Draw your own conclusions

I have known much of this information for a considerable amount of time.

I didn’t consider it post worthy until lately.

Then I read quite a few things from MikeB302000 like his Venn Diagram in his push for gun control

The Venn Diagram of Gun Owners

A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified. 
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

So in this post he opens every person’s past for scrutiny, even if it happened when that citizen was 25.

I also read this:

The Solution

 1. licensing of gun owners, requiring criminal and mental health background checks.

2. registration of all guns bought.
3. no transfers without the recipient being a licensed gun owner and submitting to another background check – every time.

Safe storage laws, magazine capacity limitations and waiting periods may be eventually added, but the big three above will solve most of our problems.

In this post, not only does he call for criminal background checks but mental health exams. Again, note there is no time frame involved here; any problem at any time would be open for discussion.

I also read he feels that people should give up their privacy:

mikeb302000 (472 posts)

….You mentioned the loss of anonymity. Yes indeed, that would and should be lost.

Given that he demands any citizen wanting to exercise their rights to subjected to intense scrutiny while demanding HIS privacy be absolutely respected, I changed my mind about posting this.

 

mikeb302000 (470 posts)
38. we weren’t talking about me.
you already know that what I did or didn’t do 30 years ago is not an open subject. It’s off topic and the only reason you bring it up is that you think it’s some kind of witty personal attack, and that my not talking about it makes me guilty. You’ve probably read all the Linoge posts about it and some of the others, if you’re bringing it up. So now I’m telling you. I’m 58, what I did when I was 25 has nothing to do with this post and I don’t respond to your bullshit interrogation.

Get that — what he did when he was 25 is his business but what a gun owner did in the past is everyone’s business…no hypocrisy there, eh?

So, what is in his past that he doesn’t want people to know about?
Maybe his own words provide a clue.

First, It seems Mikeb302000 could have had problems with addictions in the past

mikeb302000 Says:
June 15, 2008 at 10:22 am

Thanks, Daisy. Actually I’m looking forward to getting hooked on blogging, which if my past means anything, I will.

Hopefully, being clean in a number of other addictions, I’ll handle this one OK (fingers crossed).

And thanks for being my very first commenter. I’m truly honored because I love your blog so much.

If he had a problem with addiction, it could have been with drugs:

Just like the famous lyrics say, I’ve seen a lot of people walking around with tombstones in their eyes. And I guess it’s a case of, it takes one to know one. I certainly qualified, but that was a long time ago. I’m grateful to have survived, but I’m also grateful for the memories. The years in which I came of age were special years indeed. 

In 1971, I was 18 years old, living North Carolina. My friends and I went to see Steppenwolf in Greensboro or Goldsboro, some place like that. Acid was the drug of choice in those days. What abandon, what reckless youthful abandon.

Drug use and abuse was prevalent in the military in the 70′s — the time when Mikeb302000 was a Marine.

It is possible that he was also addicted to gambling:

Too busy gambling for proper meals, once upon a time, I could relate to that.

Could his own past be the basis for his infamous ’10%’ theory?

It also seems that MikeB302000 could have a problem with telling the truth — sometimes things that happened to “other people” actually involved him. Remember this for later.

From a comment thread at  Stephen Wright’s old blog “Sensibly Progressive” (now blogging at “The Bluff”)

mikeb302000 said…

Very funny and thought provoking video.

A good friend of mine is married to a muslim. He’s like a half-assed Catholic and she’s a non-practicing muslim. She once told us Christianity is better because at least the message is right, even if the people haven’t lived up to it. But in her religion, the message is violence, kill infidels and go to paradise, and all that.

Just a personal anecdote.

September 16, 2009 12:09 PM

 

Weer’d Beard said…
Not too long ago Mike that story was about YOUR wife.I didn’t believe you then either.Love Crowder’s videos. As for Religion I have no horse in this game, and so long as they behave themselves I don’t see a need to change that.I prefer to judge each man and woman on an individual basis.
September 17, 2009 7:08 PM
mikeb302000 said…

Oops, you caught me, Weer’d.

