Quote of the Day: Irony

Just too much Irony to ignore it: Joan Peterson

Dear gregorycamp- I don’t make deals on this blog as you know. It’s clear that you guys are not interested in compromising. I am seeking that from others who are more reasonable.

I don’t make deals (or even publish Comments) because you guys refuse to make deals.

Again the anti-rights idea of compromise is we give up stuff and they continue to ask for more.

FYI Joan you guys already had your compromise. NFA, GCA, Brady Bill, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, not to mention the countless state gun control laws form mandatory training, mandatory gun locks, May Issue Permits, Owner’s permits, gun free zones, etc.

All of these laws and restrictions were proposed and accepted under the guise of increased public safety.

The numbers are in, and it didn’t work. Now you’re asking for us to give up more rights and freedoms while you offer nothing but the same lie you offered decades before.

Sorry now its your turn to lose ground, and because you got where you are now on the backs of lies, we don’t need you to be a willing participant. We will roll back the restrictive and draconian gun laws and we’ll bathe in your sweet sweet tears while we do it!

This entry was posted in Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Quote of the Day: Irony

  1. Linoge says:

    “I don’t make compromises because you guys don’t make compromises?”

    I genuinely wonder if Joan actually thinks about what she writes before she does it, or if there is just something wrong in her head that would cause her to say one thing in one sentence and then effectively the exact opposite in the next… I mean, the “it’s always someone else’s fault” schtick is just standard anti-rights cultist bullcrap, but she is really starting to reach somewhat concerning levels of what can only be accurately described as mental illness.

    Given their beliefs about such people owning firearms, is not time for her fellow “gun control” extremists to hold an intervention?

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      She’s definitely gotten more unhinged lately. I don’t see what’s so hard about hypothetically discussing what she’d personally want and be willing to compromise on, after all she said she doesn’t want complete disarmament.

      Of course the answer is that she doesn’t actually want to discuss anything, she just wants an echo chamber for herself. That’s fine, it’s her blog. She just hasn’t got any credibility as a result.

      • Archer says:

        I think it got a lot worse after she started doing those Media Matters simul-posts. She suddenly got a lot more combative and extreme in her views (ironic that those are words she frequently uses to describe us), and blocked a lot more comments. And while she says she doesn’t want total disarmament, I doubt she’d be disappointed if she got it.

        Where is common sense? Not on her blog!

        BTW, I’d love to know what gregorycamp said to piss her off like that. Given her sense of rationality, it probably was fairly normal, but my imagination wants to believe it was something EPIC!

      • Weerd Beard says:

        She doesn’t want to discuss her goals because she knows her goals are a born loser. Her husband owns a few guns that he uses on deer and ducks (and his wife is a board member of multiple gun control groups and I’m sure he hears her rants at parties when she gets a few wines in her…a-typical “Eat me last” Fudd! Plus I’m sure he saw plenty of her abusive prick Brother-in-law at family gatherings…not to mention on the nightly news, and saw that all translated into blaming the guns) but I think in the end she wants the government to tell her husband its time to give up the rifles and shotguns, just like the brits did.

        Of course as much as she says “The Majority of People Support ‘Common Sense Gun Control’” if she doesn’t realize that the study was yet another cooked survey commissioned by her employers, she realizes that even a corrupt pollster can’t cook the numbers enough to support her dreams of a British-style Gun and Knife ban.

        Plus it wouldn’t surprise me in a post Heller/McDonald world if the players on the anti-rights front were briefed to hold their water when it came to talking about the end-game that they have supported from back in the day when all their groups were named for handgun bans, and they made their bones banning rifles and shotguns.

  2. Cargosquid says:

    I think Joan is starting to lose it. She’s become more restrictive on comments. She’s mentions her supposed evil commenters that call her names more often. She’s contradicting herself in the same paragraphs now. And ANY contradiction is just ignored. Either hers OR our contradiction of her statements. All evidence is now ignored if its not from one of her favorite sights.

    I love mentioning her blog to people “on the fence” for gun control. Every single one comes back and wants to go shooting…….

  3. Tango says:

    Law Dog said it best.

    Quote:
    http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html
    I hear a lot about “compromise” from your camp … except, it’s not compromise.

    Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

    I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

    You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

    Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

    There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

    I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

    You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

    So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

    And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

    This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

    Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

    I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.

    I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.

  4. Pingback: Full Circle | Weer'd World

  5. mikee says:

    Joe Huffman coined the term “Peterson Syndrome” to describe Joan and her blog, and especially her response to comments. He seems to have come up with a correct diagnosis.
    http://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/09/25/AProcessFailure.aspx

    “…It is my hypothesis that some people who appear to be normal functioning members of society simply do not or cannot determine truth from falsity. Even through repeated application of the evidence and the reasoning supporting falsification of their beliefs these people continue to hold on to ideas that are conclusively shown to be false. I believe Joan Peterson is one of those people.”

  6. Pingback: Compromise Happens | Shall Not Be Questioned

  7. Pingback: Compromise This | Daily Pundit

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>