Weer'd World

Ok, so you know me, and you know what I do. I’m the former anti-gunner who has seen the error of his ways and now seeks out other anti-gunners to debate.

I used to be much worse, I’d find any paste-eating idiot who MIGHT say something REMOTELY anti-gun, and start “Debating” with them. Of course a crazy-person isn’t going to be able to functionally debate, they aren’t ACTUALLY a person who poses a threat to our 2nd Amendment, AND if I cause enough of a fracas, it might drive traffic to a corner of the internet that was empty and was probably best left empty…so I have nothing to gain, and I’m technically giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I realized I kinda had a problem, and so I came up with my personal rules of Engagement: I will only engage anti-gun politicians, anti-gun lobbyists (ie people who have the ears of said politicians) and anti-gun law enforcement. These are people who DIRECTLY threaten our rights. When I take them down, I take down an AGENDA, not just a lone person.

Still I debate the antis because I enjoy it, and everything in moderation, I occasionally toss the gauntlet….but I just keep the end results to myself if they aren’t a “Fair Target”.

So this leads up to Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser. He’s a (current or former) gun shop owner in Western Massachusetts who loves Michael Bloomberg and gun control and runs an anti-gun blog and writes for the Huffington Post.

I got a LOT of people asking if I’d address him in my blog. Especially when this little feud came out:

Personally I think Colion probably could have let this sleeping dog lie….still he wasn’t attacking Weisser alone, but the Huffington Post who hosts him, and therefore endorses his idiocy.

Still, At best Mike is a lonely guy who runs a gunshop that does moderate business and caters to hunters (at least as far as I can tell with the reviews of his shop online), written a few anti-gun books that have had lukewarm sales, regularly writes in a blog that has near zero readership, writes for the Huffington Post…. Really the closest he gets to being a threat is he sometimes volunteers for whatever Michael Bloomberg shell group de-jour.

Also his blog posts are REALLY boring! He just sticks to basic talking points and whatever “Studies” and stories that’s being covered by all the other Bloomie fans. The best I have is he REALLY doesn’t like the idea of blacks or women owning guns, and keeps repeating that NO it’s ALL WHITE MEN ONLY!!!! Colion took care of that shit better than I could.

Also he owns a gun shop….but apparently knows NOTHING about guns. But little gotcha snipes like naming wrong magazine sizes, or his allegedly carrying a Glock sans holster in a coat pocket, and other things are really catty bullshit.

So I haven’t mentioned him here or on any of my podcasts because he really isn’t even worth my time.

….Still he has an open comments section on his blog. But HE doesn’t actually participate much in that, mostly just leaving pro-gun opinions unchallenged, or giving mono-syllabic non-responses.

But there is one fellow who does regularly comment there. A man named Brent Gurtek. I first saw Brent Online on Joan Peterson’s blog. Brent is a friend of Joan’s and a volunteer for Joan’s Joyce-Group funded Protect Minnesota. Brent makes his living making classic-styled muzzleloader firearms….this makes him the go-too “I’m a gun owner butt” for Joan and her ilk.

I’m not going to link to Mike’s Blog, you can Google “Mike the Gun Guy” and you’ll find it. Still for reasons you’ll find perfectly clear I did take a screen capture JUST IN CASE of the post I’ll be talking about.

That above link is just a HUGE JPEG of the website taken last night. Honestly I don’t think I’ve even read the post in question, he’s really a terrible writer and I wonder how he manages to fill books. Still in the Comments Brent Chimes in about how MIKE should lead the anti-gun charge. I fire back that they can change leadership all they want, but gun control is a political loser no matter who speaks for it.

Go ahead and read the link, it’s pretty standard. Brent shoots back with some factually incorrect trash like “Background Checks save lives” and “Most people WANT universal Background Checks”, I point out it’s true he doubles down…blah blah blah! Seriously this shit is probably just fun for me.

Then it gets fun….so for future reference quoted text in BOLD is me, standard is Brent or Mike.

