“A generation which ignores history has no past - and no future.”
by Lazarus Long




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

quote of the day – mikeb302000

Michael Bonomo, writing under the pseudonym MikeB302000, is an inveterate, known liar and probable criminal who is physically incapable (by his own admission) of differentiating fact from fiction, performing basic mathematical functions of any type, or determining whether or not something he says is accurate or factual, who runs a blatantly bigoted weblog that advocates the abridgement of basic human rights, and who has been banned/moderated from too many pro-rights weblogs/forums to count (and is auto-moderated here, per the commenting policy).

All caught up? In short, Mike is anti-rights, anti-firearms, and anti-anyone-who-would-exercise-the-former-or-own-the-latter. Predictably, though, MikeB302000 has been somewhat… recalcitrant… in admitting to his particular bigotries, so you can imagine my surprise when I saw this quote of the day from him:

mikeb302000gunconfiscationAll right, I was exaggerating. If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and we saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence. Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.

(Emphasis added.)

After this paragraph, Sparky (as Mike is sometimes known) prattled on about how the failure of gun control is the fault of pro-rights advocates (in which he is partially right, though that is one failure I will never apologize for or regret), but, much like most of his comments, that part is somewhat irrelevant – I want you to pay attention to the above words… or, at least, some of them.

Ignore, for a moment, the logical fallacy that is "common sense gun control laws".

Ignore, for a moment, the despicable fallacy of using "gun deaths" as a metric of success.

Ignore, for a moment, the blatant lie that "gun control" reduces crime rates.

Focus exclusively on the last, bolded sentence – "… no guns at all in civilian hands …"

Complete and total civilian disarmament has always been the end-game for anti-rights cultists like MikeB302000, but they invariably beat around the bush, prevaricate, and generally avoid the topic as best they can… but this is the honest truth: they do not just want to stop people from exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights by lawfully bearing arms, they do not just want to ban affordable self-defense tools (aka "Saturday Night Specials"), they do not just want to ban semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles (aka "assault weapons"), they do not just want to ban hunting rifles (aka "high-powered sniper rifles"), they do not just want to ban duck-hunting shotguns (aka "street-sweeping bullet-hose"), they do not just want to ban the ammunition feeding devices certain firearms were designed for (aka "high-capacity magazines" or "assault clips"), and the sad thing is they do not just want to ban firearms in general.

No, anti-rights cultists / "gun control" supporters want to take your property from you, by force, ironically at the point of a firearm being wielded by the government.

There is, of course, a simple answer to this authoritarian, unconstitutional desire: NO.

However, the rational, common-sense response to someone wanting to confiscate your personal property on the basis of their own baseless phobias is not really the point of this post – instead, consider the mentality of the person who would make such a demand. Through that one sentence, Mike Bonomo expressed that he not only opposes the private ownership of firearms (and thus the notion of a right to self-defense), but also opposes the right to private ownership of any product (if a government can confiscate your firearm based off his psychological shortcomings, why not any other item you own?), the right to privacy (the government could not get rid of your gun if they did not know you have it, after all), and the right to free association (i.e. contractual agreements between consenting adults, i.e. "private sales"). And why does he oppose those rights? Because his faith requires him to believe that doing so will result in some magical outcome that has never been witnessed anywhere else in the world… and probably because he has a narcissistic, authoritarianistic streak running beneath that not-so-cultured demeanor.

MikeB302000 is the very model of a modern anti-rights cultist, in every sense of those words.

This is what we are fighting against, folks, and why we oppose people like Bonomo so vociferously – they have no respect for our property, they have no respect for our rights, and, worst of all, they have no respect for us as human beings, and yet they want to tell us how to live our lives, and what we are and are not allowed to do or own. I am not at all sorry to point out that that is simply not how America works, and while anti-rights cultists like Mike are welcome to believe whatever their bigoted little hearts desires, our rights are not subject to their beliefs.