The point is Islam compared to Christianity, not your obsession with me and whether I tell the truth or not.

September 18, 2009 2:55 AM

What else do we know?

Well,  he has admitted to illegally owning firearms

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.

He lived in Las Vegas and visited there.

Some of my time away was spent in Las Vegas where part of my family lives and where I myself had lived from 1978 to 1981. Since then I’ve visited fairly frequently.

He has also lived in California and Florida, here is a comment in which he discusses his  various places of residency

Bob S., I’m going to update my About Page. When I first wrote it I wasn’t sure how anonymous I wanted to be. To answer your question, I’m an expat living in Rome Italy for the last 20 years. I grew up in NJ but lived in Santa Monica, Las Vegas and Miami at different times. Thanks for asking. I realize it helps to know a bit about someone’s background in order to understand what they’re saying.

and  later MikeB302000 confirms he worked in the  Los Angeles area:

In 1984 I was working in West Hollywood in a fancy office building, big shot that I was.

So where does all this lead us? 

Mikeb302000 has never said where he obtained his illegal firearms or why but we know where “some friends” obtained theirs

But here’s a personal story which was part of our Great Gun Survey a few months ago. Once upon a time, friends of mine in Los Angeles found themselves under threat. They drove across the desert to Vegas and in a couple hours bought a shotgun and a revolver, went back to LA to face the trouble, which I’m happy to report resulted in nothing. The guy in Vegas who actually bought the guns said he only had to show a driver’s license, and I suppose he knew the laxity of the Nevada laws was such that he didn’t have to worry about what happened after he sold the weapons to my friends for cash.

In the same comment thread, Mikeb302000 admits his friends could have been felons.

“Mike’s Friends were scumbags and felons.” Felons maybe, but scumbags?

What business or activities could his friends have been involved in that resulted in such trouble? I don’t know but…..L.A. the 80′s, possibly friends with felons; could it have been the drug trade? Again I don’t know.

I know it is a stereotype right – L.A., the 80′s, hot shots and all but often there is a kernel of truth behind the stereotypes.

 

So, what happened to those firearms….the ones his “friends obtained”?

We find out in a different post –one verifying that firearms were purchased illegally.

Note the fairly specific information about the types of firearms involved, the actions of the “friends” entering and leaving the house. Isn’t that a terrific memory for someone who was just a “friend” of the people involved?

Back in those days I knew two guys who worked in L.A., good friends of mine. They got themselves into some trouble, basically it was a misunderstanding, but their lives were threatened by some connected people. What did they do? They came over to Vegas to get guns, of course. For a couple hundred bucks they picked up an old revolver-type pistol, I guess it could be called a Saturday night special, and a six-shot pump action shotgun, the kind referred to as a riot gun. I don’t remember the details of how legal these transactions were. A couple days later, back in the jungles of L.A., whenever exiting their home or place of business, the one guy would go first with the handgun at his side, finger on the trigger I suppose, and the other guy, the main target, would warily follow holding the loaded shotgun at his side in its cloth case with his finger on the safety button, ready to press it, swing the gun up, feel for the trigger and fire through the carrying case. Somehow, no one got killed or injured. Whatever happened to the weapons, you may ask? The pistol no one remembers what happened, but the shotgun was in the trunk of a car that was stolen in Miami about a year after those guys made it out of L.A. The car was recovered, but of course the shotgun was gone along with the tape deck and spare tire. I wonder what mischief that gun got up to in the subsequent years.

 

I guess it is could be completely coincidental that Mikeb302000 lived in Miami also

Now, I don’t read the Miami news every day, although I’ve lived there.

Wonder if he lived there at the same time the “Friends” car was stolen?

 

Unlike Mikeb3o2000 I respect people’s privacy. Not a single word was obtained through a background check, through mandatory disclosure under the force of law. Every word about his past was something HE posted on the web.

If a person calls for my background, my history to be open for examination in the exercise of my right (Right to Keep and Bear Arms), then isn’t it fair that in the exercise of his right (Free Speech) his background be open for examination?

