So, there was once this military officer. He wrote this appallingly ignorant essay about how he would limit civilian gun ownership in this country, because GUNS=VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE=BAD, ergo GUNS=BAD! Plus, because of his awesome military experience, he was apparently the only one qualified enough, good enough and honorable enough to be allowed to have modern firearms. And, apparently this genius claims the Second Amendment doesn’t actually say what it says. He was, of course, slammed down pretty hard on these here Internets, including by yours truly, the guys at This Ain’t Hell, and my buddy Mike Williamson.
I guess Bobby boy didn’t like what was being said about him. As a matter of fact, he came over here this morning – not to actually answer the pretty overwhelming charges of douchebaggery leveled against him – but to laugh at the “8 readers” he thought I had. I suppose no one actually taught him that comments and hits on a blog are two different things.
He also apparently never learned the first rule of holes.
But in any case, because of the overwhelming response to his missive, Bobby felt he didn’t get enough, so he decided to pen another froth-flecked essay, which Esquire was thrilled to publish. In it, Bob, as he likes to refer to himself, whips out…
…if you guessed “The Victim Card,” you are absolutely correct!
OK, so let us start with the facts. A total of 2,324 emails came in following my post about guns, so far. I responded to every single one of them.
Well, aren’t you a prince, Bob! I wonder how many of those responses were actually factual, polite or even logical, and how many were similar to your responses on the Esquire site, some of which were homophobic and downright bigoted!
This was in the wake of my essay about developing some sort of rational, peaceful, non-confiscatory way of removing guns from the hands of criminals and reducing the drain on our national resources.
Lie #1 Bob. Removing all modern firearms from the hands of the People is not rational or peaceful. Removing the right of inheritance and confiscating people’s property after they die, when it rightfully belongs to their heirs is not rational or peaceful, and it’s CERTAINLY confiscatory.
And, as one concerned about national defense, that is how I think about the issue. I cannot avoid contemplating the drain on our national resources of the 100,000+ Americans who are shot every year as anything but a national defense issue. We are a weakened nation because of this, and I want us to be stronger.
If you’re worried about national defense, as you claim, Bob, you might want to focus your concerns on training, operations and maintenance and the oodles of procurement pork Congress has packed defense authorizations with. What you should also focus on is the benefits of gun ownership, which when examined through reams of research are much greater than your “weakened nation” claim. I will quote Gun Facts here:
Because guns are used an estimated 2.5 million times per year to prevent crimes, the cost savings in personal losses, police work, and court and prison expenses vastly outweighs the cost of criminal gun violence and gun accidents. The net savings, under a worst-case scenario, is about $3.5 billion a year.
Guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.
The medical cost of gun violence is only 0.16% of America’s annual health care expenditures.
But Bob doesn’t get it. He thinks that we n00bs just want to go bang bang and be like the professionals – you know those military planners – the ones who have no concept of the Constitution they swore to support and defend.
Unfortunately, a lot of people just want to shoot guns.
And a lot of people want you to uphold your oath, dildo.
But instead of admitting that maybe… JUST MAYBE… he was wrong, Bob paints himself to be the victim.
“Kerry Johnston” said, “Are you still in the active military? You swore to God and your cuntry that you would uphold the Constituton. How can you run your mouth about what you aparently know nothing? You are a disgrace and you’re days are numbered. There will be no mercy and no place for you to hide. Fool!”
Now I don’t mind death threats which claim, “you’re days are numbered,” in general, but that is one of the only ones which inserted an inappropriate apostrophe. The spelling, well, that is sort of par for the gun-advocate course that I saw these past couple of days. You can infer what you like.
Translation from Doucheweasel to English: I’m a martyr. I’ll take one for the cause of “national defense.” I don’t mind death threats, because I’m oh so brave and I will suffer for my principles. And by the way, gun rights advocates are stupid.
Bobby boy goes on to post a bunch of badly written alleged threats against him, for which he blames… are you ready for this? The National Rifle Association!
The NRA posted an essay about this assgoblin, who wrote a very public essay about confiscations and depriving the people of the United States of their basic rights, and therefore it’s the NRA’s fault that some people emailed threats to him.
It has nothing to do with his very clear statements that advocate the violation of his oath, the violation of the Law of the Land and the infringement on people’s rights to armed self defense. It’s only the NRA’s fault for publishing an essay opposing him, which incidentally did not incite anyone to violence, did not advocate any kind of action against Bob, but it’s their fault anyway, because they published something that contradicted his “expert” opinion, bashing not just the Supreme Court, but those mere mortals who think they should own guns.
So what do you think about the NRA’s advocacy? Just curious, since their essay resulted in death threats to me, threats of rape to my wife, and threats of abduction and murder of my six-month-old daughter from the people who read the NRA’s column. Personally, I think a little bit less of an organization like the NRA, which incites their members to threaten rape and murder and the abduction of babies. But perhaps, if you are an NRA member, you may approve of some of the messages above. That, of course, is your right.
What do we think of the NRA’s advocacy? We think you’re a large, blubbering vagina, Bob. That’s what we think. Let me guess… you think anyone who disagrees with you and dares to publicly state so, is to be held responsible for a few douchebags who allegedly emailed threats to you and your family?
I suppose that’s consistent with your view that the American people as a whole are to be held responsible for the actions of criminals with firearms and therefore should be relieved of their rights.
But that makes you a pathetic tool. As someone said on This Ain’t Hell earlier, “This guy needs to take the crossed rifles off his uniform and replace them with crossed vaginas.”
I would replace vaginas with tampons.
You’re a pussy, Bob. Get over yourself.