For me the funny thing is sometimes these pro-gun guys are their own worst enemy. There’s been a lot of discussion lately among them about the merits of open carry, whether it’s helpful to their cause or not. The reasonable ones say, rightly in my opinion, it is not. But the uproar from the others is what’s amazing. They’re so into sticking up for their rights they become blind.

The t-shirt though, I thought might be just what they need. It might encourage non-gun people to think about the issues without experiencing that feeling they often have of being bullied or threatened.

My own ideas, as you know, are in alignment with yours. Guns are bad news and the fewer the better. And like you, I’m very suspect as to the motivations of our gun-loving friends.

All sizzle, and no steak…and a little bit of copyright violation to boot!

Who’s the flaccid one, Cliff?

Cliff,

You know very little about me if you think your description matches. I have a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering, I’m a software developer for Microsoft and earn well over $100K per year, my previous job at a government laboratory had the title of “Senior Research Scientist II”, one of our homes does contain a TV but to the best of my knowledge it hasn’t been turned on in several years and I don’t know if we still have a remote for it.

I take your use my of distorted picture in conjunction with your insults very seriously. The next time you hear from me on the unauthorized use of my picture it will be from my lawyer. I’m currently about to take off on a cruise in the Bahamas and expect the picture to be taken down by the time I get back.

See also my blog post.

On Boomershoot: there is a “High Intensity” portion of the event where the targets are about 25 yards away. But the ideal rifle for that is really a semi-auto with a 20 to 30 round magazine.

Old Remingtons are not inherently a poor choice for Boomershoot. If the barrel is good, you have a good scope, and you use good ammo you would probably still have a good time.

That’s a pretty douchey move on your part

Cliff Lyon :
Boob S,
I did take it down. You need to clear your cache.

Since I didn’t happen to have that pic in my cache and I see it, I’d have to throw out the BS flag. Pathetic would be too nice to describe you.

Weer’d:

Unless there is an existing federal registration to the photo, there is little that can be recovered by way of damages in a lawsuit. Further, the fact that the photo was allowed onto the internet evidences a willingness to dedicate the photo to the public. Finally, and most humorous of all, is the fact that since you supplied Cliff the link to the photo, you will be a named defendant in the lawsuit, too, either directly or by third-party complaint.

Party on, bro!

cool James, Send me a subpoena!

Also I’m waiting for you to show me how your “reasonable gun restrictions” are in fact “reasonable” to prove that I’m avoiding a debate, rather than defending our rights from foolish restrictions!

If men opposed to gun control are flaccid then men in favor of gun control must have vagina envy.

Cliff Lyon :Boob S,
I did take it down. You need to clear your cache.

As of 1638 EST, that would be a baldfaced, blatant, and just-plain-idiotic lie, Cliff. Or should I take a screenshot (which I have already done) and post it here for everyone to see? And then forward it on to Mr. Huffman’s lawyer?

Bob S,

Honestly, you’ve had many better arguments for controling guns over the past year. This low point is not only the fault of Cliffs’ behavior, but also the inability of any of us to simply agree to dissagree.

0023 30 Oct….Picture STILL VISIBLE…btw this was my first visit to the site.

Penil references in regards to guns. How original. Judging by your picture I’d say you’ve been to cialis.

As clever as yourself, no doubt.

And here we are at 0643EST, and the picture still remains, despite flushing my cache and forcing this webpage to refresh itself. Just how much of a liar are you, Cliff?

Oh well… I think Mr. Huffman’s cruise is about a week long, so you can have another few days of entertainment at his value before his lawyer gets in touch with you. It amazes me that you cannot comprehend a simple request from someone to obey the laws of the land… at least, it amazes me until I remember who I am talking to.

Is it true that gun control people are the ones who cost lives?

Yes.

And, are the folks who decide to arm themselves doing so out of fear and insecurity?

Well, how about you tell us, MikeB302000, given your criminal history with firearms – why did you arm yourself?

