categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

mikeb302000, lying criminal

Anyone who has been following the pro-rights weblogs over the past few months is probably familiar with the name “MikeB302000” – simply put, this individual is the new anti-rights troll who seems to have taken it as a personal mission to cast baseless aspersions, make pointless insinuations, field positively fallacious theories, and support every single anti-rights movement, cause, or law, regardless of its efficacy, logic, or rationale. This unyielding, zealot-like faith in the cause of denying law-abiding citizens their rights for no real reason apart from his own personal desires, even in the face of facts, statistics, and honest, hard data to the contrary, has earned him the moniker of “the woman with the earrings“, but it would appear as though MikeB’s own words have earned him another title:

Criminal.

“How is that?” you ask? Well, consider MikeB302000‘s own words (backed up in this image, in case he makes the linked-to comment conveniently disappear):

To sum up, I did Parris Island Marine Corp training when I was 17, in the summer of 1970. I didn’t have to go to Viet Nam, thank goodness. After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years. I was never passionate about them back then and over the last couple of decades have become strongly anti-gun, especially since I started writing this blog.

(Emphasis added.)

“The woman with the earrings” never bothered to explain how he illegally owned firearms, but just that admission, in and of itself, is quite damning. Consider, also, the fact that MikeB302000 now claims to be an expatriot, living in Rome – where did the firearms he owned go when he moved to Italy, a country where private ownership of firearms is quite unusual? Where did the “illegally-owned” firearms go? Could it be that our current anti-rights troll is, himself, a key element in the “iron pipeline” that moves firearms from law-abiding circles to law-breaking circles? Could it be that the bigot’s knowledge of American firearm laws comes from first-hand knowledge breaking them?

Unfortunately, our story does not end there, and MikeB302000 earns himself another title:

Liar.

Recently, Weer’d Beard has re-confronted MikeB302000 concerning his illegal ownership of firearms in the past. Unfortunately, Weer’d chose to make this confrontation on the troll’s own webpage, and the comments in question were summarily deleted. Some responses remained, however, and are shown below:

beowulf said…
So, Weer’d Beard, you’re telling me that the guy who tells us that “lawful gun owners need to sacrifice some of the convenience [Mikeb's term for Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights] . . . ” is (or has been) himself an unlawful gun owner? Hmm–does anyone else smell hypocrisy?

With the response being:

mikeb302000 said…
beowulf, Weer’d's lying in an attempt to personally attack me. Why do you think he hasn’t provided links to all that bragging all over the internet that I’m supposed to have done?

In short, MikeB302000 is claiming that Weer’d is lying when he pointed out that “the woman with the earrings” admitted to illegally owning firearms in the past… which paints “the woman with the earrings” into a very uncomfortable corner.

And now, to cap it all off, our resident anti-rights troll has admitted to his law-breaking, saying:

The fact is, as far as I can recall, the quote “I owned guns both legally and illegally” was the only time I ever mentioned it.

[...]

About my having owned legal and illegal guns, I don’t plan to expand on it. Sorry to disappoint.

By his very own words and admission, MikeB302000 is a self-professed criminal – a criminal who, apparently, disobeyed the very laws he supposedly supports, and wants more of. Furthermore, MikeB302000 has repeatedly and incessantly lied and covered up about this illegal activity in the past, and is only now admitting to it because some folks were able to dig up the original, damning admission. Could it be that “the woman with the earrings” is so obessed with punishing law-abiding American citizens for owning firearms because he knows that if he were to focus on the criminals, he would be focusing on himself? Could it be that our resident bigot wants to drag us all down to his own level, rather than face up to his own culpability and criminal nature? After all, if he forces all of us to be in the muck with him, we cannot exactly call him out for being dirty (or so he believes)…

MikeB302000 has systematically destroyed his own credibility and integrity, and anything of his you read online should be treated as the words of a lying criminal… a lying criminal who cannot tell fact from fiction, and a lying criminal who relies more on faith than facts.

A big thanks is due to both Weer’d Beard and Bob S. for blowing the lid wide open on MikeB302000‘s criminal activities and lies – the Google is strong with those two.

14 comments to mikeb302000, lying criminal

  • Great post, Linoge! Tho I wonder if “the woman with the earrings” moniker fits him anymore. Sure the blatant and ignorant denial is all there, but one might assume the woman was in such denial because of idyllic naivete (Something MikeB was well known for feigning in the past) Meanwhile it’s fairly obvious that MikeB’s admission of criminal acts, but refusal to discuss the issue, meanwhile constant calls for stricter laws and legal boundaries for lawful gun owners.
    I think he’s pretty clear that his loyalties lie with the criminals, and his plans are simply to put them at an advantage over the lawful citizen.

  • And he continues his lies even today.
    I think I know the answer to that. The answer lies in the first 13 words. These are the 13 words that Justice Scalia left out in order to come to his “majority decision” in Heller. Is that right?
    These are the lies that we need everyone to see. The ones that the fence sitters might not notice.
    This was the reason I resorted to calling him on his repeated lies….so that others could see that he was dishonest.
    Scalia left out the first 13 words? Hardly! Much of the decision was devoted to discussing those words….yet MikeB302000 lies.

  • A lying liar lies from Rome? An expat hides like Polanski from justice perhaps?