If Mikeb302000 doesn’t want his past being examined by complete strangers, shouldn’t he give that same consideration to others?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander

 

Draw your own conclusions about his past, I have.

 

Please join the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45 Responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Braden Lynch on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Of course the “B” portion (law-abiding gun owners) of the Venn diagram would fill your whole screen for the tiny “A” or “AUB” portions. What’s his solution? Let’s just do our best to stigmitize gun ownership and irritate the HUGE majority of gun owners with invasive procedures for the exercise of an enumerated Constitutional right.. What a tool.

    What about his idea about felons and the mentally ill
    That is a bigger topic for discussion since blanket bans have many drawbacks. The type of felony and the need for a felon who has served his time not being able to defend himself later are things that could be discussed. For mental health, we would have to be very careful about the criteria for denying firearms ownership since many people have had depression bouts and are not a threat to themselves or others. The invasion of privacy and the less objective measures that he would probably endorse is a Trojan Horse.

    Oh yeah, regarding his wet dream of universal registration and back ground checks; since that just helps the government unnecessarily identify and persecute gun owners, I suggest that he go do something anatomically impossible with himself. Anyone who calls for registration is just one step short of the Nazis in my opinion. It does not do a damn thing for crime prevention, but sure help with any genocides later. See Nazi Germany, all the communist countries, Turkey, etc, etc.

  2. Posted by Weer'd Beard on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Very interesting that he would know the exact ways the guns were carried by those guys involved in criminal endeavors, given that they were “Just Friends” and he wasn’t involved in such things…well minus the drugs, gambling, and open lying.

    Also Mike has always been obsessed with “Gun Flow” from lawful owners into criminal hands as a good reason to ban guns from the hands of lawful citizens. Yet he appears to be directly involved in that very “flow” and on the criminal side of it.

    Hope you took screen caps of all those pages and have them stored in a safe place. You make a VERY compelling argument, and he might be so inclined to pretend he never admitted to what he did.

    Again this, and the way Joan Peterson talks about her murderous Brother-in-law (claiming he was a law-abiding citizen despite having a protection order against him, being known to have a violent temper, and being in-and-out of courts and jail and on the local news for his crimes regularly) that those who strongly support gun control are either criminals themselves, or know criminals they are covering for.

  3. Posted by mikeb302000 on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Thanks for all the attention, Bob. You are one sick, obsessed dude. I think it’s getting worse. You need help, before you snap and end up in the news.

  4. Posted by Weer'd Beard on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    I can’t understand why anybody would have a problem with a junkie, drug dealer, and likely violent criminal demanding we give up our guns.

    Maybe we should take advice from a sex offender asking young women to walk alone and unarmed at night?

  5. Posted by Linoge on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Thanks for posting this, Bob. Since I stopped visiting Bonomo’s site a while ago, I did not know about the whole “friend” situation, nor was I aware of his propensity for taking personal events and ascribing them to non-existent “friends”. It certainly puts his “illegal ownership” history in perspective when you frame it in light of those events.

    Not being 100% familiar with the ratification dates for various firearm-related laws, was it legal to purchase handguns out-of-state in the 80s? Of course it is not now, but I do not know when that changed.

    In any case, given how much Mike is willing to use law-abiding firearm owners’ histories against them in a futile attempt to abridge their Constitutionally-protected rights by any and all means available, it is only fair that this information be put into the public eye – we should be aware of the backgrounds of those who would hold ours against us. And, unsurprisingly, MikeB continues to personify the theory that criminals support “gun control” (of course, in his case it is more “projection” than “job/life security”, but the point holds).

    And worse than that, Braden, but that pathetic attempt at a Venn Diagram above is a complete and total failure from Square 1. First, A U B is actually both A and B, and thus both the law-abiding gun owners’ population in its entirety and the criminal gun owner’s population in its entirety. Second, the space where the two circles overlap is the intersection, not the union, and would be A ∩ B. Third, there is no logical, rational, or possible way for that intersection to exist. Either someone has been convicted of a criminal offense, or someone has not. Period. Full stop. End of story. “Committed a criminal offense but not convicted” would neither be the union nor the intersection of the two circles he initially described.

