Joan Asks Questions

Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and the Joyce foundation asks some questions of pro-gun activists. I’ll bite!

I just can’t understand, nor can most sane people, why gun rights advocates have a need to display their guns openly in the Minnesota State Capitol. Of whom or what are they afraid? Or is to intimidate? And, by the way, it looks terribly uncomfortable to be carrying that piece of lead around on one’s waist. I wonder if anyone thought about how easy it would be for someone sitting close by to reach over and grab the gun? Just a thought.

Why do we open carry at rallies? Easy because A) Its legal and we can, and B) People like Joan have repeatedly claimed that gun ownership and people carrying guns is rare and in decline. Also for all these massive gatherings with armed lawful citizens, there is no bloodshed or even conflict. That’s a HUGE feather in our hat. Joan wants to pedal fear, and her fear is irrational, and we prove it.

Also for people grabbing for guns, that also doesn’t happen. It doesn’t even happen often with cops. When cops do lose control of their guns its generally when they are physically attempting to restrain criminal suspects. Take away the criminals, and the physical conflict, we have yet another anti-rights phobia.

Some of the pro gun rights folks continued their stream of tweets at some of us on the gun violence prevention side. Why? Who knows? Intimidation? Stupidity? Threatening?

I thought you wanted a discussion, Joan? We know the truth. We’re waiting if you ever decide to come around.

One of the pro gun rights activists apparently was standing close enough to me and another gun violence prevention activist to overhear a private conversation with a State Senator at a rally at the Capitol on Monday and then tweeted about it. What’s that all about? Paranoia? Creepy. Why do they care so much about what we are saying? Why do they watch us so closely? Why do they seem nervous when a group of us gather at the Capitol to talk? Why do they want to make group attacks on our Facebook pages and blogs? Why do they want to attend our events? I’m just asking.

Public place, public servant, paid lobbyist. Why do you care, Joan? What do YOU have to hide? We care about our rights and our cause, that’s why I read anti-gun blogs! I’ve also attended anti-gun protests for the same reason. You’re lobbying against our rights and our personal property, we have a vested interest.

A State Senator asked this question of the ATF agent who made a presentation in favor of requiring background checks and other common sense gun measures: ” Another GOP member, Sen. Warren Limmer of Maple grove, said clubs, baseball bats and hammers are “far more dangerous, and used more often, than a gun.””There’s an obvious answer to that ridiculous question. Murder by gun in 2008= 9,840. Murder by blunt object in 2008=614. Other sources provide similar data. Facts matter. Come on. We are talking about people’s lives here. Let’s please deal with the facts at the very least.

The statistic is about so-called “Assault Weapons”, even factoring in non semi-auto long guns, the fact is true.

Former NRA Board member and Hamlin Law School professor, Joe Olsen, long suffering advocate for not passing reasonable gun laws in Minnesota ( according to testimony, he was tired of coming before the legislature to deal with these issues) told legislators that those of us on the side of preventing gun deaths and injuries had questionable motives and that the universal background check bill would surely lead to registration. Never mind that there is nothing in the bill that would lead a reasonable person to believe that. But paranoia reigns. He was challenged by a Senator who pointed out to him that there was no such language in the bill and that she doubted that we had such motivations. By the way, my testimony included the fact that I, too, am tired of coming before the legislature asking for reasonable measures to stop the senseless shootings. I also mentioned that I had no motivation other than to save lives. But perhaps my views don’t matter as much as those of the uber powerful NRA? I’m just wondering.

Nope, you’re just not a rational person, Joan. Hence why you pin such sinister motives to tweets and public activism, when rational reasons are so obvious.

Facts matter. Universal background checks will NOT lead to registration. The background checks now completed by federally licensed dealers do NOT lead to a gun registry. Extending those checks to private sales will NOT lead to a gun registry. They will be the very same NICS checks that presumably Olsen now is willing to undergo when buying guns from a FFL. Why worry about going through the same checks from a private seller? What is this really about?

Because you do want a registry, and you DO want confiscation. There is an illegal registry of all FFL transfers…its worthless when the people can do off-paper transfers freely and legally. You want that to end so you can step forward with confiscation.

Some on the gun rights side claimed that there is no private sale loophole in Minnesota law. They are wrong, of course. There is. There is no requirement for private sellers to ask buyers to go through a background check at gun shows or other venues. There are copious hidden camera videos showing that to be true. One of our own members went to two gun shows and purchased an assault type weapon and .40 Glock ( the gun used by Cho at the Virginia Tech shooting) with no questions asked from a private seller. He said he didn’t want to go through a background check. The seller said “no problem” and he walked out with the guns. He has brought the assault rifle to the legislature before to explain his experience.

Either its a crime or it isn’t. The background check is irrelevant. Further I must note all the factual inaccuracy on the Virginia Tech shooting shows how committed to the truth you are. As well as the basic mistake of saying “.40 Glock”. Sorry Joan, your “Expert Opinion” is nothing but ignorance and agenda.

Really folks. People are dying. We have moved beyond this trite argument haven’t we? After the Sandy Hook school shooting, it’s time to move forward with some reasonable discussions that include how to stop senseless shootings and save lives. What good does it do to say that regulating guns will not cut down on violence? Regulating car safety features has cut down on deaths by car accident. Regulating the blood alcohol level of drives has cut down on some accidental auto deaths. Regulating where people can smoke will reduce illness caused by smoking. Regulating childrens’ toys has and will stop accidental deaths.

No it wont. I will not give up my rights because it makes you feel good. Also note that Joan doesn’t want to talk about the problems with known mentally ill people, and with “Gun Free Zones” that are selected by insane people for shooting galleries.

