Sunday, December 1, 2013

Strange and Deceitful Pro-gun Post by a North Carolina Fanatic

Sean Sorrentino posted the story of a Greensboro NC fast food restaurant that was the victim of a gun control customer sticking a sign prohibiting firearms on the store-front window.

 Here's where he got the story, a fanatical message board for illiterate gun-nuts who ask questions like this: "So this must be a new tacked anti-gunners are deploying?" "New tacked," is that a riot, or what?

I have serious doubts about the veracity of the original story. There was no link to any news source and pro-gun message boards are the places where these guys hone their creative skills. But, my complaint to Sean is his inference that this is something the poor persecuted gun owners need to be on the look out for. His post makes it sound commonplace or at least occasional enough that they need to check. His advice:
There’s a lesson here. If you see a gun ban sign, make sure to question it. It might be some anti-gun jerk posting the sign.

34 comments:

  1. Working oneself up into a froth over one possible incident with no reliable sources? Now who else do we know who does that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "One possible incident?" Is that what I do, Greg? I don't know if you're implying or inferring, but it's total bullshit and you know it. I post multiple examples of every kind of gun offense by you lawful gun owners EVERY DAY.

      Delete
    2. You've been shown repeatedly how you work yourself into a lather over "no charges," only to find that charges were indeed filed. You latch on to rare incidents and claim that they are the general rule. In your comment right here, you attempt to paint all of us with the same brush.

      So yes, that's what you do.

      Delete
    3. Greg's rare incident, numbers in the thousands.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous makes claims, while I've provided evidence time and again.

      Delete
    5. I have asked you many times to back up your claims with facts, you have refused. So take your lie and shove it up your ass.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous, whenever you're ready to ask specific questions for me to answer, feel free. But if you wish to discuss comments that I've made, you'll have to give links to the source for the context. But since all you want to do is spew filth, I don't expect this disucssion to come any time soon.

      Delete
    7. I've asked like 10 times now criminal liar. You excuse for not answering, just shows what a coward you are.

      Delete
    8. Mikeb, I'd like you to note that I've offered to address comments one at a time with a link to the source. I'm not going to take a mass of comments and deal with them out of context. That's not fair to your blog or to me.

      Delete
    9. It's not fair to Mike's blog for you to refuse to respond? You get funnier with every excuse.

      Delete
    10. Yeah, that was pretty funny, not fair to my blog. Hahahahaha.

      Delete
    11. Mikeb, you know that I'll argue in the strongest terms with what you post and will participate in the discussion. But I don't see why these trolls should flood a comment thread with irrelevant matters, while offering no links to the sources.

      I tell you what, Mikeb, how about you do an article on me, since the trolls are obsessed with me. Link to their quotations so we can look at the original discussions. And then we can settle this foolishness. I've offered to do that all along, but they refuse to do anything but shout and stamp their feet.

      Delete
    12. Funny, now the criminal lying coward wants to drag Mike into HIS demands on how HE will justify HIS criminal statements, and the ONLY way HE will speak to HIS criminal statements. . HIS definition of criminal statements, foolishness. HA HA HA

      Delete
    13. Go ahead Mike. Do it HIS way. Only HIS way. Forget that HE has had every opportunity to respond. Forget that HE defines HIS criminal statements as foolishness. It must be foolishness to say revenge is justice, or say it's OK to beat someone up because we live in an imperfect world. Those are HIS words. Good luck.

      Delete
    14. Greg, you're using the word troll too loosely again. It doesn't mean "one who disagrees with me."

      Delete
    15. No, I'm using it precisely. The goal of these trolls is to distrupt the conversation. They're adding no useful information and no argument. They're just storming into the room and yelling and stamping their feet.

      Look at Anonymous at 10:47. He just lied about what I said. I said that I understood the soldier who attacked a drug dealer that was poisoning his friend. Anonymous turns that into "revenge is justice, or say it's OK to beat someone up because we live in an imperfect world." What I said isn't criminal. But Anonymous boldly proclaims it to be so.

      This is an example of why I want the context of any comment we discuss. These trolls keep misquoting and lying.

      Delete
    16. "The goal of these trolls is to disrupt the conversation. They're adding no useful information and no argument."

      The same could be said of you for your refusal to respond to them. I've remarked a few times now that I think it's simple evasion on your part because they have good points.

      Delete
    17. Ive asked that you explain why your comments are not criminal and I stated why they are. You can use your supposed context to prove me wrong, but you do not, because you cannot. You said it's ok to beat someone up, that is crime and you promote it making you a criminal. You said revenge is justice, taking the law into your own hands is a crime and you promote it making you a criminal.
      On with your next lie.

      Delete
    18. Mikeb, I'll address any comment you wish, but I insist on the context with a link to the source. That's neither a refusal nor an evasion. But the trolls aren't willing to do this in a fair manner, and I'm not playing troll games.

      Delete
    19. Well, Greg, I guess that's a victory for you.

      Delete
    20. The lying criminal coward INSISTS. Thanks for the laugh. Multiple people have been ASKING that you explain your criminal words. The coward that you are, you refuse.

      Delete
  2. It’s ironic that Mikeb302000 writes that Sean inferred something in his writing. As the writer, Sean actually "implied" something. "Implication" is the word you wanted here, Mikeb. For your future reference: speakers/writers “imply” things, and listeners/readers “infer” things. Weigh the obvious, fat-fingered spelling error of “tacked” instead of “tactic” vs. Mikeb's fundamental misunderstanding of what words mean… Now THAT’s a riot! Perhaps aggressive spell-checking is the new hallmark of the gun-grabber. That's a great contribution to the debate, but keep in mind that “illiterate gun-nuts” can proofread, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll defend Mikeb a little here. It depends on how he meant the sentence. If he meant that Sorrentino drew a conclusion from the message on the gun board, the word is correct. If he meant that Sorrentino has a message for us, Mikeb was wrong.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Greg for that unexpected defense. The truth is I am a little hazy on the difference between infer and imply. But Harold really embarrassed himself with this one, "fat-fingered spelling error of “tacked” instead of “tactic” " The word the illiterate gun nut wanted was "tack."

      Delete
    3. Mikeb, you couldn't just accept a little help and leave it at that, could you...

      Delete
  3. Sort of like the Little to-do with the MOMs in Texas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Usually I can follow you're thinking. Not this time.

      Delete
    2. You questioned the veracity of the author since there was nothing reported by news source. Somewhat similar to the MOMs hiding in the resteraunt in Texas. It moved into the media spotlight from social media.

      Delete
    3. Where did you get the idea that the Moms were "hiding" in the restaurant? And I still don't see the connection with this story which has been entirely limited to pro-gun sites.

      Delete
  4. Sorrentino's report is neither "strange" nor "deceitful." He is responding to a conversation with a restaurant owner who confronted a regular customer after using video surveillance footage to confirm who placed the "no guns" sticker. The customer said she was doing it "all over town." The only ones that come to mind with that level of vitriol are the gun ban radicals of "Moms Demand Action," which is starting to look increasingly like "Code Pink." We are working to interview the restaurant owner in question. Once we do, rest assured you will hear more from us.

    Paul Valone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to see that my home state is on the job.

      Delete
    2. Yeah Paul. It's the gun control folks who are famous for vitriol. You sound like a good gun-rights fanatic, you have no restriction of truth or honesty.

      Delete
  5. Sean deleted my comment because I'm a troll. What a weak-ass punk. No wonder he carries a gun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that the standard? I don't delete your comments. Of course, you have no problem psychoanalyzing people you've never met while having no license to do so, yet demanding may-issue licenses to carry, approved only by a tribunal.

      Delete