    In short, Mikey not only fails at math, he fails at logic. But we knew that.

    In a similar vein, however, when did negligent discharges and “getting old” become criminal offenses?

  6. Posted by JadeGold on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Wow. The ‘evidence’ here is really, really…underwhelming.

    If one were to take..say, Linoge…I’ll bet I could infer a far more nefarious past than you’ve imaged for MikeB. And I’d only use his words.

    For example:

    Things I Never Want To Hear in This Life (or the next, or the one after that, or….) :

    That my girlfriend’s parents (and her middle sister) prefer her boyfriend… not from previously… but the second one back.

    That just irks the hell out of me. What is more, her sister (the one who appears to not prefer me) told her this, to her face. Now, I am one who has always been against people talking behind other people’s backs, but come on people. That is fucking harsh. I am quite thankful that my parents did not tell me what they thought of (REDACTED) while I was dating her. There are some things you just do not fucking do to people in a relationship. One of those things, pretty high up on the ordered list, is badmouth that person’s significant other, especially by comparing him/her to previous significant other(s). After the two people break up (if ever), feel the fuck free, but not during the damn relationship. It makes it even worse coming from family, especially for someone as tightly tied to her family as (REDACTED).
    Granted, I am not exactly an objective party, considering I am the one being badmouthed, but I woul never dream of doing that to someone else, and (to the best of my knowledge, which, these days, does not really mean much, unfortunately) I never have.

    Certainly, it’d be easy for Weerd–after all, what grown adult likes to play “dress up” with adolescent children? It may have been ‘acceptable’ when you’re 14 or 15..but when you’re in your 30′s–it’s kind of creepy.

    –EDITED by Admin – to redact names.

  7. Posted by Weer'd Beard on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Buying Handguns out-of-state was covered in GCA68, so it was 100% a Federal Felony.

    Also Cabot needs to stop breaking the pills in half. I’m sure what he typed made perfect sense to himself…dunno about anybody else.

  8. Posted by JadeGold on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Really, Andy?

    Need we talk about cosplay and boffing?

  9. Posted by JadeGold on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    BTW, Andy, you should really see what Linoge wrote about REDACTED’s parents. Something about them being know-it-alls.

  10. Posted by Bob S. on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Braden,

    Mikeb302000 and his ilk have to demonize gun owners in order to get an legislation passed. If they honestly talked about gun owners and their guns– Uncle Jesse’s hunting rifle or Aunt Mabel’s revolver, they couldn’t convince that gun owners were a danger.

    Weerd,

    I wonder how much of Mikeb302000′s world view and view of gun ownership is solely shaped by his past experiences.

    I’ve repeatedly have asked Mikeb302000 what happened to the firearms he legally and illegally owned – he refuses to answer. I’ve asked how he stored the firearms he owned, he refuses to answer.

    Time and time again he has asked very invasive questions of other gun owners while demanding we don’t ask him the same. As I said….what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Linoge,

    Weerd answered your question about the ownership — intrastate sales were prohibited for at least a decade. I haven’t found a timeline for California state law so I can’t tell if any state laws were broken.

    Great catch about the Union versus Intersection — guess he didn’t pay much attention in school.

    What also very hypocritical is that Mikeb302000 rejects any comparison of firearm related rights to other rights — such as Freedom of Speech. Remember the conniption fit he threw when I compared his cameras and computers to the illegal chldi pron (deliberate misspelling)?

    Jadegold,

    One warning — you have your own blog — and blog at Mikeb302000′s place — don’t throw out names of innocent people. You want to do that do it at your own place.

    As far as your quote from Linoge’s blog — REALLY?
    It proves what ? That some parents didn’t like him, that they had little class?

    Everything I put together came from Mikeb302000 — you’ll note that I allowed his comment –unedited.

    He could have said I took things out of context. He could have said that he didn’t mean what he said (he certainly does that often enough). He could have said I was wrong.

    HE DENIED NOTHING.

    I’m not saying that his rights should be curtailed because of his past — unlike what he calls for — but shouldn’t people who want full disclosure give full disclosure?