(And, just for the giggles of it, I will close this post with a quote from the inimitable Robert Heinlein, writing as Lazarus Long: "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.")

11 comments to quote of the day – mikeb302000

  • Patrick

    And one wonders if no “civilians”* have firearms, why does he think law enforcement does? After all, if civilians can’t have firearms, criminals wouldn’t have them, right?

    *I know LEO are civilians but we both know that he didn’t mean to say that he wanted LEO to be disarmed.

  • Bonomo and his boyfriend Cabot are such retards even Joyce and Brady have no use for them.

    And just look who they DO hire!

  • Braden Lynch

    Let’s usher in the brave new world that MikeB dreams about. In it, the government arrests anyone who disagrees with them (there went part of the First Amendment) and we surely can’t have those pesky Christians protesting abortions, so that religion has to be outlawed (another strike against the First Amendment). Aw hell, let’s just round up all the trouble-makers who won’t surrender their property to the benevolent state and give them “showers” in which lethal gas comes out instead of water. Sound familiar?

    The ultimate backstop to genocide is an armed population. There is a moral imperative for all citizens to become gun owners to be able to resist tyranical governments. One reason why America has had the nearly peaceful transition of power around elections for hundreds of years is that the government does not dare to impose an dictatorship.

    I find it ironic that MikeB supposedly resides in Italy, which gave us facism.

  • @ Patrick: Actually, I will give Mike credit for being consistent on that one point – he wants the police disarmed as much as he wants us disarmed, on the basis of too many folks like us getting into the police.

    Now, why that applies to LEOs and not military, I am not entirely sure…

    @ Weer’d Beard: Now, now, now… “boyfriend” might be a bit much – after all, the former flew halfway across the world to be within mere hours of the latter, and neither could be bothered to drive the distance, or even meet halfway. Dunno about you, but I tended to treat my significant others a bit better than that…

    @ Braden Lynch: Mike’s mentality, taken to its logical, inevitable conclusion, is more than a little concerning, is it not? The really sad part of all of this is that various societies have attempted this kind of thing in the past, and they have, without exception, failed to meet their own lofty goals, and often failed as societies in the process. Of course, I forget who I am talking about when it comes to “learning from the past”…

  • So he committed a textbook gaffe?

    He accidentally told the truth?

  • Kerry

    Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

  • @ wfgodbold: It really rather surprised me when I saw this particular comment written by him, but considering the volumes of other stupid-assed things he has written during his time as an anti-rights cultist (specifically his inability to vocalize the Scientific Method), I guess I should not have been…

    @ Kerry: I think you misunderstand my purpose for writing this post. I have absolutely no aspirations of derailing Mike from his blatantly bigoted path – I might have, once upon a time, but once he let it be known that he will not be swayed by facts, figures, statistics, reason, or logic, I gave up on him. Instead, I am only concerned with bringing my fellow pro-rights advocates’ (and any fence sitters’ who read this weblog) attention to what he is, and what motivates him. There has been scant little doubt in my mind that Mike wanted total firearm confiscations – this quote settles it.

  • Kerry

    Linoge, no, I did not think you were trying to derail Mike; he wants re-railing. The quote’s prongs missed the socket. Perhaps this one, “To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.” The Crisis, Thomas Paine.

  • Yup, fair to say that we are talking right past one another at this point – despite his name being in the title, in no way was this post directed at Mike. Fence-sitters and fellow travellers on the road to protecting our rights, yes, but Bonomo? No.

  • Well what he let slip IS the logical conclusion to his position. If the problem is “too many guns” and the solution is “less guns” then the logical inference taken from such a posiiton is that anti’s want the number of guns privately held to be zero, I.E. “no guns in civilian hands.”

  • That is, of course, the hypocrisy and logical disconnect of the positions of people like Helmke – he claims that firearms cause crime, but then claims that his organization is not interested in banning all firearms.

    One of those two statements does not logically follow for an organization supposedly dedicated to decreasing firearm-related crime, and I will give you the hint – it is not the first one (that is just an outright lie).