout all of human history.What about the 3rd Amendment? If the gov. decided to quarter soldiers in our homes we’d revive that right and say “No Way!” What would back that up? The threat that any solider trying to enter a civilian home without permission would be shot. The 2nd Amendment exists to ensure all the others. Do you think those dictators I mentioned above would have said “Oops, there’s a 4th Amendment that says I can’t do this” if a comparable right had existed in their countries? Of course not. Hitler would have laughed and asked the Jews “How do you plan to stop me?
The idea that mere words will stop a tyrannical, illegitimate government is profoundly naive.
Submitted on 2008/07/10 at 2:03pm
“Assuming the element of surprise isn’t a stretch… unless you live 24/7 waiting to be attacked – which actually might explain where you are coming from. If so, my condolences.”Pandora – Do you keep a fire extinguisher in the house? A spare tire and tools in the trunk of your car? Having those tools available doesn’t mean you’re some paranoid nut expecting to have a fire or a flat at any moment. You keep those tools because shit happens and you want to be prepared. Keeping a loaded gun in the home or carried for self-defense is no different.
Do you only wear a seatbelt when you expect to be in a car crash? You can’t predict such things, so you wear it all the time.
Submitted on 2008/07/09 at 2:59pm
DMAB – Your comments don’t even attempt to address anything I’ve said. It’s almost as if you don’t know how to read.A swiss army knife? Right, because a 100lb. woman is going to be able to fight off an attacker with a knife.
All we’re talking about here is allowing citizens the ability to choose whether or not to buy a gun and carry it for protection. I never said a gun will solve all problems, but having a means of self-defense is preferrable to being a helpless victim.
Oh, and the grandpa or handicapped person needs a gun more than anyone else. How is someone in a wheelchair supposed to fight back? How are they supposed to run away?
My grandpa has been put in the hospital twice by thugs who tried to rob him. I have a physical disability that puts me at an immediate disadvantage against an able-bodied criminal. Are you seriously saying that the most vulnerable members of society should be denied the most effective tool for self defense? Why? because you think guns are icky?
Submitted on 2008/07/11 at 3:23pm
“Justifying something that is only designed to do harm simply because lots of people have access to it already is a specious argument. ”How is a machine gun or “assault weapon” Designed to do harm? It’s not. Not anymore than a single shot musket, a target pistol, or a hunting rifle. Protecting ownership of such weapons fits perfectly with the stated purpose of the Amendment, even if you think those weapons are “icky”
And I was referring to “common use” in the context of Constitutionally protected arms.
Submitted on 2008/07/15 at 6:08pm
In the context of self-defense you abhor the idea of that woman having the freedom to say “my body, my choice” and choosing to arm herself with the greatest equalizer mankind has yet devised, the personal firearm
this one is amusing to me. It was “A Christmas Story”. Even the little jokes were missed by this kid
Submitted on 2008/07/30 at 12:47pm
“…and I triple-dog dare you! (but for your own sake, Mike, please don’t lick any frozen flagpoles)”A Dumb and Dumber reference. That shows true maturity.
Submitted on 2008/08/13 at 1:23pm
Those restrictions on Free Speech are based on their direct harm to others. There are consequences for engaging in such speech, just as there are consequences for misuse of ones rights under the 2nd Amendment.The broad a priori restrictions imposed on me by gun control have no 1st Amendment equivalent.
Submitted on 2008/08/14 at 1:50pm
“You know, Mike, you have no problem stereotyping people as anti-gun, but then scream how you’re an individual. Think about that.”Do you seriously believe my calling “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” an “anti-gun” organization is “stereotyping.” I hope not because that is truly insane
Submitted on 2008/08/15 at 12:29pm
So banning all guns is unconstitutional, but banning all handguns is not? Handguns are an entire class of arms.Such arguments fall apart when applied to other rights.
Under your twisted logic it’s OK to ban free speech on the internet and on TV since we still have the right to use printed media.
Submitted on 2008/08/22 at 11:13am
Not really Joe. When I call Obama “elitist” it has nothing to do with what he has, and everything to do with his attitude towards the people he’s supposed to “serve.”The same goes for Joe Biden
Submitted on 2008/08/22 at 11:33am
“Also, tell me what you’d be calling Obama if the the RW talking heads didn’t bring the term “elitist” to light.”I’d call him an arrogant, condescending, socialist asshole who’s out of touch and holds outright contempt for my values
Submitted on 2008/09/11 at 12:55pm
Screw New Orleans. You build a damn city that sits in a “fishbowl” below sea level, surrounded by water, and right in hurricane alley you should expect bad shit to happen.Submitted on 2008/09/19 at 1:05pm
I still want to privatize social security thank you.Submitted on 2008/09/23 at 10:06am
And Dems have their own contradictions here.They support a woman’s “right to choose” with regards to abortion with simple reasoning. Her body, her choice, and her body is sacroscant.
Unfortunately they take the polar opposite stance when we apply the “her body, her choice” right to choose to the decision to own and carry a firearm for self-defense.
Submitted on 2008/09/19 at 1:58pm
Susan – Delaware Dem is your typical anti-gun liberal. He’s all about gun control and civilian disarmament but at the same time is seething with hate and intolerane and wants those he disagrees with “round up and shot.”It’s hate, bigotry, intolerance and violence like that which make me glad that in this country rational, tolerant people have a right to an effective means of self-defense under the 2nd Amendment.
Submitted on 2008/10/06 at 5:11pm
So you really believe the CRA had nothing to do with the mess we’re in Von?Submitted on 2008/10/07 at 11:36am
My contempt towards Obama is based on his ideology, attitude, disrespect for my rights, dismissal of capitalism and flawed understanding of the constitution. The man is supposedly a Con Law Professor and he can’t even understand that the Constitution doesn’t “grant” or “create” rights.The man wants the biggest expansion of the Fed since FDR. Hows that for ideology?