    Mikeb302000 –

    I’m allowing (within reason) comments from you so you can set the record straight.

    You can start by talking about the facts of your illegal firearm ownership.
    You can talk about if you are a prohibited person or not.
    You can talk about how you stored your firearms.
    You can talk about whether or not you violated laws against carrying firearms in public.

    Answer all the questions you’ve asked us over the years……Come on Sparky — fess up.

  11. Posted by Linoge on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    I, too, am at somewhat of a loss, Weer’d, as to what Guy hoped to gain from that comment… Nothing in it so much as alluded to illegal, unethical, or immoral behavior, and there was none involved.

    Of course, he assumes I would be ashamed of my own words. Quick hint – if I wrote them somewhere public, I am not.

    The scary thing, Bob? That quote did not come from my current weblog. Guy Cabot just successfully secured himself the Scubmag Cyberstalker Of The Year award! Hoorah!

  12. Posted by Braden Lynch on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    I really do not care about the possible checkered past of Mikebunchofnumbers or other gun control proponents. What irks me beyond belief is the idea that they think they can dictate whether I can own a firearm or not, or the conditions for doing so. They would not appreciate it if I told them who they could associate with, when and what they could talk about, their choice of religion (or, gasp, compel them to practice a state-approved religion) and so on, with the rest of our Bill of Rights. It is there to protect us from the government and their busy-body drones like these guys intent on taking away our liberty. I did not even address the next three wish items (waiting periods, magazine limits, and “safe storage” requirements which can easily lead to the death of innocents who need a firearm for self-defense). Basically, they are all USELESS in preventing violent crime. That’s there solution!

    @Linoge: Yup, I was so upset by the Venn diagram that I did not think clearly enough to realize that it was supposed to be the intersection, not the union of the two circles. I was blinded by anger at the presumption of my guilt since I own a firearm. I’m basically just a criminal-waiting-to-happen in their eyes. I do not appreciate the smear. I want to mind my own business, but I will call them out as the petty tyrants that they are since their full agenda is to deny me my God-given right of self-defense if they ever get their way.

    @JadeGold: Classy! [Sarcasm]. I see no point in reading your comments carefully for any truths as you have demonstrated the maturity of a 6th grader who learned a new dirty word.

  13. Posted by Gunnutmegger on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Now that we know what a hypocrite and liar Mike Bonobo is, why are we still talking about his ignorant, socialist carcass? Nothing an addict says or does can be trusted, ever. He is an attention-whore, constantly searching for a windmill to tilt at. ‘Guns’ is the only topic he has ever achieved notoriety with, but now that we know what a twisted dolt he is, it’s time to shut him out.

    And JadeGold…well, what can I say about someone whose utterances are as meaningful as a dog’s fart, while lacking its honesty?

  14. Posted by Bob S. on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Gunnutmegger,

    He is an attention-whore, constantly searching for a windmill to tilt at. ‘Guns’ is the only topic he has ever achieved notoriety with, but now that we know what a twisted dolt he is, it’s time to shut him out.

    Some folks aren’t aware of his trolling ways. Some people aren’t aware how out there he is on his ideas.

    We need to show people that our rights are constantly under attack –some of them by attention whoring bloggers — doesn’t make that threat something we can ignore.

    I think that the Mikeb302000 are like cockroaches — you have to shine a light on them in order to fully see how disgusting they are.

    Thanks for the chuckle….that is a great way of describing Jadegold.

  15. Posted by Paul Kanesky on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    I notice “sparky” Dosn’t attack the message, he only attacks the messenger.
    Paul in Texas

  16. Posted by mikeb302000 on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Bob, You’re right, I deny nothing. I also confirm nothing. You missed your chance last year I made you an offer. It’s no longer on the table.

    You and all your fanboys are pretending that your contention makes sense. I don’t think any of you is that stupid.

    I say we need proper gun control, which you quoted well in my Solution post.

    ” 1. licensing of gun owners, requiring criminal and mental health background checks.

    2. registration of all guns bought.

    3. no transfers without the recipient being a licensed gun owner and submitting to another background check – every time.”

