Low Hanging Fruit

I just have to mess with Joan a bit more. The comments to this post are just too damn good!

First up the Post is Joan’s standard aggregate of convenient news stories with Brady and Joyce boilerplate for filler. Remember antis are AGAINST Anecdotal evidence, except when they use it! (Just like Media Matters who posted the article is against carrying of guns…unless they want a bodyguard illegally carrying a gun for their own protection.

But in the Comments come the magic. First Joan Links this story:

Authorities say the suspect charged in the shooting death of a man over a dispute about dog waste had his license to carry a weapon revoked last month.

No word on why the permit was revoked (this is Philadelphia where they revoke permits illegally, but I won’t jump to conclusion) still it appears he was carrying his gun illegally, letting his dogs off their leash illegally, and well, killing somebody. Joan’s response:

The man had been a law abiding permit holder until one month ago. He was very recently law abiding until he wasn’t. So what’s your point?

At this point I’m looking for Joan to claim ALL gang members as “Law Abiding Permit Holders”, just because at some point they were young children without criminal backgrounds! Close enough, right?

I got a chuckle at this, one of Joan’s few supporters said this:

*** It is no accident that the states with the weakest gun laws are the exporters of death and injury.****

Why don’t people get this? It’s not really that complicated.

Or am I missing something?

Joan informed her she was missing nothing and that this was indeed the case….hey a lie repeated often enough! Hon what you’re missing is REALITY! But I think I noted that she’s one of Joan’s Cheerleaders. Mouth open, mind closed and empty!

When one person points out that Cherry-picking from through news does not show trends or even valid points, Joan responds with the typical anti-rights lie:

As long as permit holders are shooting people intentionally or not, we have a problem. The general population are also shooting too many people. There are no excuses for the incidents I write about. Permit holders are supposed to be more careful. That is what you all said would be the case. It’s not working out so well.

Anti-rights people work like a ratchet. They demand restrictions so long as ANY issues exist EVER, and declare a “Success” if it saves “Just one Life”.

They won’t stop until permit holders are 100% safe…but meanwhile won’t even consider defensive shootings, and when they do they demonize the people who protect innocent life.

As I said, it’s a lie. They could care less about public safety, or innocent life. What they care about is banning guns.

Period. Full Stop.

There is no compromise, there is no debate. What’s good for us, and horrible for them is there is no need FOR a debate. We will win so long as we stay the course, and no matter what they do.

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

19 Responses to Low Hanging Fruit

  1. Cargosquid says:

    She’s willfully dishonest. WE continue to state and show that permit holders commit crimes at much lower rates than, well….anybody. But she ignores the facts, pushing a lie that we stated that there would be NO crime. She complains because a few permit holders commit crimes. Then gets THAT wrong, using examples of revoked people. As if these criminals wouldn’t commit the crime WITHOUT a permit.

    Even Obama uses TWO sentences to contradict himself. Joan has him beat.

    She’s trying SO hard to NOT say that her only solution is to ban handguns, expecting the useful idiots to read between the lines.

    Exporting death? I wonder why there’s so little crime IN the state of origin but so much, supposedly, hundreds of miles away. You would think that Virginia would be a “hive of scum and villainy” if all of our guns caused so much crime. Why should the criminals spend so much gas money?

    Perfect example: DC vs Northern Virgina.

    Its the people, Joan….not the tool. Your brother in law was a scum bag. THAT’S why your sister died. NOT because some law-abiding permit holder carried a gun.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      That’s Joan’s fatal flaw. I suspect she imagines herself as some big-league intellectual fending off feeble-minded ogers of the “Right”. Hence why she still allows comments.

      All the other antis just shutter their doors or delete anything that doesn’t march in lockstep.

      But Joan carries on because she thinks she’s smarter. She’s constantly trying to contort issues so maybe we’ll yield, because even with closed comments if she doesn’t try she’s still letting us dictate her message.

      Of course eventually she will concede and take it off the table. Notice how she hasn’t said anything about “Guns Just Going Off”. She was convinced that was reality, and probably still thinks it, but she won’t SAY it anymore.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      “The man had been a law abiding permit holder until one month ago. He was very recently law abiding until he wasn’t. So what’s your point?”

      She’s always making a big assumption when she spouts off this nonsense, while it’s technically true; crime isn’t randomly or evenly distributed among the population as she seems to believe. People with criminal records, especially violent crimes, tend to commit more crimes because that’s who they are as people.

      People who don’t, usually don’t ever commit unlawful violence against someone, because they’re just not violent people. Most crimes are committed by the same people over and over, very few commit a violent crime where it’s a once and done thing. She says that records and criminal history don’t matter, as if each of us is equally likely to commit a violent crime.

  2. thirdpower says:

    Has anyone mentioned that murders using swords still happens?

  3. SGB says:

    Her intellectual tank is empty with a hole in the bottom of it.

  4. Pat says:

    I’m just ticked that MN Senate tabled the “Stand Your Ground” debate for now. I was looking forward to seeing that dour grey face of Joan’s at the legislature, and trying to get an interview.
    Oh well. There’s always next time…maybe supressors will bring her out for debate!