Everything you just said, in that last statement, including “and” and “the” are incorrect, weather it is because you are lying or because you are so steeped in anti-gun propaganda is of little concern to me as present company has zero chance of impacting gun policy in America, and the public is onto the nefarious plans of your masters.

And Brent Responds with:

I’m far, far from anti-gun. And I’m neither lying or am I a puppet of anyone. Facts are, linear studies of tightly written & properly funded background check laws have shown noticeable drops in gun violence. The trouble in this country is finding BC laws with those qualities. Plus local or state laws can’t be nearly as effective as those passed on the federal level.

Well except if you Google “Brent Gurtek” your first hit is his website were you can order a GORGEOUS muzzleloader firearm. Seriously his guns look AMAZING. I can’t recommend you BUY any of them, as a portion of your money will likely find it’s way into anti-gun coffers, and there are lots of people who do work just as good without being anti-gun.

Oh yeah, Brent Says he isn’t anti-gun, nor a puppet:

Hmmm, Brent testifying in Minnesota as a guest of Joyce Funded Protect Minnesota, supporting a renewed and more strict version of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, and giving the standard anti-gun boilerplate. ie “Assault Weapons” are more deadly because they use LESS powerful cartridges than deer guns (that fact alone was probably the tipping point for me leaving the gun control side) and because they manage recoil and are accurate ect they’re super deadly and should be banned!!!11!!!

Now in full disclosure Brent has contacted me essentially saying things like “Assault Weapons” bans aren’t useful, and he’s REALLY a moderate guy. He was polite, so I will continue to talk to him, and I will right now not directly quote him unless I get permission.

Still that above video is pretty damning, and while I too was anti-gun and saw the light, I haven’t seen enough evidence to discount what is presented in the video.

So in the comments I told Bent he was lying, and detailed all his connections to gun banning groups and his own direct effort to ban guns. I also noted that it was interesting that a man who makes his living making guns that are outside ATF oversight is calling for bans on modern firearms. A bit of a conspiracy, but if we banned cars tomorrow the horse breeders and the buggy whip makers would be AWFULLY happy….

So shortly after I posted this my phone beeped and the message read “Email from Mike Weisser. Remember this post? I assumed I was being banned from the site for being pro-gun at an anti-gun party. Oh well it was fun while it lasted.

The email was even EXACTLY what you’d expect from a gun banner:

Why don’t you go fuck yourself? Okay? Happy?

I used to be somewhat polite in responding to jerk-offs like you and would disregard not only your utter stupidity but the endless insulting language, etc.

But what’s the point? You don’t want to do anything except show people like Brent what an asshole you really are. So I’ll repeat what I said above: Why don’t you just go fuck yourself and take all your dip-shit ideas with you.

Hehe, seriously is anybody else amused by this shit, but me? I really do think I have a problem.

I respond:

You’re too kind, Mike.

Btw is anything I said untrue?

Best wishes with your continuing political and policy failures.

So now here’s the interesting part. First up I then went to the blog….and it was all still there! Yeah re-read that, even as I type this EVERYTHING is still up! Strange. So not to waste good materiel on an away game I double-down in the comment section.

And because he doesn’t want to respond to his own posts, Mike has just emailed me and told me to *Expletive* Myself.

Have I said anything untrue? I will admit I am not charitable to people looking to strip the rights from innocent people and make public safety worse in this country.

But I will only speak the truth, blunt and to the point, but the truth.

Ok so predictably on the website Mike finally chimes in:

You wouldn’t know the truth if it hit you in the face.

YAWN! Such a standard non-response. We call that victory right there. A Standing 8 Count in Boxing. It’s not a knockout, but the fighter is unable to continue, victory for the pro-gun side.

Except here’s where it gets weird. At the same time (like within seconds of each other if Google and his Blog Server are working off the same clock) Mike sends me this…sit down to read this:

Everything you said was absolutely correct. Do you think he really cares about truth or honesty?