Windfall Profit Taxes
That pretty much sums up Mike W. We miss you mike. Please come back.
No, we don’t miss Mike the Racist. His posts were beyond idiotic; they were racist and hateful. The threads have improved immediately and considerably since you banned him.
I can’t believe you trudged through all those comments – and, Lord knows DV, we tried to work with Mike W. His number of comments was daunting. Geez, I actually stopped reading my own blog because it was all Mike W., all the time. And while I am anti-banning… I don’t miss him.
Yeah, but lets look at reality. If you’re a guy and you’re not Donviti, you HAVE to buy a large gun or fast car to make up for the deficit. Just offering an Devil’s advocate position. Not agreeing with Mike, just seeing it from his less-manly-than-DV point of view.
donviti is hung like a pinto bean.
mrs. hotviti shagged the paper boy and the lawn cutter.
somewhere in that spunk milkshake came (!) little DV
Please tell me that Mike W. isn’t the author of the “City Upon the Hill” blog.
MJ – No. that is Tom, I believe. Mike is anothergunblog. They do have similar beliefs, though.
Does this award have to be for a DL commenter? Because if it doesn’t, I think Frank Knotts is getting robbed.
I love it when conservatives go off about the Bill of Rights without noting the disgraceful abrogation of the 4th Amendment when it comes to seizing “drug” property without due process.
The comments that you posted seem sensible and well written. I would agree with everyone on the first page and what I scanned on the second. What is your point? His views look like the SCOUS position and the Senate committee report on the right to bear arms. You may not agree. That is your right, but it is the majority opinion of Americans according to all the polling that I saw this past year.
That is hardly fringe or dumb.
What is it with commenters named Mike?
“I love it when conservatives go off about the Bill of Rights without noting the disgraceful abrogation of the 4th Amendment when it comes to seizing “drug” property without due process.”
Pretty sure I’ve discussed that on my blog before.
David,
you were in contention too. That comment might set you over the top.
You guys may have been trying to make fun of me, but I must say, there’s not a comment among those you chose to highlight as “idiotic” that isn’t well reasoned, articulate, and informed.
These are quality comments, including some excellent beatdowns of your “arguments” even though you’ve taken some deliberately out of context.
I’ll take full credit for the stupid “Dumb & Dumber comment though.
My only problem with Mike W. was that he was all guns all the time. If he wants to debate, he needs to mix it up a bit. But guns were the thing that got him exercised, so that’s what he discussed. And don’t act like none of you encouraged it by going off topic yourselves. There’s not a single comment by Mike W. or any of your trolls that compares to Mr. “round up all Republicans and shoot ’em” Jason, who thinks saying he’s sorry means it’s ok.
Look, I understand that you are a LIBERAL blog, which means you take some positions that seem batshit crazy to the rest of us, but protecting the 2d Amendment doesn’t fall into the same category as some of the behaviors on display daily here.
Fortunately, Donhusseinsquishviti exercised his usual good judgement and did not publish the numerous racist and abusive comments that Mike the Racist made.
In the narrow view of the ‘progressives’ there are rights and there are ‘rights’. We must protect the First Amendment rights of pornographers while ignoring the new censorship of Political Correctness.
Those who ‘disrespect’ the Second Amendment has proven toxic to its opponents but some are not smart enough to learn. Some, as with Mike Castle, are so in bed with various ‘Establishments’ that they can get along with this game.
There are some who overreact on this issue and become intemperate. They tend to be decent people but seldom are those with first hand experience in the political process.
No advocate for unilateral victim disarmament (in the guise of ‘gun control’) seems to be willing to face an opponent in free and open debate. They prefer pseudo-forums that are rigged or merely compilations of emotionalism and intellectual dishonesty.
A few years ago, there was an effort made to take control over concealed carry permits out of the hands of political hacks in black. The old system was rigged for the insiders. Did Tom Capano have a concealed carry permit? This is not a rhetorical question. Could he have easily gotten one?
The opposition to this common sense reform was predictable. A convicted thief and killer turned preacher-man stated that he did not want to see more honest people with guns. He does know his own. A Republican hack who may be our next U S Attorney had similar views.
What is interesting is the liklihood that a would-be ‘gun grabber’ is also a ‘thug hugger’. Anyone who denies this nexus should check the fans of the cop killer who calls himself ‘Mumia’.
Mike W’s issue was the right to keep and bear arms; as Sharon noted, that was the issue that “got him exercised.” Given Jason’s “murderboy” comment, it seems that Mike wasn’t the only one who got exercised by the topic.
Mike was persistent, and I guess that was what bothered y’all the most. But he was persistent in the defense of freedom, which is something I would have thought liberals would have approved.
This site is poorer without him.
Dana,
As is your demonstrated proclivity to be wrong on everything, you are wrong on this, too.
….4th Amendment when it comes to seizing “drug” property without due process…Geezer
There are outrageous incidents where property has been taken even before a trial and conviction. Some extreme law ‘n order types may celebrate this but not me.
While the assets of a major should player should be taken, there is often ludicrous overkill when ‘intent to distribute’ involves a quantity of stuff that is rather miniscule and where inflated ‘street value’ is quoted for PR value.
Perhaps those who partake of a certain herb might spread their spare seeds far and wide and provide an open-access harvest where one and all can have free access to ‘happy weed’ and eliminate the profits to criminal elements. Let the cops concentrate on the crystal meth and heroin thugs instead of making easy busts.