the implied threats of "smoke and thunder"

It may not be the best reason. It may not even be a good reason. But one reason to keep on weblogging is the knowledge that your doing so makes people wish you were dead:


Yes, you read that right – apparently the pretentious proprietor of "Smoke & Thunder" is hoping that "some gun blogs and gun bloggers will do the right thing (i.e. kill themselves)". Looking past the question of how a website would "kill" itself, this is only the second time (with the first being a particularly disgusting anti-rights cultist who delights in the senseless deaths of others) that someone has ever publicly proclaimed a desire to see me dead.

Interesting. I must be doing something right.

Note that the coward behind "Smoke and Thunder" lacks the intestinal fortitude to put Barron‘s and my names in the main body of his post, but instead sticks them up in the "Tags" section – less likely to be notice there. Note that he has never once pointed out a logical error or factual flaw in any of our posts, and instead continues to fall back on the crutch that we are not "qualified experts". Note that we have never claimed to be "qualified experts", and typically make that abundantly clear in the situations where it is necessary. Note that the scumbag behind "Smoke and Thunder" unquestionably considers himself to be one of the "more appealing gun rights activists" while simultaneously telling one of the best actual pro-rights activists that she is a "dumbfuck" for disagreeing with him and demanding that other women "backdoor" him with "nudie pix". Who knew that misogyny was "appealing"? Note that neither Barron nor I (nor anyone else I saw) ever made "threats" against the "Smoke and Thunder" site, nor the immature, miserable mind behind it. Note that Barron and I should apparently kill ourselves for daring to exercise our First-Amendment-protected rights to free speech and free expression.

I think now is a good time to highlight a chain of comments left by "Mark" on this previous post about the train wreck that is "Smoke and Thunder":

Not leaving the link to my blog because I don’t wish for this obviously mentally incapacitated individual to know it and try to add me to his so called “social” web page. The absolute gall of him however strikes me that he is in severe need of a mental evaluation. His actions and posts leads me to believe in a professional observation that he is severely unbalanced and possibly dangerous to himself and others. If facts regarding him as posted on other sites are true, he needs a minimum of a 72 hour hold and evaluation, for his own safety and the safety of others. I have no doubt that after such an evaluation he would be involuntarily committed for treatment for a minimum of 90 days. If he is already under a Doctors care for his obvious mental instability, his Doctor needs to be made aware of his actions and blood work as to the efficacy of his current medications needs to be performed. I find his actions and posts to be extremely disturbing, as such since he has an obvious mental deficiency, the fact that he is attempting to run a “Gun” site has alarms bells ringing in my head, and I believe the local authorities of wherever he lives need to be notified as he may be attempting to use his “Site” as an attempt to obtain firearms as a restricted person. We do not need another Virginia Tech or Tuscon.

I am an Ordained Minister, ex-military medic and an ex-cop and it is a judgement based on counseling persons who suffer from various psychological impairments and other experience. His passive aggressive responses with a few outright threatening/hostile comments, as in if I heard him say that in front of me I’d be calling for a law enforcement officer. Coupled with reports of him possibly having been arrested for possession of child pornography and assault. He leads me to have a professional judgement that he needs a psych eval soonest, for his own well being as well as the well being of others.

As for specifics, his reaction to a simple comment which would be innocuous to anyone else, he railed against the commenter using unnecessary profanity and insults. That alone shows me a lack of social skills with a borderline aggressive personality.

Frankly this I am afraid this person may take any negative comments as a personal attack up on himself, and attempt to stalk, harass or even physically assault a commenter if he possibly can to “show” others who speak out against him or his actions. I believe his ego has now gotten involved in his actions and that he may goad himself to actions which can dangerous to others.

I was being cautious as to whether or not he is the person with the child pornography and assault charges. Those were the “Frosting” on the cake so to speak if it is him. I was basing my original judgement upon his current statements and actions. Finding out that he “MAY” have assault charges and charges of possession of child pornography, if it IS him just furthers my concerns. This individual is a ticking time bomb. He is getting further and further away from rational thought processes, and I am seriously concerned that he is becoming a danger. If not to himself, society in general. One has only to turn on the television to see how mentally deranged people are lashing out at society, and I am concerned he may be the next headline on the TV news.