I don’t want to pass laws that will not make us safer, but put my life, liberty, and property at risk. You don’t want to talk about laws that WOULD make us safer, but don’t ban guns.

Oh, and yes, there was talk about the militia, about Nazis, about folks coming across our borders to attack, about a tyrannical government, about nullification, and more. One of the pro gun guys went after a friend of mine whose daughter was kidnapped, raped and murdered by two young men who got their gun from the father of one of them. He said that the gun didn’t rape her daughter or kidnap her daughter. Really? Come on. What a stupid and offensive thing to say to someone who lost her young daughter in such a violent and senseless way. Do these guys have compassion at all for victims? They don’t like us.

No, Joan, I don’t much like you. You lost your sister because a corrupt and crazy man ignored laws on guns, and murder. Yet you blame guns…and through your blame you blame lawful citizens like myself. You dance in your sister’s blood and cash your Joyce Foundation checks because you have no scruples and no shame. Your agenda is stronger than your morality. That isn’t a very likable thing to do.

This is why you experience such strong opposition against your evil cause.

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

11 Responses to Joan Asks Questions

  1. Joat says:

    Minnesota has a universal background check for private sales of handguns and ‘assault weapons’ The purchaser is required to have a Permit to Purchase or a Permit to carry. In order to get a permit your sheriff has to do a background check on you, and if you become a prohibited person you are required to return the permit to the sheriff. What isn’t required is any record of the transfer.

  2. Eck! says:

    I have no use for a pathological liar. I have less use for those functionally sane that act in insane ways. I took 10 seconds to look at the link it and concluded it was no more than another one of japete’s irrational screeds. She continually proves that critical thought is extinct and beyond her.

    Until she can see people acting in legal ways are not a threat and those that are are often illegal in all ways despite laws we can have no conversation.

    Eck!

  3. Bubblehead Les says:

    She exposed herself with the simple phrase: “What are they doing at our Event?”

    YOUR EVENT, JOAN? SINCE WHEN DID YOU OWN THE GOVERNMENT?

    Glad I could explain her mindset.

  4. DS says:

    “What good does it do to say that regulating guns will not cut down on violence?”

    Well, it’s the truth, for starters.

    Also, if the goal is to reduce violence, and the fact is known the gun regulations don’t reduce violence, then the logical action is to investigate other ways to reduce violence. And it also makes you wonder why they are pushing GUN control so hard, if we know that it doesn’t reduce violence.

    Arguing with Joan, of course, is pointless. However, it is good practice in case we meet someone who has been fed these arguments, but isn’t a True Believer like Joan. (Or even a Paid Believer)

    • Rob Crawford says:

      The curious thing about her litany of “regulations that have saved lives” — more guns, and more people carrying guns, has also saved lives.

  5. Thirdpower says:

    “I just can’t understand”

    She really should have just stopped there. It’s the defining sentence.

  6. Rob Crawford says:

    He said that the gun didn’t rape her daughter or kidnap her daughter. Really?

    Yes, Joan, it’s true. Guns don’t kidnap or rape.

  7. Maddmedic says:

    I try to ignore..Her…but damn I do live in the same state as Joan and then you throw Heather Martens into the mix…Whoa..
    But they did knock off the ‘assault’ weapons ban…and the large cap ban and
    I did send a letter to my State Rep asking where exactly I could pick an ‘assault’ weapon up. Did he have resources I could use…No reply though…Hmm
    And as Joat states we have had to get ‘permission’ for years from either an ‘appointed/hired’ official (Police0 or our ‘elected’ Sheriff..
    But I do remember a day that we could just walk into a hardware store and ‘buy’ a power drill, hammer and shotgun of rifle…Damn..
    Times change and not for the better..

  8. Bob S. says:

    terribly uncomfortable to be carrying that piece of lead around on one’s waist.

    My first thought was rather rude – “Better then carrying around a chunk of lead between the ears like you do Joan”.

    But I restrained myself, some what. Yes, it took me 30 seconds to type it.

    I just can’t understand, nor can most sane people, why WOMEN have a need to display their BODIES openly in the Minnesota State Capitol. Of whom or what are they afraid? Or is to intimidate? And, by the way, it looks terribly uncomfortable to be DRESSED THAT WAY. I wonder if anyone thought about how easy it would be for someone sitting close by to reach over and ASSAULT/RAPE them? Just a thought.

    Substitute in Women and attire for “anyone and free speech” or LGBT and public display of affection”, etc — So change a few words and does it make any more sense? Not a bit. Joan simply will not accept that people want to exercise their rights, make decisions on how to protect themselves and their families in a legal, moral and ethical way.

    Regulating car safety features has cut down on deaths by car accident. Regulating the blood alcohol level of drives has cut down on some accidental auto deaths. Regulating where people can smoke will reduce illness caused by smoking. Regulating childrens’ toys has and will stop accidental deaths.

    And created millions of victimless crimes creating millions/trillions in fines, filled jails and less liberty. There are other ways to achieve fewer deaths then another law, another restriction.

    The ‘background check’ issue could be resolved by requiring the ATF to open the background check system to citizens without a license. The antis don’t want that. They don’t want a voluntary system. They want maximum government interference and control.

    The background checks now completed by federally licensed dealers do NOT lead to a gun registry.

    Anecdotal evidence suggests this may not be true. I was talking with a friend; a CHL instructor and FFL, recently and he stated that an ATF agent last year copied every one of his form 4473. In contravention to the law.

    He resisted at first; pointing out that it was against the law for that action. According to him — and admittedly this is unsubstantiated — the agent basically threatened him with the loss of his license (and a fair chunk of income) if he complained or would not comply.

    Other FFLs have reported similar behavior if I’m not mistaken. Guess the ATF agents are simply using the Registration LOOPHOLE, eh.

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>