Joan Knows Us Best

Gotta look at this great article by Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation:

just love this article found on CNN titled: “Give Gun Owners What They Want.” The article gets to the truth of the matter about gun policy and the resistance to any common sense measures that might actually fit with what gun owners and even many NRA members say they want….So what do the gun rights extremists really want? They don’t like criminals with guns because they are always saying that is why they need their own guns. Let’s see now- maybe they DO actually want criminals to continue to easily get their guns because if we actually prevented ways for them to have their guns, why would the average citizen really need a gun for self defense against all of those criminals without guns? Is this nonsensical argument made on purpose or in denial and ignorance? Or do they even get that they want the same things I want but if we do something about it it will hurt their cause? Do they get that they agree with the folks on the side of preventing gun injuries and death? They say they don’t want people getting killed with guns. But then they resist all attempts to do something about it. Why? Follow the money. The gun industry is a big industry. Would it actually suffer if we stopped criminals from getting guns? I’m not sure how since federally licensed firearms dealers actually keep those with felonies, adjudicated mentally ill people, domestic abusers and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns by requiring a background check. This doesn’t make sense.

Yep, we just want more crime! That’s it! Or maybe we want to be able to buy and sell our property without Big Daddy Government getting into our stuff…or just saying “Nah your name is too common!”, Miguel happens to have the Spanish equivalent of “John Smith”, in a state where there is a massive Hispanic population. Miguel needs to now jump through hoops to prove he’s INNOCENT! (Remember anti-freedom, not anti-gun)

Gun rights extremists don’t believe me when I tell them that NRA resistance to reasonable gun laws is responsible for some of the daily carnage on our streets. Some of my readers here who make regular comments are always itchin’ for a fight with me just because. They love the fight. They love to be against anything I and others like me are for. It’s oppositional. But it’s more than that. It’s some unreasonable fear that if they agree with me something terrible will happen. Like, for instance, someone is going to come around to their houses and seize their precious guns. What a ridiculous and unfounded belief.

Hmmm, even Joan doesn’t think that’s very ridiculous . No they won’t CONFISCATE your guns, they’ll PAY your for your guns at their price against your will….that is if she ever gets her way. Maybe not your “Good Guns” (Remember, her husband owns a few hunting rifles), but your Bad guns…which is whatever she says they are! Nothing like the people who know nothing about guns claiming they can make the rules!

Ah, there’s the rub. Guns don’t wear out or get consumed. Once you have one or two, you have them for a very long time. So in order to keep these folks in business, new markets need to be created. How to do that? Pass laws that get people to think they need more guns ( small concealable guns) or create fear and paranoia of a government run amok coming for your guns ( assault weapons, machine guns, other such weapons usually used by the military). Some people fall for this and run out to get more guns as a result. But still, why resist common sense gun laws? So who are we protecting by resisting, for example, a law that would require background checks on all gun sales? I haven’t heard a good answer to that question from the NRA and its minions. Why? Because there is no answer that makes sense.

Well my Nephew came down for a weekend of shooting. He’s pulled the trigger on a few .22 and a few shotguns in the boyscouts, and his Dad took him hunting with a .30-30 which he only fired a few times.

He wanted to learn how to REALLY shoot, and he wanted to learn to shoot them ALL, rifles, shotguns, and pistols. We started small, and worked our way up to the big stuff, and then we shot Sporting clays together which means he had one shotgun, and I had another. In total we shot 9 different guns…and that’s not even getting into my collectors pieces. Yeah, I don’t make sense! Joan’s the sane one! (snicker)

But this one is the best!

So, I say, let’s do give gun owners the very thing they say they themselves agree to and actually want in poll after poll after poll. I am not going to list the polls. I have done so too many times on this blog. The gun guys know what the polls say.

Of course the “Polls” is ONE Mayors Against Illegal Guns poll that’s been cited by countless people who, like Joan (and MAIG) are paid by the Joyce Foundation, and she’s cited several articles looking at that one poll…made by a criminal organization!

She won’t list other polls…because they don’t exist…and that poll reeks of crap

Isn’t it nice that Joan knows us so well! Don’t you all feel like you’ve met your soul mate?

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Joan Knows Us Best

  1. George says:

    Her thesis is based on a false premise.

    Let’s see now- maybe they DO actually want criminals to continue to easily get their guns because if we actually prevented ways for them to have their guns, why would the average citizen really need a gun for self defense against all of those criminals without guns?

    Only you think that we have to prove need, Joan. The rest of us think “I wanna” is a perfectly valid reason to own our guns.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Duhh! The only way Joan exists is in her own sheltered, self-created pocket of false reality.