I too would like to know why he is acting this way. And I seriously feel that he needs an evaluation. With Ohio, Tuscon and Virginia Tech fresh in the minds of people, I am afraid he may look upon that as a sort of fuel for his own actions. I think his local LEA needs to be notified and the logs of his comments shown to them. He is becoming more and more of a loose cannon, and I feel that he needs help before he does something to himself or others.

I am not a psychologist / psychiatrist, and I mostly slept through the PSYC101 class Georgia Tech made us take for some reason (though it was also one of the few classes I aced – not exactly difficult subject matter), but even I can tell that the warped mind behind "Smoke and Thunder" is passive-aggressive, self-destructive, paranoid, narcissistic, and verging on full-blown psychopathic, so I tend to concur with the good minister’s observations. Additionally, I share the good minister’s concerns over what this perverse mind will decide to do once it becomes obviously apparent that we pro-rights webloggers who predate him are not going to simply roll up our shops and retire simply because he wants us to.

I wonder how long it will take these not-quite-death-threats to evolve into actual death threats against anyone who dares disagree with the broken mind behind "Smoke & Thunder"? Regardless, I cannot say as though I comprehend the mentality that would wish death – by their hands or by the hands of their intended victim – upon someone simply over a difference of opinions; talk about an elemental "fail" at the most basic of levels when it comes to the rights and liberties of all human beings, as they are protected by the American Constitution.

Relatedly, it is worth noting that error pages at "Smoke and Thunder" no longer redirect to the Violence Policy Center, and it is likewise worth noting that "Smoking Blunder" has more actual members than "Smoke and Thunder".

(This post courtesy of a tweet from Barron Barnett. I know, "Do not feed the troll," but I firmly believe that airing out the troll’s dirty laundry for all the world to see is a worthwhile cause, especially since none of my links go back to his site, "nofollow" or not.)

25 thoughts on “the implied threats of "smoke and thunder"”

  1. Something is obviously wrong with the “Thud and Blunder” guy. I like the concept of a social network for firearms folks, but this thing is based on pure hatred.

  2. Not only that, he felt that our disagreement with him and his attitude he seemed to think that we were saying he didn’t have a right.

    Oh the Irony. They wont agree with me so they need to go die. Evidently he thinks the 1st Amendment only applies to him.

  3. It is also interesting to see that he feels blogging should be done by “qualified experts.” It seems that the anti gun side has lost largely in part because it is done by qualified experts and not the kind of grass roots support the pro gun side has. This guy thinks and acts like an antigun liberal.

  4. He clearly relies overmuch on auto-correcting spelling checkers, else he would have realized that his post had corrected his misspelled “appalling” with “appealing.”

  5. Linoge,

    I know, “Do not feed the troll,” but I firmly believe that airing out the troll’s dirty laundry for all the world to see is a worthwhile cause, especially since none of my links go back to his site, “nofollow” or not.)

    I think this is more than “airing out the troll’s dirty laundry” and you are correct to stay on this issue.

    IF, and I say IF, this is truly an anti-rights cultist effort to deceive, we need to point out the depths to which they are willing to sink.
    This is low — both the ugly aftermath and the initial idea.

    Pointing out the other side is willing to basically lie, cheat or steal to get their way says much of their character and how out of line it is with the average person out there.

    Keep shiny the light on the cockroaches where it is necessary.

  6. @ MAJ Mike: Indeed. It is rather hard to want to be social with someone who obviously hates everyone else simply because they exist…

    @ Chris: In fairness, not addressing the accusation does not lend credence to the accusation. I wonder why he has not addressed it, but give the tenuous nature of the ties, it is entirely likely he considers it ludicrous.

