Quote of the Day: Joan Peterson

Joan takes a break from her normal crowing to tell us that warm stinky fluid running down our backs is rain!

First of all, “anti-gun groups”? No. Not true. We are anti gun violence. We are not pushing legislation that will infringe on gun rights. That is just nonsense. At some level I believe the NRA even knows this. But they continue their nonsensical statements in the face of tragedies.

Let that one sink in for a second. No the organizations that Joan is either a part of, or politically aligned with are NOT Anti-gun! They are NOT infringing on our rights!

Would confiscating lawfully held guns not be either “anti-gun” or infringing on our rights? Joan is openly for that!

Heck I did a whole podcast segment on this tactic! If you didn’t listen to that episode, give it a listen, and if you just want a refresher my segment starts at the 45min mark. Also have a look at my show notes in the link for the extent of this tactic. She is OPENLY anti-gun and anti-freedom, but is not against blatantly lying about her motives.

Hell just before she she claimed to not be anti-gun she said this in the above linked post:

If all of the 80 shooting incidents ( homicides, suicides and accidental discharges) got the attention the mass shootings or other high profile shootings got, I believe we would be doing something differently today. The fact that we have done nothing different since the Brady background check bill was enacted in 1994 and the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse in 2004 says something very important about us.

We can argue about how much the Brady Bill infringes on our rights, of course it would be tough to claim it has done ANYTHING to curb gun violence, heck Joan’s groups are trying to expand what the Brady Bill does to EVERY gun transfer BECAUSE it doesn’t work. Still can ANYBODY say that the 1994 “Assault Weapon” ban wasn’t both anti-gun and anti-rights? It denied what guns could be sold to citizens, meanwhile still allowing police to have these vary guns, not because there was any sort of an “Arms Race” between cops and criminals, but because they’re the best tools for the job. It was so anti-freedom the country rejected the law and allowed it to sunset in 2004!

Also the idea that these groups are “Anti-gun violence” is laughable. Well maybe more sneer-worthy as they are perfectly content to have high violent crime, so long as we have low “Gun Death”. When it comes to public safety the antis are unconcerned. Actually given how low the violent crime rate has been over the last few years, coupled with the number of lawful gun owners and concealed carry holders, the antis have been doing EVERYTHING they can to trumping up violent crime stories to give the illusion that things are getting worse out there. They’re succeeding at that!

Why would Joan be an “anti Gun-violence” advocate, but not be concerned with the reality of public safety in America?

Yeah because her and her groups aren’t concerned about violence, they’re concerned about banning guns, and infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

That isn’t rain running down our backs, Joan….

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

5 Responses to Quote of the Day: Joan Peterson

  1. Bob S. says:

    Can you name a single proposal that Joan’s groups have proposed that would reduce ‘gun violence’ committed by the law enforcement officials?

    Can you name a single proposal they’ve championed that isn’t already on the books some place and failing to reduce ‘gun violence’?

    And if they are ‘anti-gun violence’ — their stances and actions lead us to firmly believe they are pro violence as long as it isn’t committed with a firearm. Every single one of their proposals makes it easier for the criminals to harm others, steal from others, rape, assault and commit general mayhem.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Further, things like “Universal Background Checks” are essentially redundant laws. They point out that criminals are illegally buying guns, so their “Solution” is making it MORE illegal. They NEVER are for enforcing existing laws, they’re always for MORE laws.

      I would argue MORE laws are better for them because every more restrictive law chokes out the LAWFUL gun owner, which is their REAL enemy, not the criminal.

  2. Cargosquid says:

    Isn’t this the same Joan that admitted that she would stop advocating for gun restrictions when “gun violence” resulted in ZERO murders?

    • Bob S. says:

      Yep. The same Joan
      I documented that conversation http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=3641

    • Braden Lynch says:

      I think we should pass a thousand laws to outlaw My Little Ponies!!! I will not rest until there are ZERO reruns of the show (actually my daughters like it so I am stuck with it).

      Seems like we passed a Constitutional amendment to outlaw the Devil’s liquor and it did not turn out too well. I’m pretty sure that we did not achieve ZERO alcohol consumption then. So, how does that whole outlaw it thing work out?

      Sweet Buddha, what a ridiculous and unachievable goal she has set. She must be snorting unicorn farts. Her recommendations deserve ZERO respect since she has ZERO credibility.

Leave a Reply

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