And Bob S. nailed – it no facts, no substantiation, no evidence, no nothing… Your modus operandi is inherently self-defeating, MikeB, and yet you go on using it. Are you that much of a masochist?

Would be nice to see this boil on the ass of the internet go the way of the Dodo.

Yet you continue to come back again and again. Curious.

Uncle Rico :

Would be nice to see this boil on the ass of the internet go the way of the Dodo.

Yet you continue to come back again and again. Curious.

And you guys keep linking Glenn Beck videos.

Same idea. You spout BS, I’m there to call you on it.

I’ve read conflicting reports on who said this quote: “A lie repeated often enough becomes truth.”

I’ve heard Goebbels, I’ve heard Lenin. Either way it was a “Progressive”.

I’m here to keep your lies from becoming truth.

Well that and Cliff making an abject ass out of himself.

That was your straw man….and no it doesn’t.

Cliff, I guess you must be special if the published notice “© Copyright 2009, Joe Huffman.” over at http://blog.joehuffman.org/ applies to everyone but you.

Of course as a flaccid armchair constitutional scholar, I probably have a poor understanding of such a complicated topic as copyright law, right?

1. His name is Joe Huffman.

2. The event is called “Boomershoot”.

3. You are still violating copyright and intellectual property claims, and furthermore disobeying a direct request of the original copyright-holder to remove the image.

4. Putting your own copyright on someone else’s image is unlawful, even if you edited it.

Why can you not honor a simple request? Why do you break the law? Why do you lie? Why do you act like a petulant child with his hand caught in the cookie jar? Why do you continue to escalate a situation you have already lost?

It will be very… amusing… to see your reaction when official letterhead shows up in your mailbox. But, then, thinking out the repercussions of your own actions and desires has never been your strong suite, has it, Cliff?

Here, Cliff, let me help you out.

And again MikeB302000 just cannot pass up the opportunity to pipe up with his meaningless, unsupported, baseless opinion, even when that opinion boils down to nothing more complicated than “I know you are, but what am I!?!?” But, given that he is a self-professed criminal who has admitted to being incapable of determining fact from fiction, we are not exactly surprised at this behavior, now are we? Reflexive defensiveness must become second-nature when one has such a history…

James, your lack of reading comprehension amazes and astounds me at every available opportunity.

Helpful hint: reread my comment. Then, maybe then, you will realize how much of an idiotic ass you just made of yourself. (Secondary helpful hint: I was not referring to Cliff when I wrote the words “self-professed criminal”… but I guess that escaped your ever-so-sharp wit, eh?)

In other news (and completely unrelated to the section of my comment you just made a fool of yourself over), passing off someone else’s work (in this case, a photograh which is obviously copyrighted to the individual who took it) as your own (done so by Cliff putting his own “copyright” on it) is well outside the realm of “fair use”. Furthermore, given that Cliff has already agreed to take the picture down (and fallaciously lies about doing so), this is somewhat a moot point, is it not?

Bob somebody said:

The picture was taken from another website without permission… [snip]… It was requested to be taken down.
It wasn’t taken down.

But Bob, I pointed out that Cliff had provided the Photoshopped, (are you not allowed to acknowledge an actual name of a corporation?), image in addition to the actual photo that was Photoshopped.

Today, he doesn’t need to do that, because of obvious reasons.

The Beetles? Where the fuck have you been for the last 50 years?

I’m sorry.

Not really

Becky:

I had no way of knowing that Cassius Clay would show up in that video, but I am somehow sedated.

And I love Cat too!

Exclamation point!

Yusuf Islam and Muhammad Ali deserve that utmost respect from me, and, frankly, I would never come close.

James, the only person in denial here is you, for being unable to admit to the fact that you misread my comment, and made a complete idiot out of yourself in the process. But, hey, that is the first step in the process, and I am sure you will eventually move on to the following ones.

On the flip side, if you want a beautiful example of ad hominems (and continued, seemingly incessant, lies), just take a look at Cliff’s comments on the topic.

Becky Stauffer :More guns, more stupid people making bad choices with guns. Heaven help us.