    @ SGB: Honestly, I am not sure if “why don’t you go kill yourself?” legally constitutes a “death threat”. Is there a lawyer in the house?

    @ Robert Messenger: It leading by example would be nice…

    @ Barron Barnett: Yeah, I was rather amused by the whole “mean gunbloggers are picking on me and saying I should not say what I said” followed by the “You disagreed with me? GO KILL YOURSELF!”

    Uhm… er… Yeah.

    @ alcade: This is either the most elaborate troll ever, or the most dedicated attempt at false-flagging we have ever seen.

    The third alternative – that someone is simply that broken in the head – is one I would rather not consider…

    @ AuricTech: “Spelling” and “grammar” seem to rank below “ad hominems” and “misogyny” on his priority list…

    @ MAJ Mike: Depends on what he is up to next.

    @ Bob S.: And if he does prove to be a “gun control” extremist running a false-flag website, it will provide us even more ammunition for the notion that they really do want us dead.

    But, so far, that is a pretty big “if”.

  7. @linoge I had typed up a rather long comment but your system didn’t like something for some reason and it ate it. So I will summarize.

    The individual posting on Smoke And Thunder is becoming a rather great danger. Any and all postings and comments of his need to be copied and sent to the authorities, and an investigation into the actual identity of the individual in question begun.

    I believe strongly that he may becoming very close to possibly engaging in a destructive fashion either against himself in order to blame others and justify his actions, or against those he considers to be his antagonists.

    If this continues much longer I am very afraid I will turn on the television some morning and find his name and/or the names of others in the latest news.

  8. Sorry about that… as a general rule, when I write longish comments, I typically highlight the entire thing, copy it, and then hit post. That way, I at least have it on the clipboard… but, of course, I sometimes forget that too ;).

    Anywise, I spoke with the folks in charge of Smoking Blunder, and they are taking down full records of everything Smoke and Thunder do. I agree with them that nothing we have seen yet is strictly actionable, but if it ever reaches that point, we will have all the documentation we will need.

  9. I’m glad of that. However there may be a way, if it could be ascertained which jurisdiction he resides in, to get local LEA involved. Printing out all of his postings/comments with it’s sitemeter data and being turned in to his local agency with a complaint of harassment, most agencies I’m familiar with will open an investigation and take preemptive action if they see the correlations I am seeing.

    I am very seriously concerned that this may be escalated by him, to an actual crime.

    I am not privy to the background documentation, nor do I wish to be, but I believe it may be in everyone’s best interest to attempt to get his local agency involved.

  10. That guy is still doing-business-as? I’m in the “dedicated attempt at false-flagging” camp. They’re stuck with the site now that it’s up and have to DO something/anything as long as it remains in existence, “In for a penny, in for a pound.” Since they’re antis and static-cling is all they got, they do anything instead of doing something useful.

  11. @ Mark: Well, if anything further develops, I am sure I will post it here :).

    @ El Bombardero: What is this “anymore” you speak of?

    @ DirtCrashr: Honestly, I am not sure – impersonating another person on contracts is a pretty big deal in most states, and I cannot see most anti-rights cultists taking that risk just to do something this stupid. I am starting to trend towards the “mentally unbalanced forum troll who is just lashing out at people because he thinks he can” camp, but damned if I know at this point.

  12. Additionally, I sent an email to the folks that run Massad Ayoob’s blog just to make them aware that he was in the list of “Active Members.” If anyone has an actionable claim for their name and likeness being used without permission, it would be him. I was truly hopeful when the site went down, but now it’s just getting embarrassing.

  13. If I am not mistaken, the warped mind behind “Smoke and Thunder” claimed he got in touch with Ayoob, and indicated that the latter had no problems with the former using his likeness and name.

    The bullshit flag was, understandably, thrown, and no evidence was provided. Should be interesting to see what the response to your email is.

  14. My response was a “thank you” and they’d let Mas know. I don’t think they’ll get back with me on their decision. 🙂 Somehow, I seriously doubt Ayoob would be ok with this association. @ Linoge:

Comments are closed.