Joan and the Fake Discussion

Sebastian has a post up on Joan calling for a “Discussion on Guns”. Go read the post, but especially go read the comments section, as there are a few brave, and potentially dubious gun control supporters dropping a few comments…tho not many follow-ups, so again Schrödinger’s “Progressive” strikes again!

Still Joan’s initial quote goes as following:

We do need to have a serious discussion about what’s going on in our country concerning guns and gun permit holders. I keep writing about gun permit holders causing harm to others and the “gun guys” keep denying that carrying guns in public is dangerous. The facts and actual incidents speak to my thesis that more guns in public places do not make us safer.

Now the first comment is somebody mentioning Sebastian’s post and his invitation to debate. Joan’s response is predictable:

Nope. There will be no discussion on that blog which regularly demeans me and calls me names. We will have the “discussion” on my blog if you want.

If you want? I’ll note that Sebastian has 45 comments on his thread, and more added every few minuets, meanwhile the last Comment on Joan’s post is August 30 at 6am, and made by Joan herself. One can only imagine the number of comments in her screening queue that she is simply deleting. Weather we like it or not Joan will not allow what she claims to desire.

We’re not calling you names, we’re just telling a VERY unflattering truth. What do you expect? You demand a discussion, and then actually expel an appreciable bit of energy to keep discussions from actually happening.

This is nothing new, we all remember the last appearance of Joan’s co-blogger and Joyce funded flunkie Jason “Baldr” Kilgore on this blog. It was just that, Jason was using my blog for his own personal soap box, and NOT engaging in debate. When I called him on this behavior he got nasty, and earned his title of “Troll”.

The LAST thing the antis want is a Debate, Discussion, or Dialog. Hell it even shows up in their own posts. Ever seen an anti support their opinions with and evidence NOT funded by the Joyce Foundation or Mayors Against Illegal Guns? You won’t! A) Because actual scientific study done by the FBI, CDC, ATF, and independent groups shows that there is either no correlation or a decrease in crime when gun restrictions are relaxed. There’s a new Harvard study (obviously not funded by Joyce as some previous ones have been) that says just that, you can read the PDF here. So rather than giving up their total stupidity they cook the books and make up “facts” and push those.

An open discussion is a sure-fire loss for them…but so is the denial of a discussion, so they keep DEMANDING a discussion, then never have it.

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

6 Responses to Joan and the Fake Discussion

  1. AZRon says:

    We should listen and learn from these bastions of logic and intellect.

    OK, who am I kidding? They’re unprepared idiots that wouldn’t know an honest research study from an emotion funded hack job, and refuse the discussion that they claim to want. We engage, they “block”. Transparency at its finest.

    Still, they are entertaining. Think Joe E. Ross. “Ooh, ooh, ooh”. It means nothing, but it’s humorous to watch the folly that follows.

  2. Pingback: Joan Peterson from Protect Minnesota & the need for a “discussion” | Bryan Strawser

  3. I posted about this over on my blog at: http://www.bryanstrawser.com/2013/08/31/joan-peterson-from-protect-minnesota-the-need-for-a-discussion/

    She’s censored more than 130+ of my comments in the past two years – including one on this post.

  4. Linoge says:

    As I said by way of an anonymous account (since she auto-deletes anything that has my online moniker attached to it):

    It is functionally impossible to have anything even *approximating* a “discussion” when you delete comments you do not like, comments that destroy your position, comments that present facts you do not like, comments from people you do not like, comments from that challenge your world view, comments that make accurate assessments of your reasoning skills, comments that present opinions you do not like, comments that disagree with you…

    And you know it.

    You are, as always, being disingenuous, and you are not fooling anyone. I doubt you know *that*, though.

    Not only is the woman a stone-cold liar, she is intentionally and maliciously evil about it – she presents herself as a reasonable, calm, rational individual, and will do anything to keep that charade going… up to and including forcibly squelching the opposition.

    Really, the best thing to do with psychopaths (and I use that word with malice aforethought and mean it entirely) is to stop giving them the attention they so desperately demand, back away quickly, and wash your hands of them. Much like Bonomo’s own particular hellhole, if we stopped giving them the attention they whorishly crave, their sites would likely dry up within a year. (And, yeah, I gave her attention myself by way of my anonymous comment… oh well. One in three years is not enough to sustain her.)

  5. Pingback: The Continuing Saga of “We Have to Talk” | Shall Not Be Questioned

  6. Pingback: It is impossible for Joan Peterson of Protect Minnesota to tell the truth on gun control | Bryan Strawser

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>