I'm in a snarky mood lately. If this is an issue for any of my 6 or so regular readers, please let me know. But for now, I'm going to rant on a little Reasoned Discourse(TM) that plunked itself in my comments to this post.
Here is the comment:
If you're going to spout off with stuff like above, have more courage than a common earthworm or the French Army and identify yourself. Anonymity guarantees you'll remove all doubt of you being ignorant, shallow, incapable of independent thought and waiting for the farmer to shear you in the paddock. Being honest as to who you are raises your credibility in the eyes of others.
Not that it would have saved you in this case, Anonymous.
For the benefit of those of you who do not know, Eric Thompson is the man who runs a gun sales business that sold Cho the P22 pistol he used at Virginia Tech. He operates out of Green Bay, Wisconsin and sold Cho the gun online.
Eric Thompson did nothing wrong. The fact that he is apologizing or engaging in contrition for an act he was not party to nor had any control over shows him to be a man of compassion and conscience. A decent human being by my standards. And yet he gets wrongly blamed.
First, there is no such thing as a "concealed handgun". That alone shows that Anonymous is an Idiot. "Concealed" is a state of transport, not a type of weapon. A handgun held openly is certainly not concealed.
Second, how is Eric Thompson responsible?
Well, the mental midget we are dealing with here states clearly that he/she feels that Mr. Thompson is responsible because he sold a gun to a mentally disturbed criminal. Ok. That sounds reasonable on the surface, right? It's pretty easy to follow that path of logic. Punish those that provided the tools used in a crime.
Except that Eric Thompson had no way of knowing Cho was to be a criminal. None. Zip. Zero.
That is what fools like Anonymous don't seem to understand. They spout off stuff like this as if it was common knowledge or holy writ from the Gods themselves but never bother to question the assumptions laced within them. If they bothered, then this comment collapses into the heap of rubble it deserves to be.
Here's why.
It is absolutely undeniable that Cho bought one of his guns online from Eric Thompson. It is true. But this very fact is why Thompson is not irresponsible as Anonymous believes him to be.
It is for the simple fact that Federal law does not permit handguns to be transferred to someone who doesn't reside in the state it is purchased in! In such cases, like this one, Eric Thompson had to ship the gun to a dealer in Virginia so the transfer could be performed to Cho.
And for the two-by-four cluebat, pay attention to this part, Anonymous:
The background check that should have revealed Cho to be mentally disturbed and thus prohibited from owning a gun can only be performed at the time of transfer. Usually, this is the same place as where the gun is bought. But in the case of interstate sales, this is where the gun is shipped, not by whom it was sold.
In other words, Eric Thompson had no ability or authority to do the background check! That was done by the Virginia gun dealer than received Cho's gun. It was where Cho filled out the paperwork once the gun was received by Eric Thompson's company from out-of-state.
So, you are wrong, Anonymous. 100 percent flat-out stupid wrong. Eric Thompson was in no way irresponsible. In fact, it would have been illegal for him to access the background check system for any purpose other than a face-to-face sale in his own business.
Just like any other gun dealer.
But now Anonymous may make the leap (assuming that much self-honesty and mental capacity) that Eric Thompson wasn't at fault but then the Virginia gun dealer is for letting Cho have the gun.
Which is also bullshit since the dealer only acts based on the response received from the Virginia State Police and the FBI after Cho filled out the paperwork and both of them told that dealer to proceed! There was nothing in the database that said Cho was not legally allowed to own a gun. The fact there wasn't has now been corrected and was an administrative failure by the State of Virginia, not Eric Thompson.
Both of Cho's guns were transferred to him 100 percent legally under this system in place at the time.
Drive that fact into your pea brain and lodge it there permanently.
So explain to me how Eric Thompson and other "irresponsible" dealers like him who followed the law to the letter should be sued out of existence as an example to others?
The problem with folks like Anonymous is they aren't capable of critical thinking because it isn't a simple answer. It actually takes, you know, work to learn what the laws are and how they apply. But people like Anonymous simply believe things like "guns are easy to get" and "anyone can buy a gun over the Internet" and leap to the conclusion that there are no controls and that the gun trade here is not dissimilar from someone smuggling arms into Liberia. Blood, money and anarchy.
Nothing is further from the truth. Truth you never bothered to learn. Or even thought existed.
The irony of your last "demand" for a lawsuit is the best part: Congress passed a law that specifically prohibits the very lawsuits you demand except in cases of criminal negligence! It's called S.397, "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act". Click the link provided if you don't believe me.
Doing what the FBI tells you under its rules is not criminal negligence.
Perhaps it is good thing you didn't sign your name, Anonymous. You wouldn't want people to know you're a fool after all.
Here is the comment:
The real focus of attention should be on Eric Thompson and his TGSCOM company for selling concealed handguns to mentally disturbed people in the first place. The best solution is to sue him and his company out of business to set an example to other irresponsible dealers.First, before I address this, an observation. Why do folks who violently disagree with your viewpoint hide behind anonymity? Man or woman up and have the courage to stand behind your convictions. You might accuse me of being anonymous but other than my hiding of my last name, I stand behind who I am and am honest in where I live, what I do, etcetera.