    From that you say, and all your buddies agree, that I must tell you personal details about my life, things I did and didn’t do 25 and 30 years ago.

    That’s a helluva leap, Bob.

    I happen to think my requirement number 1, would eliminate some of you guys. But what does that have to do with me and my past that you find so fascinating? Nothing.

  17. Posted by Weer'd Beard on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Got you dead-to-rights, Junkie!

  18. Posted by Bob S. on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Sparky,

    How about coming clean — you said you would then started back tracking on your promise. Trying to put conditions and terms on your telling the truth. Ain’t gonna happen here.

    My blog my rules.

    This will be one of the last comments approved until you come clean.

    Now let’s talk about your past and tell us how well your recommendations would have worked to prevent you from illegally owning firearms, eh?

    We can even look at your “friends” since you choice not to disclose what happened in your past — can you at least admit you are being a hypocritical SOB ? You want every gun owner to open up but you want.

    From that you say, and all your buddies agree, that I must tell you personal details about my life, things I did and didn’t do 25 and 30 years ago.

    1. – Licensing of gun owners — well the “friend” in Las Vegas had a clean record so he would have had no problem getting a license — right Sparky?>

    2. Registration — Okay so the first purchase is registered at the store — then What ?
    NOTHING stops your friend from breaking the law just as he did in the past — He could just as easily turn around and sell the firearms — NO Flow of firearms is stopped, he is just punished IF he gets caught later.

    3. See above — Unless you have a magical power that stops people from handing over property outside of the store — what stops criminals from doing just like you — I mean just like your friends did in Las Vegas ?

    NOTHING.
    Again, it only punishes people IF they get caught.

    MikeB302000 I don’t care what happened in your life 25 or 30 years ago — except for the fact you are trying to claim what happened in my life 25 or 30 years ago is relevant.

    Heck Sparky, you admit to have broken the law — that is very relevant to the discussion of how your ideas would stop the flow of firearms.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Either what you did is irrelevant or what I did is irrelevant.

    I happen to think my requirement number 1, would eliminate some of you guys.

    Right…we are the ones with mental issues. You blog — nearly constantly — about the law in a country you no longer live in, on a subject that doesn’t affect you, and we have mental problems.

    You seem to have had issues with addictions in the past and we are the ones who need mental health exams. Could it be possible Sparky that you are now addicted to blogging about gun control laws? That you enjoy the attention just a little too much to let it go?

    I don’t find your past fascinating. I have a good memory and a better filing system. I do enjoy using your own words to point out how you ‘could’ have broken the law and nothing you suggest would have stopped that.

    Come back again when you are ready to fess up Sparky

  19. Posted by albatrosses come home to roost | walls of the city on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    [...] speaking of trolls getting what they deserve, Bob S. has done a masterful bit of point-connecting, and may have finally figured out what Mike’s criminal history might actually be. It is all [...]

  20. Posted by Linoge on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    1. licensing of gun owners, requiring criminal and mental health background checks.

    From that you say, and all your buddies agree, that I must tell you personal details about my life, things I did and didn’t do 25 and 30 years ago.

    That’s a helluva leap, Bob.

    Yup. It is official. Mike is a sufficient moron that he literally loses track of what he is saying from one paragraph to the next.

    Let me break this down for the morons in the audience – Mike arbitrarily wants a background check run on us for us to be able to exercise a Constitutionally-protected individual right. Great. We want a background check run on him for him to be able to exercise another Constitutionally-protected individual right.

    If it is good for us, it is good for him; if it is good for one right, it is good for them all.

    Oh, and in response to your arbitrary, unilateral, and ridiculous demands, the only appropriate, accurate, and correct response is: NO.

    Now what are you going to do, Sparky?

  21. Posted by Kurt "45superman" Hofmann on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Banned from Daily Kos. Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

    Those people must be more progressive than I’d given them credit for.

  22. Posted by Braden Lynch on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    It is amazing that those people from the Daily Kos who lack all discernment were still able to see that Mikebunchofnumbers is unworthy of serious debate. Even their universal tolerance of all that is wacky has limits. And here I thought they had no morals or standards…

    However, that now leaves our community as his last best hope for trolling behavior, so we might see more of him. I think I’m a little ill now.