  • Weer’d: Some of the woman’s denial was based on naivte, there is no doubt, but a lot of it was simply due to her own irrational faith that d’Anconia was wrong, regardless of what the facts or reality of the situation indicated. Denial for denial’s sake, so to speak.
    MikeB still possesses some of those same properties and qualities, it is just that his self-admitted criminal history adds a whole new layer of despicableness to his cries for more laws.
    At any rate, I have said it before, and I will say it again: those who disarm law-abiding citizens aid and abet criminals directly. Criminals like disarmed, defenseless victims, and anyone who helps those who prey on the innocent are despicable individuals indeed.
    Bob S.: The sad thing is that Scalia directly addressed the first thirteen words, as you mentioned, only he addressed them in a way that directly disagrees with MikeB’s personal opinions on the matter. The first 13 words were there because the Founding Fathers recognized the use and utility of an armed populace – they mandated that the population should be allowed to be armed because they wanted the backup force of a civilian militia, not the other way around.
    But, as you and Weer’d showed, lying comes to MikeB naturally.
    Dirtcrashr: Kind of makes you wonder, does it not?

  • mikeb302000

    Linoge, Thanks for that hilarious post. Only a guy like you could challenge Weer’d for the biggest obsession about me.
    One thing I’d like to clarify though, is this. When I said,”Weer’d's lying in an attempt to personally attack me. Why do you think he hasn’t provided links to all that bragging all over the internet that I’m supposed to have done?” I was obviously referring to the “bragging all over the internet” part. I even asked “Why do you think he hasn’t provided links to all that bragging all over the internet that I’m supposed to have done?”
    I doubt very much that I’m the only one in the room with a past, but believe me, I don’t need to lie to deal with you guys.

  • “I doubt very much that I’m the only one in the room with a past, but believe me, I don’t need to lie to deal with you guys.” -MikeB302000 (Criminal)
    “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!” -Roman Polanski (Criminal)

  • mikeb302000:

    Thanks for that hilarious post.

    Why is law-breaking hilarious to you, MikeB? Why is lying hilarious to you? Does that not denote a complete and utter contempt for the laws and rules you have broken, a complete and total lack of remorse, and a willingness to do it all over again? Does that not damage your nearly-non-existent credibility all the more?

    Only a guy like you could challenge Weer’d for the biggest obsession about me.

    How is it “obsession” to point out the very things you have said? How is it “obsession” to indicate where you have lied in the past? How is it “obsession” to expose you as the scumbag you so very much desire to be? You keep using words, but you do not appear to have any understanding of what they actually mean.

    I was obviously referring to the “bragging all over the internet” part.

    What “bragging all over the internet” part? You deleted Weer’d's comment, and thus any basis you would have for making that statement went right along with it. You deleted the very evidence that might have vindicated you in this situation, and given that you are a documented, proven liar, I have absolutely no reason to believe you.
    Even if that was what you were saying (and you only really embarked on that schtick after we called you out for your lies and criminal history), there are multiple times in the past where you have both denied ever owning illegal firearms, and denied ever making the claim that you did own illegal firearms. This just happened to be the most recent.

    I doubt very much that I’m the only one in the room with a past…

    But you have no evidence, no facts, and certainly no admissions to back up that specious, fallacious, and leading comment… On the other hand, we have you, of your own free will, admitting to owning illegal firearms in the past. Nope, you have only your faith, and your beliefs… why do you insist on playing the role of “the woman with the earrings” so very often? So was that admission a lie too, MikeB? Where did the firearms go when you supposedly moved out of the States? How did you come by the illegally-owned ones? Where did they end up when you left the country? Inquiring minds want to know.

    I don’t need to lie to deal with you guys.

    Then why do you lie, almost every single day? I notice you still have not addressed the lies so prevalent in your previous comment here – why is that? Do you not like getting your hand caught in the cookie jar of lies? Or do you acknowledge your position as indefensible, and do not even bother?
    Weer’d: The similarities are quite disturbing are they not? The same “everyone else does it” defense. The same flippant attitude. The same disregard for a law so flagrantly violated.
    Roman Polanski – MikeB’s role model and hero!

  • I’ve heard from criminal psychologists such projection is VERY common with criminals.
    They just assume everybody has urges to rape children, or kill people, or do drugs until their lives collapse, or compulsively steal.
    They just think they have a little more trouble reining it in than you or I.

  • Makes sense, Weer’d – after all, if they can rationalize that everyone would do what they did if given the chance, then it is not so bad that they do it, right?
    Fortunately, they are quite wrong.
    Not everyone has criminal tendencies. Not everyone would break the law if given the chance or opportunity. And MikeB implying such things only shows the tenuous and fallacious nature of his argument.

  • truth and falsity

    Given that Kevin will be forced to upgrade/change his commenting system in the near future, I figured this needed to be preserved for posterity’s sake: MikeB, I may be getting a glimmer of what it going on here too. Could…

  • you must be joking

    A few days back, I noticed this post over at Days of our Trailers, and was going to leave a comment… until I saw that MikeB302000 beat me to it. Staggered by the blind faith and insistence on unproven ‘realities’…

  • clearing out the rodents

    I really cannot blame Breda for going this route: I am now and forevermore going to be deleting comments by mikeb302000 because all he ever does is come here and try to stir up arguments. This is not a person…

  • the way things are going

    These days, I almost (almost) feel sorry for MikeB302000 – he just cannot catch a break. Earlier this month, SayUncle summarily dismissed him: Mike, I note that you didn’t address my point. Because you’re stupid. Go away, the adults are…



web analytics

View My Stats