I really love this angle. It really should be burned into all of our brains that the bumper-sticker slogan “Gun Control is Less About Guns, and More About Control”. These people are against freedom of any sort at its core. Also this is a good comeback from the people who get pissy when you note that Candidate X should not be supported because they are anti-gun. You see it doesn’t matter if you own guns, or want to own guns, or carry or whatever. If a candidate is against lawful citizens keeping and bearing arms, they are most likely against any other bit of individual liberty you might hold dear.
Its not just about guns, or carry, or self defense, its a litmus test for freedom.
So on to Joan Peterson. (Again, note that Joan is an open representative of the Brady Campaign, and draws a paycheck from the Joyce Foundation. Given her association, and the openness of her remarks, her views are indeed THEIR views)
She leads with this video:
Its mostly sniveling crap about campaign finance. That point is moot because the people bitching about it A) Are Partisan hacks who don’t care when THEIR guy makes a mint in a fundraiser, or has a PAC in their team, and B) Somehow think that people are so stupid that they will do whatever a TV, Radio, or Internet Ad tells them to do….which is kinda silly, given that if there was no campaign finance, then there would be NO ads, and those dumb zombie voters simply wouldn’t show up…or something.
Still I think the big reason for me imbedding the above video is something he doesn’t take much time to explore. The shooting fundraiser is putting campaign donors on a firing line with loaded guns and live ammo with elected officials. I thought guns made it “too easy” to commit murder, so wouldn’t such fundraisers (which are held all over the nation) be rife with political assassination???
Heh, moving on:
First of all, people shouldn’t be allowed to bring their guns into places that serve alcohol, period. Secondly then, why would anyone sanction that and add to the appeal? In Powder Springs, Ga, money has trumped public safety. The irony here is that if someone orders a drink at the bar/restaurant and is carrying a gun, that’s perfectly O.K. But that same person won’t be allowed to re-enter the firing range. Why is that? For the safety of the folks inside the firing range? What about the safety of the folks in the bar? Sure, a permit holder is not supposed to be drinking and carrying but bartenders don’t ask people if they have a gun tucked away before serving them a beer. Er uh, in this case, will everyone who is served a drink at this bar be carrying? That should be interesting. How about an ounce of prevention? I am betting that this Mayor knows better than this but he is under the influence of the gun culture….Really, Mayor? So drinking is part of our society. Guns are part of our society. We know the dangers of too much drinking. We know the dangers of too many guns in too many public places. Those things are unfortunate. And it’s truly unfortunate that the Mayor convinced the City Council to combine these two activities in a business venture and make some money by encouraging people to engage in risky behavior.
Ahh, Joan isn’t just a gun banner, but one of those nosy spinsters from the Women’s Temperance Union! Not only is she beating her same little drum about guns being dangerous, but also talking about the dangers of drinking.
She really has quite the tin ear, who’s she attempting to sway? Seems like this technique would work well for grade school students who have no experience with guns or alcohol. Let’s face it, most adults in America have had a drink or two (even Mitt Romney admits to have snuck a beer in his younger days, despite his Church’s stance against drugs and alcohol), and most people have busted a primer on SOMETHING in their life. Sure there are mass shootings, and there are degenerate drunks….but I think even the dumbest adult can quickly figure out that there is some other factor in those, rather than just combining the elements and bracing for disaster.
Hell Joan is almost pretending there are no places in America where somebody with a lawfully held gun can’t belly up to a bar and blow the suds off a beer, or sip a cocktail. Its really no difference from somebody driving to a bar or restaurant, enjoy a beverage, then drive home.
We have laws against drunk driving, as well as drunk operation of weapons. These laws work, but Joan wants more. Why? Because she hates freedom, and could give a shit about actual public safety!
Once Georgia passed a law allowing guns in places that serve alcohol, they had to find another way to ramp up gun sales and encourage people to carry their guns in these places. What’s next? This is the ubiquitous slippery slope. Our elected officials should be pressed to talk about the issue of gun deaths and injuries and be asked what they intend to do about an important national health and safety problem that is being largely ignored.
Who’s ignoring what, Joan? Several states have recently passed laws ending the prohibition of lawful carry in places that serve alcohol. Also lots of states never have been concerned about this issue in the first place.
Why not? Well where are the stories of drunken gun fights in the taprooms and streets? Great anti-rights misdirection! She talks about people ignoring her cause, and somehow claiming its because of the “Evil Gun Lobby”….meanwhile Joan is in fact a member of an anti-gun lobby group, and is pushing a non-issue, and fabricating evidence to “Support” it. Who’s the evil one?
Given these ideas, there is a clear choice in this election. Should we elect politicians who believe that, against all odds and all evidence to the contrary, more guns in the hands of more people in more public places make us safer? Should we elect politicians who support the idea that gun owners should form their own militia groups and own their own arsenals in case they need to fight against terrorism or tyranny?
Hmmm, is Joan not only speaking out against individual rights, but the anti-gun fabrication of a “Collective Right”? Yeah, they don’t do much to hide that….
Yep, they’re simply against freedom! She’s talking about the “dangers” of carrying guns juxtaposed with the “Dangers” of drinking beer. Anti-Freedom, not anti-gun. The politician who wants to take your gun, is the same person who wants to take the beer out of your hand, or the light bulb out of your lamp, or the car out of your driveway.
Linoge links a great comic that sums up the fallacy of their beliefs so wonderfully. They claim that people, if allowed, will do the worst things possible…except when they are, they don’t. They lie!