From: Weer’d Beard [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 5:39 PM
To: Mike Weisser
Subject: Re: Your comment to Brent

I just copied the whole email just because even I had to read it like three times to make sure my eyes weren’t playing tricks on me….was that a typo? Pretty complicated, but well structured sentence to be a drunk email or something. Also if you say “incorrect” or change “you” to “he”, it doesn’t make as much sense. Really I read that so many times because I couldn’t believe it! A moment of truth from an anti-gunner.

Well first up, I respect your honesty (tho I note your complete 180 response on the public website, which shows either the above email is a typo or you are putting on a facade)

No, I don’t think anybody who is willing to run a blog or write books such as yours, or give testimony in front of legislatures that is as contrived as Brent for a law that is as much of a known loser as an AWB, cares a whit about truth, honesty, or public safety. You all have your own personal agendas that you keep deeply private because they would show your dishonesty as well as your contempt for your fellow person. I know there is NO hope to get you to “see the light” because you are well aware of the truth and why our side fights the way we do, and for your own reason you want no part in it.

Nope, I engage in debate with anti-gunners for multiple reasons.

#1. Anti-gun activists HATE debate and crush it whenever possible. There are currently TWO anti-gun blogs with ANY readership that allow relatively unfettered comments. That is your blog, as well as Armed With Reason. I will also note that like your blog, the proprietors no longer participate in discussion on the blog.

#2. You have pro-gun readers and I’d like to show them how to stand up to anti-gun propaganda, and it’s quite moralizing for a pro-gun 3rd party to read an exchange like just happened, and they see just how thin the ice is on the anti-gun side.

#3: I grew up in an anti-gun house, and supported gun control efforts in my youth. I’m very open about this. When I discovered how factually dishonest the anti-gun side was, and really couldn’t find anything so systematically dishonest on the anti-gun side, I had no choice but to switch sides. As you know I read a LOT of anti-gun publications and media, it’s always to see if there is some honest gun control proponents out there, or valid reasons for your agenda. There isn’t, but there ARE people who, like me, were brought up on the propaganda, and have NEVER heard a reasoned well-researched pro-gun argument. I’ve certainly changed a LOT of minds from people who I have met personally, not so sure if I’ve ever switched somebody from my online activities, but hey, it’s worth a shot.

And #4: Because watching an anti-gun person grasp at straws attempting to debate somebody who’s done their homework is a LOT of fun.

So thanks for the good time, Mike. And if that last email wasn’t a typo, thanks for the honesty.

What else could I say! WOW!

Of course the next morning it was like nothing had happened:

You are entitled to say anything you want on my blog except for one thing. No nasty names. When you call someone a ‘liar’ you are just throwing dirt. And I only see names and nasty, personal comments from pro-gun guys like you. The other side is too concerned about being politically correct to respond in kind. And the excuse for such behavior is always the same: YOU’RE AGAINST MY 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!!!

Sorry, but I simply won’t accept nasty or intemperate emails or blogs from you or anyone else. If you were standing in front of me in my gun shop you would never dare talk that way. But you can hide behind some phony nickname and do it on the internet. So when I get this kind of childish crap now I respond in kind. Want to curse and show everyone that you can insult someone? Go right ahead and post on TTAG. The only reason he has any readership at all is precisely because he lets unintelligent and/or immature people like you say whatever they want. And it’s so much fun to write something nasty about someone or call someone a name and then see it in print. You obviously enjoy it too.

Jesus Christ! I just laid out in explicit detail why I debate anti-gunners! Stop the fucking presses, an anti-gunner who reads the words they WANT to see, not the words written! Also love the “When you call someone a ‘liar’ you are just throwing dirt.” No I am not!

BTW at least we can agree that The Truth About Guns is a shithole. Still I think Mike and Farago have the same opinion about women….

He lied, I showed that he is a liar, so calling him a liar is factual not defamatory.

I’m sorry you don’t like that I call people out for lyin, but that’s not my problem and you should really grow up.

If I see somebody fucking a pig, I’m not calling names when I say “Pigfucker!”, it’s a simple statement of fact!

