Someone’s gotta do it
All the cool kids are at the Second Amendment Blog Bash. So, someone’s gotta blog the gun stuff. But here’s some stuff from the bash:
More stuff from Sebastian.
Live coverage here.
17 Responses to “Someone’s gotta do it”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 15th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Not all of the cool kids. Some of the coolest were disinvited, remember?
May 15th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
nope.
May 15th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
whoa, so it just hit me, it’s not really a Second Amendment Blog Bash, then is it? More like a party for the less sturdy.
May 15th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
you mean that whole ‘we’re gonna fake register for a convention we’re not going to anyway’ thing? The one where they didn’t think anyone would, maybe, be privy to their grand plans? So, those they thought not privy instead just opted to ignore them so as not to let them play up the victim card. Those cool kids?
May 15th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I assume you are talking of David Codrea and M. Vanderboegh, right? I suppose everything you said could be true about their intentions of not going, but so what? It is undeniable they are second amendment bloggers, isn’t it? If the event were honestly named they should have been welcomed, if not appreciated. I think they are way cool kids, they just exposed the hypocrisy of the organizers of the event, and exposed their inability to act as adults. My,my, they took a page out of the Brady Bunch didn’t they? “We’ll take our ball and go home.”
How about the lady Examiner who was told she wasn’t held in high regard nor were the other Gun Rights Examiners and therefore the invitation didn’t extend to them?
A great many of those people hold exactly the same “professed” views as the organizers claim to hold. Yet they weren’t welcome, either. So please, don’t be dishonest. This isn’t a Second Amendment Blog Bash. It’s a party for people who are too weak to defend their own position or even hear from those who haven’t previously acquiesced to the required “groupthink” to be acceptable in that circle.
Funny don’t you think, that you had to question the motives of registrants to present the Second Amendment Blog Bash in a favorable light? Don’t you think it would be better if you could have defended it with something positive about the Second Amendment Blog Bash, instead of something negative about others?
May 15th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
At that point, the game is over. Done. Finished. Pointless.
And if they were serious, there would be no problem. But they weren’t. People don’t like to be mocked. Who knew?
May 15th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
well then, take your ball and go home, is that your answer? Done, finished, over. Nobody may enjoy being mocked but the smart and principled people don’t invite it.
Had they not been a fraud about what they were doing they would have registered those who evinced an interest. Any who didn’t show or didn’t behave would have been mocking only themselves, not that you know any of that would have happened.
Loyalty is a nice thing, except when it is undeserved. So how about those people unknown to either of the two we named, and unknown to each other and unknown to snowflake and the other one? Upon what criteria do you claim they weren’t allowed to register? I read a few of them and mostly they are in the pragmatist camp, so how could they have been offensive to this meeting of “stroke mine and I’ll stroke yours”?
You didn’t address that. Why? Oh, that’s right “over, done, finished”, an illegitimate excuse to bail. Hey you don’t need an excuse to bail. Just bail.
May 15th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
i am home. sorry, those evil ‘prags’ ain’t playing your dumb game. I actually disagreed with them deciding to ignore them until I saw MV lose control of his bodily functions in comments at kevin’s. Then, I thought it was beautiful.
For the record, they were invited. Until they decided no to show up.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
get real. I have said all to you on this I wish to. Your loyalty to them is blind. That isn’t going to change until they piss on you. Ok, I’m not too concerned. I know it will happen, because even though I think you may be misguided about these two, especially, I once was myself, I believe you to be an honest man and at some point your honesty is going to offend them.
We’ll just wait for it.
I would point out that you still haven’t addressed the complete dismissal of a whole group of people whose only dog in this fight is that they blog about 2A and wanted to meet others who did also. But whether you do or not. I won’t be having anymore to say to you about this until they turn on you. And they will.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
i have no loyalty to your imaginary ‘them’. I said as much at the last NRA meeting. They respected me for it. I do, however, have loyalty to a cause that I believe in. And i opt to do it correctly. and not by crying when someone outsmarts me.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Whole other subject. Lying is not outsmarting anybody. It’s just lying.
Are we now going to have a discussion about that?
Sorry, I call bullshit on your first sentence. I have seen you defend snowflake when he wasn’t defensible. I was not talking about the NRA “them” if that is what you alluded to.
Oh, and it’s so nice to know that you know what “correctly” is. Would you tell the rest of us? You know, by the rest of us I mean, “the principles freaks”. If I’m not mistaken, that was your invention for us, but memory may not serve me well in this instance. However, if it was your invention, could you explain what it is about principle that makes a practitioner a “freak”?
May 15th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
you’re right. lying and saying you’re going is just lying.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
BTW, a search of principles freaks on my site yields nothing. But maybe i forgot.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
oh and call bullshit all you want. i don’t care. i want to win. not masturbate to my own intellectual superiority.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
No, I didn’t say I was going, what I said was I had no more to say to you about the blob bash.
You introduced a whole new topic. Different thing entirely. remember this; “and not by crying when someone outsmarts me.”
As I stated, my memory may not have served me well in regards to who said it, it very well could have been our melty little friend, or for that matter somebody else. But it was an accusation that was made one place or the other. I could probably find out where it originated if I tried, but somehow I don’t think you care.
“oh and call bullshit all you want. i don’t care. i want to win. not masturbate to my own intellectual superiority.”-Uncle.
That would probably carry so much more validity if you hadn’t dodged so assiduously the part of why the others who just wanted to meet other bloggers weren’t thought well of nor invited, nor allowed to register. What did you say about masturbation, again?
Now, like you, I want to win, unlike you, I do care. I don’t want to win at the expense of truth or principle. If shown where they are against me, I will change. So, I still call bullshit.
Now, the last word is yours. Try harder to man up.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
never said you were going. just that the bloggers who said they were were not.
Because i know that is utter bullshit. they could still go. did not.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Defending the indefensible comes easy to you prags. The entire Republican National Convention, er, ah, NRA Convention, proves it. Embracing people like McCain and Steele who have already by their actions pissed all over your back and told you it was raining proves it.
I rejoined the NRA in Cincinnati with the express purpose of qualifying for the blog bash. I am not in the habit of wasting money, especially in a situation where the cowardice of the people running it introduced a high level of uncertainty that I could participate.
If you wish to defend such conduct, it says more about you than me.