False.

*sigh* You are one to talk about honesty and lies, Cliff.

1. You lied initially about taking down the picture that precipitated this entire comment thread.

2. The statement “you guys [...] never link to references outside the NRA world” is demonstrably false, as a 10-second read of my webpage would clearly indicate (and I know you have spent more han 10 seconds poking around – gotta love server logs).

3. The statement “you guys are never honest about your methods” is likewise demonstrably false, given that I laid out exactly the methods used in the post to which you are probably referencing (which is this one, by the way, not the one I linked to above – try not to confuse the situation).

4. Moving on, the statement “you don’t even provide a general thesis except more guns equals fewer deaths using no other metrics” is intentionally misleading – that was never my thesis for the post in question, and I made that quite clear in the very opening paragraph. Your inability to comprehend what you read does not give you license to lie.

5. And keeping up with your previous pattern, the statement, “Total firearm offenses in England and Wales decreased by 30%,” is, most probably, a lie as well. What time-span are you talking about, Cliff? Because, in the past ten years, England and Wales have seen an over 35% increase in firearm-related offenses, as a ten-second Google search showed me. Even discounting imitation firearms (which I do not agree with – are you going to take the time to verify whether or not the firearm is real when it is pointed at you?), England and Wales have seen a 15%+ increase in frearm-related offenses. Bear in mind that in that time period, England and Wales only had a 5% population growth.

6. And in a repeat of the last one, regarding this statement: “gun deaths in the US INCREASED as did the rate of gun ownership”, what time period are you talking about? Because, coincidentally, in the past 10 years, firearm-related deaths in America have increased at nearly the same rate as our population, as the data clearly shows.

So, before we even get to the issue of how the CDC counts its numbers, we have three bald-faced lies, one misdirection, and two likely lies. Do you even understand what a lie is?

Cliff, you are not doing so well in the “credibility” department… but hypocrisy and hubris seem to be your best friends.

Now, as for how the CDC does keep track of its numbers, if you had bothered to do your homework in its entirety, you would stumble across something interesting. First, regarding deaths caused by accidental discharges of firearms (something the CDC really needs to rephrase), it turns out that the ICD-9 system (the older one) actually underreported fatalities by about 5.79% (which only makes the point of my originally-linked to post regarding firearms and accidents that much stronger). On the flip side, suicide-by-firearm was overreported by 0.18%, and homicide-by-firearm was overreported by 0.21%. Now, I am certainly willing to go back into my numbers and adjust them accordingly (and, in fact, I should, though I loathe trying to get that graph straight again… too many datasets), but I am quite willing to wager that they will not appreciably change the outcome of the situation in the slightest.

Of course, if you had actually bothered to couch your argument in facts, figures, and reality, you would have taken the time to do your own homework and figure out if this fight was worth it. As it is, you are no better than the vast majority of anti-rights activists – casting baseless aspersions at every opportunity, but having absolutely nothing to back them up with.

Let me know if you ever get over your problem of lying, and maybe then we can have a chat. Until then, you are hardly worth it, except for the sheer, ludicrous entertainment value.

(And given your site’s tedency to “mysteriously” eat comments, this one will be preserved for safe-keeping.)

Considering that you still do not understand what my conclusion was, Cliff, you are in absolutely no place to lecture me on it, or how I came to it. Repeating what you believe to be my conclusion (which, again, it is not) does not make it any more real or actual.

In reality, though, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that you simply cannot comprehend a very simple sentence – the first sentence in the post you appear to have so many problems with. Shall I simply rack this up as another example in the long line of Cliff Lyon’s lies, or is this a disability you have?

I do find it quite interesting, however, that you would choose to quantify bald-faced, obvious, pathetic lies as “name calling” – do you obfuscate this much in reality, or is this just an online persona for you? Do you lie this much all the time, and are you just not used to having people call you on it so readily?

Linoge:

Your commentary has a common denominator: non sequitur. Sorry, but that is the best I can do with your rambling gobbledygook.