Mike the Gun Guy, from the Huffington Post

[rhino]

Mike "The Gun Guy" At New York Times: Gun Owners Like Guns Because Guns - The Truth About Guns

Mike is really good at reaching new heights of Douche Baggery each time he says or writes something about guns.

 

[actaeon277]

Mike is really good at reaching new heights of Douche Baggery each time he says or writes something about guns.

Well you know, he's a liberal darling, and a "gun guy". So he could pretty much say the moon was made of cheese and they'd fawn over him.

 

[MCgrease08]

When he first showed up on the scene he would at least pretend to present himself as objective. Now he doesn't even try to cover up the fact that he's a paid shill for the anti-gun groups.

 

[jamil]

I think there should be a "cage match" debate between John Lott and Mike the douchebag gun guy on national TV.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think there should be a "cage match" debate between John Lott and Mike the douchebag gun guy on national TV.

I'm thinking Ted Nugent or Dana Loesch.

 

[Mark 1911]

My BIL spouted all the typical facile, and misleading talking points you hear from Obama, anti-gun groups, legislators, and the press. Not one point was original thought. He's a smart man. But he couldn't explain the "logic" behind all that without repeating what he heard on TV. That tells me he's not thinking for himself. He's been 1984'd. People with a vision to progressively engineer a "great society", which cannot work with an armed citizenry, are thinking for him.

I am the odd pro-gunner in my family. My cousin is one of those very smart people, an attorney with an impressive resume. Has never owned a gun, knows very little about them. Yet he will come up with many "original" ideas, not realizing how old and worn they really are. I could point to several other smart people in my family who somehow lose any ability to think rationally on this topic. Very frustrating. We have a long way to go. I think the best we can do is to prepare future generations of gun owners to fight to keep this freedom.

The New York Times has fallen off the liberal cliff. Gun rights is only one topic on which they have lost any remaining shred of objectivity. They give journalism a bad name. A friend of mine gave me an NYT article yesterday on a different topic. New York Slimes seems a better name for them.

 

[GIJEW]

I am the odd pro-gunner in my family. My cousin is one of those very smart people, an attorney with an impressive resume. Has never owned a gun, knows very little about them. Yet he will come up with many "original" ideas, not realizing how old and worn they really are. I could point to several other smart people in my family who somehow lose any ability to think rationally on this topic. Very frustrating. We have a long way to go. I think the best we can do is to prepare future generations of gun owners to fight to keep this freedom.

The New York Times has fallen off the liberal cliff. Gun rights is only one topic on which they have lost any remaining shred of objectivity. They give journalism a bad name. A friend of mine gave me an NYT article yesterday on a different topic. New York Slimes seems a better name for them.

They fired "journalist" (10-15 years ago) for writing actual fiction and presenting it to the editors as news. Judging from some of the captions attached to photos, the editors aren't much better.

 

[actaeon277]

Mike "The Gun Guy" Weisser: I Heart My Police State - The Truth About Guns

Mike likes himself some gun control.

 

[2A_Tom]

Why do I click on your links? Morbid curiosity, I guess.

 

[actaeon277]

Why do I click on your links? Morbid curiosity, I guess.

Know
Your
Enemy

 

[actaeon277]

How the Second Amendment Differs From the Rest of the Bill of Rights

His "logic" process amazes me.

it is the only Article in the Bill of Rights that protects only a certain group of individuals: people who decide to own guns. Every other Amendment guarantees protections to everyone, whether it's speech, religion, assembly, due process, trial by jury or payment for private property that is taken for public use. But if I decide not to own a gun, and that decision happens currently to be shared by a majority of Americans, then the 2nd Amendment means nothing to me.


Sigh.
This was addressed by many in the comments. There were a few anti-gunners, but there were a lot of people shooting holes in his argument.
Such as.. Free speech applies whether you use it or not. And so on.

 

[Birds Away]

He only serves to raise my blood pressure.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

He only serves to raise my blood pressure.

Yeah, I'm not giving his ridiculous blog anymore clicks.

 

[2A_Tom]

What a conscientiously ignorant idiot. You gotta try to be that dumb.

 

[actaeon277]

What a conscientiously ignorant idiot. You gotta try to be that dumb.

My theory is reincarnation.
Cause no one can be that stupid in one lifetime.

 

[actaeon277]

Another gem

Mike "The Gun Guy" Weisser Fantasizes About Civilian Disarmament - The Truth About Guns

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Another gem

Mike "The Gun Guy" Weisser Fantasizes About Civilian Disarmament - The Truth About Guns

Americans have free access to something they really don’t need.

. There's that phrase again...

 

[KG1]

What we don't need is another pompous ass poser telling us what we don't need.

 

[OakRiver]

. There's that phrase again...

"Need" implies something something essential for life, like water, food, oxygen, shelter, heat. It is also a very low threshold to use to make a right null and void.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"Need" implies something something essential for life, like water, food, oxygen, shelter, heat. It is also a very low threshold to use to make a right null and void.

Yeah but...escalation of lethality!