If you're going to spout off with stuff like above, have more courage than a common earthworm or the French Army and identify yourself. Anonymity guarantees you'll remove all doubt of you being ignorant, shallow, incapable of independent thought and waiting for the farmer to shear you in the paddock. Being honest as to who you are raises your credibility in the eyes of others.
Not that it would have saved you in this case, Anonymous.
For the benefit of those of you who do not know, Eric Thompson is the man who runs a gun sales business that sold Cho the P22 pistol he used at Virginia Tech. He operates out of Green Bay, Wisconsin and sold Cho the gun online.
Eric Thompson did nothing wrong. The fact that he is apologizing or engaging in contrition for an act he was not party to nor had any control over shows him to be a man of compassion and conscience. A decent human being by my standards. And yet he gets wrongly blamed.
First, there is no such thing as a "concealed handgun". That alone shows that Anonymous is an Idiot. "Concealed" is a state of transport, not a type of weapon. A handgun held openly is certainly not concealed.
Second, how is Eric Thompson responsible?
Well, the mental midget we are dealing with here states clearly that he/she feels that Mr. Thompson is responsible because he sold a gun to a mentally disturbed criminal. Ok. That sounds reasonable on the surface, right? It's pretty easy to follow that path of logic. Punish those that provided the tools used in a crime.
Except that Eric Thompson had no way of knowing Cho was to be a criminal. None. Zip. Zero.
That is what fools like Anonymous don't seem to understand. They spout off stuff like this as if it was common knowledge or holy writ from the Gods themselves but never bother to question the assumptions laced within them. If they bothered, then this comment collapses into the heap of rubble it deserves to be.
Here's why.
It is absolutely undeniable that Cho bought one of his guns online from Eric Thompson. It is true. But this very fact is why Thompson is not irresponsible as Anonymous believes him to be.
It is for the simple fact that Federal law does not permit handguns to be transferred to someone who doesn't reside in the state it is purchased in! In such cases, like this one, Eric Thompson had to ship the gun to a dealer in Virginia so the transfer could be performed to Cho.
And for the two-by-four cluebat, pay attention to this part, Anonymous:
The background check that should have revealed Cho to be mentally disturbed and thus prohibited from owning a gun can only be performed at the time of transfer. Usually, this is the same place as where the gun is bought. But in the case of interstate sales, this is where the gun is shipped, not by whom it was sold.
In other words, Eric Thompson had no ability or authority to do the background check! That was done by the Virginia gun dealer than received Cho's gun. It was where Cho filled out the paperwork once the gun was received by Eric Thompson's company from out-of-state.
So, you are wrong, Anonymous. 100 percent flat-out stupid wrong. Eric Thompson was in no way irresponsible. In fact, it would have been illegal for him to access the background check system for any purpose other than a face-to-face sale in his own business.
Just like any other gun dealer.
But now Anonymous may make the leap (assuming that much self-honesty and mental capacity) that Eric Thompson wasn't at fault but then the Virginia gun dealer is for letting Cho have the gun.
Which is also bullshit since the dealer only acts based on the response received from the Virginia State Police and the FBI after Cho filled out the paperwork and both of them told that dealer to proceed! There was nothing in the database that said Cho was not legally allowed to own a gun. The fact there wasn't has now been corrected and was an administrative failure by the State of Virginia, not Eric Thompson.
Both of Cho's guns were transferred to him 100 percent legally under this system in place at the time.
Drive that fact into your pea brain and lodge it there permanently.
So explain to me how Eric Thompson and other "irresponsible" dealers like him who followed the law to the letter should be sued out of existence as an example to others?
The problem with folks like Anonymous is they aren't capable of critical thinking because it isn't a simple answer. It actually takes, you know, work to learn what the laws are and how they apply. But people like Anonymous simply believe things like "guns are easy to get" and "anyone can buy a gun over the Internet" and leap to the conclusion that there are no controls and that the gun trade here is not dissimilar from someone smuggling arms into Liberia. Blood, money and anarchy.
Nothing is further from the truth. Truth you never bothered to learn. Or even thought existed.
The irony of your last "demand" for a lawsuit is the best part: Congress passed a law that specifically prohibits the very lawsuits you demand except in cases of criminal negligence! It's called S.397, "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act". Click the link provided if you don't believe me.
Doing what the FBI tells you under its rules is not criminal negligence.
Perhaps it is good thing you didn't sign your name, Anonymous. You wouldn't want people to know you're a fool after all.
4 comments:
I stopped reading that comment at the "concealed handgun" part.
Whatta moron.
Man...that's gonna leave a mark.
Speaking of ignorant protesters, does anyone know why we haven't heard back from Demetriou?
"Perhaps it is good thing you didn't sign your name, Anonymous. You wouldn't want people to know you're a fool after all."
Have you noticed that most people who sign their name as Anonymous seem to be idiots? Does it mean that subconsciously they know they have their heads up their asses?
Just wonderin'...
Post a Comment