  23. Posted by Kurt "45superman" Hofmann on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    I’m the farthest thing from a regular visitor to Bonomoron’s blog, but I had to check it out early this morning, to see if he would whine about the Daily Kos ban.

    I wasn’t disappointed. It was everything you could ask for–anguished bleating about the terrible injustice of it, blaming everyone but himself, his persecution complex on prominent, etc.

    Jadegold even managed to outdo his usual level of idiocy (no mean feat, that), by claiming that one of Bonmoron’s most vocal critics at Kos is really a closet Republican.

    Good times.

  24. Posted by Gareth A on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    One thing about Mike’s “Solution”. The application process requires background and mental health checks. You don’t get a permit without passing these, and there’s no buying at all without a permit.

    So why is a further check required at purchase of a firearm? Correct answer: It isn’t, it’s just another irresponsible regulation on honest gun owners.

    The question is, what do gun owners get out of this? What are you giving up? The quote regarding your “solution” promises unnecessary and unjustified restrictions to come later, so what do the gun owners get in return?

    I know that previously, you’ve answered this question with statements along the lines of “I won’t discuss compromise, this is about what’s right and what’s proper”. This is a fact, but it is also a fact that what you’re demanding is neither right nor proper, especially if you expect to give up nothing in return.

    Here’s a fair suggestion. Forget the standard magazine ban. In fact, if you want support for your ridiculous “solution”, then all bans are off the lawbooks and off the table. NFA, Hughes, State AWBs and mag bans, all gone quite literally “for good”.

  25. Posted by mikeb302000 on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Bob, may I answer Gareth please?

    Gareth,

    The reason for the background checks each time you buy a gun is to ensure that you’ve been a good boy since the last time.

    What do gun owners get out of this, you ask. Well, for very little inconvenience they get to clean up the pool. Swimming with you lawful and responsible guys are too many hidden criminals and dangerous mental cases. These can be cleaned up with no diminishment of your rights.

    Why object, you’re the biggest winners?


    (Admin — Last free comment here Sparky until you come clean)

  26. Posted by Bob S. on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Mikeb302000,

    . Swimming with you lawful and responsible guys are too many hidden criminals and dangerous mental cases.

    Which one were you? Or was it a case of you being both?

    Let’s say a person, maybe someone like your “friends” wanted a firearm but knew they couldn’t pass the background check — what is to stop them from doing exactly what your “friends” did years ago?

    Background checks will not stop criminals from getting firearms — you’ve shown that with your very own words.

  27. Posted by Nick on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Mikeb302000,

    Neither the gun laws nor the drug laws you and your friends broke didn’t stop you from committing the crimes–your own actions prove their ineffectiveness. Have the courage of your convictions: turn yourself in and pay for your own incarceration.

  28. Posted by IndyRoadie on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    I love how people like Mike ignore facts, to support their rhetoric. Let’s look at some of those facts, shall we?

    For 2007 the State of Texas (the State itself, not a pro gun group) compared it’s convicted criminals, with it’s Licensed Gun Owners, do you know what they found? Only 0.26% of all criminals convicted in 2007, were Licensed to Carry.

    According to the anti gun VPC, around 310 Licensed Gun owners have committed homicide with a gun since 2007. What they fail to mention is that this amounts to LESS than 1/4 of 1%.

    The statistics are similar across the Nation. Licensed gun owners are among the LEAST likely demographically, yo be criminals. So, pray tell, just how will MORE background checks, and registration affect overall gun crime in the U.S.?

    Based on the statistics, new laws, more background checks, registration, etc would address less than 1% of crime, and therefore criminals. THIS is Mike’s answer? Logically, wouldn’t it make more sense to address the 99+% instead?

  29. Posted by Weer'd Beard on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    Mike again is the clearest example of why we should ALWAYS carry our guns.

    No matter what the laws, violent anti-social criminals will be able to get guns (They argue that Pro-Gun states fuel the anti-gun states….but they also argue that the US market fuels Mexico, so really where does like BS line end?)