So who knows if it’s all done but Mike did send me one more email:

And as I said previously, you should go fuck yourself. You don’t even know the difference between facts and opinions. But why let facts stand in the way of your opinions, right? Here’s the bottom line: You just want to be a noisy internet asshole. And of course hiding behind an internet nick. A real tough guy.

Yep, standing 8. I did respond pointing out that anti-gun people have made veiled threats against me and my family….nothing actionable really, I have spoken to the police about one event, but it was just a precaution more than a real concern. I did tell Mike that in no way I was implying that HE has made threats against me, nor do I have any interest in threatening ANYBODY….seriously, he debates like somebody flunking 7th grade, what threat does he pose? But it’s not like I just want to have my personal information just out there when dealing with such degenerate, dishonest people.

And of course I TOLD him why I debate anti-gunners…..he really doesn’t seem to like that idea, huh?

I just thought I’d document this whole thing for all to see, it’s really quite breathtaking when you look at it.

Hope you all got a FRACTION of the joy I got out this.

Campus carry….OH THE HORROR!!!

Professors in Texas may consider changing what and how they teach in light of the state’s new campus-carry law, which goes into effect Aug. 1. Texas joins seven other states that permit concealed-carry guns on public campuses—Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. In response, University of Houston Faculty Senate President Jonathan Snow recently suggested that faculty members should avoid discussions on sensitive topics and change their syllabi to avoid riling students.

Teachers and Police really undo a lot of the massive good they do with their CONSTANT patting themselves on the backs proclaiming themselves to be heros.

Police spend most of their time doing traffic citations and breaking up domestic disputes….which is awesome because that swerving drunk needs to be arrested, as does the drunk up the street fighting with his wife at 3am….but they aren’t going to all-out-war with the street gangs, or breaking up the Zeta smuggling ring bringing in underage prostitutes.

And teachers are awesome, I owe a lot of success to both my K-12 schooling as well as my undergrad work…but then they say shit like this:

I was pleased to see that some faculty have pushed back, insisting, as Professor Margot Backus has, that they would not change what they teach. Still, Backus told the Chronicle of Higher Education that she does not know how she would feel should the moment come when there is a confrontation in her classroom.

I know what she means.

WTF are you talking about?

I teach in Arizona, where there are currently no laws allowing guns on campuses, but where those laws have been proposed annually…

…As class was about to end, one white student raised his hand and said: “I just have to say that I wouldn’t mind watching some of those child molesters be lynched.” A black student exploded out of her chair: “Can you hear yourself? Where does it end? That’s the slippery slope that says it’s OK for them to lynch me, my people.”

The white student responded that he hadn’t meant that. I looked at their faces, both angry, both trying to be heard. This was a learning moment, one that happened because all of us felt safe to speak freely.

A few students looked uncomfortable. But it is OK to be uncomfortable. It is in that place between comfort and discomfort that most learning takes place.

Would I have held the same class today if I had known there were possibly guns among some of my students? What would I have been looking for as I guided the conversation about racism and lynching? Would symptoms of discomfort have looked different to me?

Oh you fucking HERO! You were ONLY safe from this heated discussion (that probably had as much threat of violence as I have of growing wings) because your campus bans guns.

Hey, did one of the students just snap and start smashing the other student’s teeth out with his fists? Did anybody use those massive, and amazingly expensive hard-bound text books as an improvised club? Did somebody pull out a knife, or maybe a glass bottle (you know, weapons your campus doesn’t have rules against) and start getting their murder on?

The idea that campus carry is going to turn pretentious debate into a bloodbath is just foolish given there is ALWAYS the possibility of violence in every situation, even when weapons are not available. The fact that stories of kids coming home for fall break with their expensive orthodonture ruined thanks to a lit discussion gone bad isn’t something we EVER hear about tells us all we need to know about campus carry.

And these professors need to shut the fuck up about all this “threat of violence” nonsense, since you don’t see any of them getting curb-stomped with a Birkenstock from an upset student.