An Omission

Joan Peterson has a post up about the School Shooting at Columbine. I noticed an Omission.

Unless common sense breaks out in our Congress and state legislatures, the shootings will no doubt continue. Unless we do something rather than nothing, the list of victims will continue to grow. To do nothing is not an option.

The two assholes who did the shooting were felons and under-age. Not to mention the fact that the school was a Gun-free zone. How did they get the guns? Go have a look at this page. The two pistols used were sold by young men who both served several years in prison. But what about this:

Robyn K. Anderson, friend of Dylan’s, purchased two shotguns and a 9mm rifle for the shooters, which were later used in the assault. No formal charges were brought against her as she testified that she didn’t know that they would be used in a murder spree when she gave them to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

I mentioned this in the comments of Joan’s post. I didn’t use my screen name or link to my blog so Joan would only go on my words not her feelings about me personally. Its been enough time and other comments have appears, I’m positive my mention of Miss. Anderson has been deemed not fit to print. And Inconvenient truth.

Miss Anderson was a friend of the two boys. They gave her money and a shopping list and sent her to a gun show to buy guns for them because they were minors, as well as felons.

Do you think she knew they were sociopaths? Do you think she knew they were building bombs? Do you think she knew their ages and why she had to buy the guns?

Joan Peterson and her coworkers at the Brady Campaign and the Joyce foundation, as well as all the anti-freedom people talk about closing the “Gunshow Loophole”, but they never seem to mention Miss Anderson and her lack of any punishment.

She was an adult woman who was given cash and orders by minor children of an anti-social nature, to buy guns for them because they legally could not do so. She complied with this, and what was her punishment?

NOTHING. (BTW there’s a really good article on her here)

That’s a major travesty and miscarriage of justice, but here’s the real kicker…why do the anti-rights advocates talk about the expansion of existing laws, but never of the people who simply walked through the law?

Do you think Joan Peterson wants criminals put in jail for breaking the law, or do you think Joan Peterson wants to tell lawful gun owners how they can and cannot conduct their business?

Do you think Joan Peterson wants to stop gang violence and avoid massacres, or do you think she just wants to stamp out legal gun ownership and gun rights?

Could their motives be any more clear?

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

0 Responses to An Omission

  1. Lissa says:

    Quite a concise summary of UN-POSSIBLE! events, sir.

  2. AuricTech says:

    So, the Columbine shooters obtained their firearms through a straw purchaser, who was unpunished. I don’t recall where I read it, but it seems that it’s quite common for straw purchasers not to be indicted, especially if they’re girlfriends of people who are barred from owning firearms.

    And yet, the gun-grabbers always talk about straw purchasers as a problem that requires further erosion of the rights of citizens going about their lawful pursuits.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      That’s because erosion of rights and banning of guns is their goal, not to stop crime or violence. Crime and Violence are just emotional issues used as currency to push the agenda.

  3. mike w. says:

    Yep, they won’t prosecute those who actually BROKE THE LAW, but they’ll hold up such tragedy as reason why my rights should be infringed upon. And folks wonder why I think “fuck you” is an appropriate response to anti-gun statists who tell me to give up my rights.

  4. Bob S. says:

    I’ve asked on her post about the 6 year old taking a firearm to school “What law, rule or regulation would make a parent exercise common sense?”

    She replied with basically nothing but that won’t stop her from pushing for ever more restrictive laws.

    What law, rule or regulation would stop a person from illegally buying guns for two minors?

    NOT a SINGLE law. No new law would change it either.
    There will always be people willing to break the law.

    Yet that won’t stop her from pushing for ever more restrictive laws.

  5. alcade says:

    Yeah, she didn’t respond to my comment either.

    I called for laws making murder, straw purchases, and entering a gun free zone illegal.

    Guess she didn’t like my idea.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      If stopping crime was their concern they would actually look at the action of criminals. Sure they look at the rare outlier like the criminals at Tuscon, Virginia Tech, and Columbine. That’s 57 “Gun Deaths” in 11 years time….hardly their lofty 30,000 annual number they hold so dishonestly dear.

      But they don’t look at suicides, or at suicide rates in nations that ban or heavily restrict guns.
      They don’t look that the street gang violence that makes up about 90% of the “Gun Violence” in this country.
      They don’t note that firearm accidents have fallen to the level of statistical noise.
      They won’t admit that people defend themselves with guns every single day.
      They won’t look at Violence as a whole…if it isn’t a “Gun Death” it isn’t relevant.
      And they will not justify or explain how or why any laws they propose will work, or be effective, or take an honest look at where else it has been tried.

      You see their goals are NOT to save lives or increase safety, their goals are to stomp out individual liberty.

      Why do you think they have no followers?

  6. Pingback: Images of the Antis: Same False reality | Weer'd World

Leave a Reply

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