      It isn’t a coincidence that Joan keeps her lights on, and food on the table with money from the Joyce Foundation (Via Protect Minnesota, which she’s the communications director), and all “Evidence ” she cites is also from Joyce.

      Conflict of Interest has zero meaning for her, nor does the idea that multiple sources make for better support.

      Of course she’s well aware of this, there’s no way she can’t be. She’s just decided that attempting to deprive good people of rights and property, and pushing laws that get good people killed is a far better option than admitting she’s wrong.

      Since I was faced with the same choice when I was anti-gun, and felt the pain of pride to admit I’d been 100% wrong, I must say Joan’s choice is one of the big reasons why I hold her in such contempt.

  2. Miguel says:

    Both my first and last names are the third most common in Spanish. The equivalent of Robert Williams in English.

    Back when White Pages were available and I was bored one day, I counted over 200 people with phones registered under my names in Miami-Dade county…

    At the same time, it would be a looong list of suspects if I turned into crime….

    • Bob S. says:


      You aren’t the only one in that same boat. I have one of the most common first and last name — about 40,000 or so in America with that combination. Over 3,000 with the exact spelling.

      • D2k says:

        That website is largely estimating off of the 2000 census dataset, for more common names it’s pretty accurate, but for unusual names like mine, it’s just guessing.
        As far as I know there are 2 other people in the US with my same first and last name, we all have different middle names I’m sure.
        howmanyofme suggests there are 9 of us, but I suspect that’s off, though maybe there are a few born before 2000 that don’t yet have a web presence, it’ll be interesting to see.

  3. Bubblehead Les says:

    Tell Joan that if she thinks outlawing guns will have all the Criminals stop dead in their tracks, ask her about the “Gun Rentals” that the Criminals use in Merry Olde Gun Free England. Her Plan works GREAT out in the “REAL WORLD,” doesn’t it?

    Also, I guess Jay’s DGC and the NRA’s Armed Citizen Reports are just a figment of her Imagination, huh? I mean, in her world, Crime can’t be that prevalent, right?

    • Jack says:

      In her world crime is so prevalent that to “prevent” criminals from getting them certain objects *must* be forcibly taken from the hands of the law abiding and simultaneously so rare that the commoners would never reasonably “need” to defend themselves.

      Its kind of like saying that since pregnancy due to rape is statistically rare banning aborting such a fetus is permissible, because hey, it’s a rare event. It the exact same argument were it’s rare for a woman’s life to be endangered due to the pregnancy, therefore banning such an abortion is okay.

      Course, anti gun people are perfectly fine with taking away a woman’s right to choose… how to defend herself.
      They’d rather deny a woman (or a man) choice in self defense because hey, “social good”, and the well-being or rapists and murders is more important to them.

      Hmm, I wonder if there’s water in applying pro-choice arguments to gun rights.
      “Look lady, maybe you wouldn’t think you needed a gun if you didn’t dress that way.”
      “If you’re worried about someone trying to rape you Missy, you should just move to a better neighborhood.”
      “Bad things only happen to bad people, by worrying about that you’re ‘inviting violence’ and making the situation worse.”

  4. Archer says:

    Yep, her husband owns a few hunting rifles.

    As Sean Sorrentino pointed out, even the weakest hunting rifle “can penetrate a police officer’s vest at 400 yards”.

    It’s not about the guns or violence. It’s NEVER been about the guns or violence. If it were about the guns, the Joyce Foundation would offer to buy everyone’s guns – including the criminals’ – at $10,000 a pop for “normal” guns, $100,000 for “machine guns”, no questions asked (they’d probably get a better return on investment that way). If it were about the violence, they’d fully fund youth programs in inner-city neighborhoods, open a giant college grant program for poverty-stricken kids, and push for harsher punishments for dedicated criminals (and get a better return on investment there, too).

    They are capable of great acts of philanthropy, and have the means to bring them to fruition. They would go that route if they gave a crap about preventing violence. They are able to do good and prevent evil, but instead choose to harass and demonize good and lawful people. That makes them malevolent and evil. But they also choose to not face the good and lawful people directly, instead pushing policies to force others to do their dirty work for them. In my book, that makes them evil subversive cowards, no better than Wormtongue.

    (I shall now get down off my soapbox, and return the floor to Weer’d, with my gratitude. 🙂 )

  5. TS says:

    So who told japete that we only need guns vs. criminals with guns? I am not interested in a fair fight.

Leave a Reply

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