Quote of the day—EngiBones @EngiBones

Dude you dont want to have a conversation, you want to jerk off your gun, I will own more than you, my family has an actually armory, but we all agree that some people should not get guns. Like my uncle. Dont use your gun like a penis extension, it shows hard.

EngiBones @EngiBones
Tweeted on December 29, 2021
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday it’s another science denier!

This is a rather odd set of statements. I’m thinking troll. This, from their description, supports that hypothesis:

This chaos is fun

Whatever. It’s just another person using childish insults about gun ownership when they don’t have anything of substance to say.

Via a tweet from In Chains @InChainsInJail.—Joe]


5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—EngiBones @EngiBones

  1. Look at his avatar. And were the ones trying to make up for something by owning guns? HAHAHAHAHA!
    I certainly hope he’s the one trying to restrict my firearm ownership.
    Although it’s hard to aim and shoot straight when laughing.

  2. in n.e. oregon we just say that such a person has shit for brains. ‘nuf said.

  3. There is literally nothing in that comment worth taking seriously, starting from the abysmal grammar.

    I’d be tempted to reply to the first word. “Did you just assume my gender?”

    I could also respond: “Don’t tell me what I really want, and maybe I won’t tell you what you really want.” But that would be feeding the troll.

  4. Note that if you disagree with authoritarians, while you are literally, at that moment, in the act of having a conversation, they’ll say you don’t want to “have a conversation”.

    It’s a standard rhetorical trick for them to say, “We need to have a conversation…” whenever they’re not getting their way, even though there’s already been a conversation, for generations, with facts, principles, morals and statistics clearly brought forth and analyzed, and their side lost. That’s a serious problem for them, not getting their way, and so, “We need to have a conversation.”

    It’s code for, “You need to abandon your position, no matter how well reasoned and practical, and defer instead to my wishes because that’s what I want, regardless”. In this way they can paint you into the moral corner of being “Closed-minded” anytime authoritarians are not getting what they want. You therefore would be “ascending” from your current depravity into capitulating to their wishes, should you fall for their cheap, sick and dirty tricks.

    Another thing they’ll say in that situation is, “You’re not listening!” The fact that you disagree with authoritarianism is the only proof necessary to conclude that you’re “stubborn” (not willing to “converse” or to “listen”). It means that you “fail”, both to recognize and to defer to the presumed authority of your “betters”.

    argumentum ad verecundiam

    Thus the need to pile on a presumed divine bestowment of authority and you have the Dark Ages (and current) papal system. To disagree with them, or even question them, is heresy and therefore it is the rack, or sizzle-fits, for you! THIS is where the attitude of this QOTD comes from, and leads to.

    I am disappointed in myself for actually reading the ”conversation” there on Twitter. I feel dirty now. They so quickly lapse into argumentum ad hominem. It’s getting to where it’s so extremely difficult to stay focused on the facts and principles in these conversations that almost no one can manage do it consistently. I know I can’t.

  5. One thing becomes clear in reading the Twitter exchange. People are arguing across purposes.

    Of course I agree, and I assume that nearly everyone does, that some people should not have deadly weapons. That’s not the point and it never has been. The issue is that, through centuries of repeated evidence, it has become clear, as it was to the American founders, that government must NEVER be trusted to decide who may or may not have them.

    Furthermore it is undeniable that those who wish to ignore such government restrictions are perfectly capable of getting weapons anyway, just like a man is perfectly capable of walking right past a restraining order and strangling to death his unarmed ex girlfriend, and just like you reading this are perfectly capable of exceeding the speed limits on the roads and highways or running stop-signs.

    And so, again and again, this has never been a discussion about whether people shall be armed, but rather it has always been about which people shall be armed. The practical result of government restriction is that the worst, most evil people are always armed with whatever they want, while those who obey the wishes or edicts of government are unarmed or less well-armed, and are therefore easier prey!

    That’s the whole game, right there.

    It is an inescapable conclusion that government, which thrives off of its ability to expropriate wealth from the citizenry at large, via threats, intimidation and brute force, without repercussions, and the common criminals, who live off of their ability to expropriate wealth from the citizenry at large, via threats, intimidation and brute force, without repercussions, are de facto allies. Natural partners, even. They both wish to lord over us, take our stuff, and keep us intimidated enough that we’re ineffective in opposing their evil system. So-called “gun-control” benefits them both in this endeavor. If you’re emotionally bonded with one, you’re an ally of the other, and try as you might there’s no escaping it. The harder you try to deny your allegiance, the more obvious that allegiance becomes, unless and until your fundamental mindset, your allegiance, changes.

    And so it’s not a particular person or group of persons, per se, that oppose liberty, nor is it a matter of intelligence, but it’s a mindset, a foundation upon which all matters of perception and judgement are built. The enemy of liberty is an alliance of the mindset of authoritarianism in general, and expropriation by extortion as one of its specific M.O.s by which it attains security. The esoterics among that alliance, the movers and shakers, the high level leadership, maintain a more definitive description of their system. They worship “the god of forces”, i.e. lucifer or satan. For but one example, see lucistrust.org — At one time it was called Lucifers Trust, but they took too much flack and had to change it.

    “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12

Comments are closed.