We haven’t had enough interaction for anything to have been a “tremendous problem” …

Really? Because, you see, I remember an instance of complete and utter lack of reading comprehension on the part of someone who was commenting under the chosen moniker of “Steve in TN” – if that was not you, I retract the “tremendous problem” statement. But something tells me it was…

…you know nothing about any prejudices on my part.

Bulldren. You made your prejudices abundantly clear in your previous comment on this very thread.

You did that for me when you made the stretch that the NRA wanted their attorney to argue that DC’s gun ban could be constitutional.

… which factually disproves nothing I said in my original post, or have said since. Hey, look, a pony!

The fact is that the NRA is taking away time from a winning attorney to have a losing attorney argue in this landmark case. That is bull headed and wrong.

Really? Because a “winning attorney” with far more experience in this field than both you and me and the bedpost put together happens to disagree with you. A lot. What is bull headed and wrong is to not only turn down the support of someone looking for the same goal as you are, by similar-but-disjoint methods that may appeal to people your methods might not reach, but also kick that someone in the nuts for their trouble. Oh, wait, that is exactly what you and people like you are doing. Funny, that.

As for you, I perceive that you are…

Thanks for that armchair psychoanalysis – when you actually get a degree in the field you are wielding like a limp noodle, I might actually give a flying squirrel’s left testicle what you have to say.

From the links I have been sent by another in the online 2AM society this seems to be a habit of yours.

Is that kind of like the “sources” that the media always seems to be referencing? “My sources say you are an jackarse.” Good for your “sources”.

The 3per/Prag issue is but one example.

Yes, because calling self-righteous blowhards “self-righteous blowhards” is such a horrible thing.

However, this habit of your of engaging in friendly fire is something in which I don’t wish to be any further entangled.

Ahh, hypocrisy, delicious hypocrisy, spiced with a dash of projection to boot… This, coming from an individal hysterically jumping at the chance to tear the NRA a new one – even when the NRA is doing something quantifiable as “good” – is just all manner of amusing, especially when you already have a documented history (as mentioned above) of lashing out against fellow Second Amendment activists over non-existant perceived slights. Thanks for that sentence – I needed a good laugh.

Somewhat more topically, did you somehow completely miss the fact that I wrote this original post in response to the circular firing squad you and people like you are currently engaged in? Guess so. Irony, hypocrisy, and projection, all rolled up into one – good stuff.

As before, have a nice life and the final word. I’m shaking the dust from my feet.

Seriously, Steve, if you want to leave already, just leave. No one is forcing you to read what I write here, no one is forcing you to apply fingers to keyboards, and no one is forcing you to comment. I write this weblog for me (if that qualifies as “blogging masturbation”, then so be it), and if you honestly believe that threatening to retract approval (which is exactly what you are doing) is going to convince me to change my topics, style, or writings, then you are barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong forest. This repeated, “Ooh, look at me, I am leaving you now! But I am back… and leaving you again!” nonsense is… well… just that – nonsense (and quite juvenile to boot, amusingly).

In short, live up to your word already, and shoo. You are right – life is too short for me to waste time on backstabbing, projecting hypocrites like you. Well, apart from thorough fiskings always being good for the soul.

Now you are simply engaging in prevarication. We haven’t had enough interaction for anything to have been a “tremendous problem” and you know nothing about any prejudices on my part.

“point out where I was factually wrong”

You did that for me when you made the stretch that the NRA wanted their attorney to argue that DC’s gun ban could be constitutional. No less than Chris Cox himself cringed when that was asserted according to what he said on a local radio show.

The fact is that the NRA is taking away time from a winning attorney to have a losing attorney argue in this landmark case. That is bull headed and wrong. Sadly, it is pretty much par for the course for the NRA. The refused to listen to the troops on the ground in Illinois on CCW, they refused to listen to the troops on the ground in Alabama’s election as I pointed out above, they did their utmost to bumble Gura’s Heller win away, and now they are screwing with Gura’s McDonald case after bungling their own.

As for you, I perceive that you are – at best – a person of juvenile influences who seeks to snark at anyone who may be handy in what seems to be a form of blogging masturbation. It does no one any good other than you. From the links I have been sent by another in the online 2AM society this seems to be a habit of yours. The 3per/Prag issue is but one example.

I understand that flame wars can be fun when they are harmless to the cause. However, this habit of your of engaging in friendly fire is something in which I don’t wish to be any further entangled. Life is too short. As before, have a nice life and the final word. I’m shaking the dust from my feet.