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I can understand your disappointment. Still look at bills like HR 822. There has been a “National Concealed Carry” bill presented every damn year since the 1990. In the last decade its gone from the crank bills (every year a bill is presented to remove Presidential Term Limits, never once has it gotten any press or consideration) to a seriously considered bill. Over the last few years its failed every time, and 822 may also fail, but its easy to see at some point it won’t.

      Then on the other side, after a major tragedy it used to be some anti-gun jerk would present a bill that had ZERO relevance to the events, do some blood dancing, and pass or fail it would make a good run.

      Now look at the latest anti-gun bills being presented.

      We’re pushing the ball down the field. We just need to keep pushing and we WILL get there.

  5. Bob S. says:

    Great minds do think alike as you found out; I covered this on my blog.

    One thing about this “suddenly law abiding citizen snaps” kick they are on; she is a law abiding gun owner herself.

    she and her husband own guns and come from a hunting family.
    http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/13111-1

    So I wonder if she will turn in her firearms to protect her husband from herself — I mean she could snap at any moment, right?

    • Cargosquid says:

      But….but…she’s a progressive. She KNOWS that she’s better than the rest of us. Its the REST OF US that she’s worried about. Because every single gun owner is just like her brother-in-law….the saint.

      • Pyrotek85 says:

        You know, it’s plainly obvious to most of us just from reading her brother-in-law’s history that something like this was likely, but maybe she truly didn’t see it or had blocked it from her mind, so that it seemed to come out of the blue from her perspective. Maybe this just goes back to Peterson Syndrome, where she can’t determine truth from falsity.

        • Weerd Beard says:

          She saw it. No way she couldn’t have. Further I would be SHOCKED if Joan was aware of physical abuse that was never reported during her sister’s marriage. But this is a “Progressive” thing. THEY don’t want to lift a finger, because the GOVERNMENT should do all the work. She looked the other way while her sister was being abused and eventually murdered because the system should have taken care of that, and somehow if guns were banned her sister would be alive.

          Same goes for social programs. “Progressives” demand taxes be raised, but win-lose-or-draw, they’ll never open their wallet and personally donate to a charity or service. If EVERYBODY doesn’t pay for it, they don’t want to lift a finger.

  6. I’m usually the one (as I was in the thread above) actually pointing out the real facts in a situation to her — or mentioning that what she’s claiming is in this bill isn’t really in the bill — I haven’t been wrong on the facts yet 😉

  7. Greg Camp says:

    You were curious about the “Am I missing anything” commentor. It turns out that MyInnerChick is the sister of the woman whom Joan’s brother killed. Apparently, Joan and the Chick are friends. That’s entirely too psychobabbly healthy for my tastes, but whatever works for them. . .

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I think you got it backwards. Russell Lund Jr. was married to Barbara Lund, who was Joan’s Sister. One E. Kevin Kelly was also murdered. Mr. Kelly was romantically involved with Barbara and he was accompanying her to Russell’s home to serve divorce papers. They were separated at the time.

      I just went over to her webpage to straighten things out, and I couldn’t find any connection to the Lund murder. It appears she lost a close friend to an abusive partner in Duluth, and probably Met Joan through that as Protect Minnesota does work on domestic abuse, as well as making sure victims of abuse are disarmed.

      • Greg Camp says:

        Who, then, is the Mike Peterson that MyInnerChick names on her About page? I suppose there are a lot of Petersons in Minnesota.

        • Weerd Beard says:

          A LOT. That area was HEAVILY settled by the Swedes! I suspect “Peterson” or “Johnson” In Minnesota is like “Beale” in Maine. Hell you can buy Lutefisk up there, how else could you explain such a thing??

          BTW we had a “Gun Death” over there with another Peterson. Plus I suspect “Peterson” is Joan’s Husband’s name, but I doubt its a direct relation.

  8. JSW says:

    Nothing wrong with Lutefisk, Weer’d- once you cultivate a taste for it. Which is a lot more than I can say about JaPete.
    True, ‘Peterson’, ‘Petersen’, ‘Jacobson’, ‘Jacobsen’, ‘Maki’ (means ‘hill’ in Finn), ‘Hill’, and half a dozen other Swede and Finn names are as common here as mosquitoes.
    I didn’t know JaPete was from Duluth, though. Thought she was MPLS. Now I’m going to have to do more research on her- don’t need her ilk in my neck of the woods.
    I’ve tried reading her blog and can’t stomach more than two minutes of that senseless diatribe, so people like you and Miguel have my deepest admiration and respect. I’ve tried commenting there a couple times but they never seem to appear- I wonder if she knows me, since I know quite a few ‘Peterson’s’. Nah- that’d be too choice. All those I know are definitely hunter and outlaws.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Joan’s Husband is a hunter. Joan admitted they own rifles and shotguns in an NPR interview a while back.

      Never actually had Lutefisk. Just a very odd food item, I’d certainly try it if it was presented to me. I like being adventuresome like that.

Leave a Reply

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