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.