There were those who actually considered it could be serious.
If its real, I’m sorry the guy lost his mind. If its his idea of a joke then the guy has some issues he needs to deal with.
If Mike’s still alive and this is just his sick idea of a joke: Don’t feed the troll. I’m sure tasteless responses celebrating his death are perfect fodder for his blog.
If it’s not a joke: Save the celebrations for Feinstein.
Mikey’s blog has posts dated today. Go and check it out for yourselves. Is he posting from Gun-Free Nirvana? I don’t think so. This is a sick joke.
Those who couldn't tell I used a 3 Euro toy gun.
is it me, or does that pistol seem…photoshopped?
A few things.
3. What kind of gun is that? SVI/Infinity?
And the best of all, this genius who combined both.
That really is sad to hear.
So, where did he get the gun that he was so vehemently opposed to?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYour post was cute, but not believable. Nobody just commits suicide by gun without having several drinks first. Alcohol, guns, self-pity and despondency. Now that's a lethal combination!
Right you are, my friend.
DeleteNo one? I'm not even going to try...
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteI cant recall whether it was you or one of your able assistants who recently posted a photo of a woman was pointing what looked like (to me) a toy gun at a small child. I don't recall anyone being approving of that photo.
How exactly is your photo any different?
Well, mine was accompanied by an extremely witty post, full of tongue-in.cheek messages about the gun control debate.
DeleteMikeb, no wonder you defend David Gregory.
DeleteYou lost me, Greg.
DeleteLet me break it down for you in simple terms. You said that it was ok for you to make this photo since it was part of a tongue-in-cheek post advocating gun control, but it wasn't ok for the other photo to be made.
DeleteTherefore, Greg found it unsurprising that you would defend David Gregory breaking the D.C. Mag ban since it was part of opposing the NRA and pushing gun control, but you expect the law to be enforced against regular folks.
Do you see the similar thought process there? "This thing/action that I have denounced is ok in this context because it is being used to oppose gun control."
"but it wasn't ok for the other photo to be made."
DeleteWell, for one thing, that other photo could have been interpreted as severe child abuse. That's nothing to joke about. Mine was a mock suicide, which if I'm not mistaken you and all your pro-gun friends defend as one's right.
Actually, Greg has said that about suicide. I haven't seen any of the others say that, and I know I haven't. That, however, is beside the point.
DeleteYours could be interpreted as a sign of severe depression need for a psych eval, or as a joke.
The other could be interpreted as severe child abuse or as a joke made with a toy gun, photoshop, or both.
You haven't successfully differentiated the cases. You just made it look like you did by saying picture A COULD be interpreted this way, and picture B SHOULD be interpreted this way.
Pretend you're an honest man for one minute. Do you see no difference between the fake suicide picture of one whom you know and who labelled the fucking post SATIRE and the picture where an unknown woman is pointing a gun at a kid and no one even knows if it's serious or not?
DeleteIs there really no difference - that's a yes or no by the way.
There is one difference: We know the intent behind one picture, and we do not know the intent behind the other.
DeleteYou condemned the other because, stripped of its original context by sloshing through the tubes, it COULD be interpreted in a bad way. Stripped of context as it sloshes through the tubes, yours COULD be interpreted in a bad way as well.
Why don't you return to being an honest man and stop with the ad hominem attacks. You ask me a questions, and I give you honest answers; you just don't like them since they neither agree with you nor fit into the mold you wish I would fit into.