    Also he shows that said criminals and sociopaths are working to disarm the good people (because they know they have deserved a bullet on many an occasion, but because their victims and bystanders were unarmed, they survived to prey another day).

    Thanks I’ll keep my guns!

  30. Posted by Linoge on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    These can be cleaned up with no diminishment of your rights.

    That, right there, is yet another bald-faced lie.

    Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of “A right delayed is a right denied” or the unconstitutionality of poll taxes? The price of freedom, liberty, and individual rights is that some people will misuse all of the above – this is no reflection upon those who do not, merely a statement on the reality of humanity. Controlling/limiting/restricting everyone‘s rights on the basis of the inevitably wrong actions of the few is unquestionably wrong, and definitely constitutes a “diminishment” of the same (if only through the problem of “false positives” and your belief that “getting old” constitutes a reason to abridge a person’s rights).

  31. Posted by For Those of You in PA | Weer'd World on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    [...] like a drug dealer and junkie asking us to give up our [...]

  32. Posted by Its his Nature | Weer'd World on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    [...] There are lots of great gun blogs out there, especially ones that don’t roll out the red carpet for former drug dealers turned trolls. [...]

  33. Posted by The Truth About The Truth About Guns | Weer'd World on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    [...] also a troll-feeder. He currently has Michael Bonomo (Mikeb302000) as a site Author who does nothing but spread baseless flames about gun owners and gun laws, while [...]

  34. Posted by How it Looks | Weer'd World on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    [...] Farago and his Co-Blogger admitted criminal Mikeb302000 have given me a lot more credit than due on the so-called Blacklist (BTW North took what was a [...]

  35. Posted by Quote of the Day: Rubberbaron | Weer'd World on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    [...] Very interesting indeed. It doesn’t surprise knowing my various interactions with the man. Also interesting that he presses authors to be “More Confrontational” in what sounds like for the pure sake of drumming up controversy. Also explains why he has such a nefarious co-author . [...]

  36. Posted by Set Your Spam Filters | Weer'd World on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    [...] Same idiot troll now under a new name! [...]

  37. [...] want to live a private life  but anti-rights busybodies like Mikeb302000 won’t let me. By the way, this is the same busybody who insists his actions 25 years ago have no bearing on him no… I find it hypocritical of people to say that we need to accept that criminals are just [...]

  38. [...] story comes from Bob who wrote this great peace on another illustrious citizen of Elizabeth NJ. This technique is a pretty common form of home invasion. The door is unlocked from inside by the [...]

  39. Posted by Rebuttal for the Political Coward | Weer'd World on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    [...] first his standards are AMAZING! He’s happy to blog for an admitted criminal, addict, and drug dealer who both illegal owned guns and committed who knows how many felonies…but doesn’t find [...]

  40. Posted by Criminals and Guns | Weer'd World on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    [...] the significance of this comment? You haven’t read this post, have you? But here’s a personal story which was part of our Great Gun Survey a few months ago. [...]

  41. [...] "fail" that is MikeB302000 / Michael Bonomo, including his illegally owning a firearm and probable history of illegal drug abuse / dealing, so there is no need to rehash all of that here in this post; however, one thing does need to be [...]

  42. [...] up from our favorite troll MikeB30200 talking about this tragic incident. Police said the man told them he accidentally shot his [...]

  43. Posted by The Anti-Freedom Religion | Weer'd World on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    [...] to it. Essentially this is a question I asked Mike back when we were on more friendly terms, and his dark history was still unknown to me. “What would I need to show you to get you to change your mind on gun [...]

  44. [...] Hmmm, does that explain why MikeB doesn’t want to talk about his own past? [...]

  45. Posted by Despicable Bedfellows | Weer'd World on 03.10.11 at 4:00 AM

    [...] as well as the spokeswoman for Joyce Foundation funded Protect Minnesota is a regular reader of unapologetic former drug dealer, and illegal arms dealer MikeB302000. Not only that, but this particular article that she felt worthy of linking and supporting is [...]