Do They Even Think We Believe Them?

Your Morning Irony from who else? Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and Joyce Foundation!

anticipate non-violence instead of being ready for violence

This is the same Joan Peterson who said:

Such is the way of gun deaths. They are sudden, unexpected and violent. They can happen to anyone. Just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it won’t.

Contradictory phrases from the same women indicating a philosophy that is mutually exclusive. FYI I suspect Joan’s dead sister was “Anticipating non-violence”, certainly Joan’s Brady Campaign compatriot Collin Goddard was, and he has the bullet holes to show for it.

Really Joan just wants to say anything that puts gun ownership in a bad light. Her above quote was in reference to this article.

Let us commit to living nonviolently even in the face of danger. When guns are brought to church, the church is no longer a sanctuary, no longer a safe space. Guns have no place in church.

Guns have no place in Church, except when somebody doesn’t like your religion and has decided to kill you. Then it might be a nice time for a Church member to have a gun. I’ll also add that this is yet another made-up problem. Most states have no prohibition on carrying guns in a church or other place of worship. I have carried many times in places of worship for just that reason, be they Jews, Muslims, Christians, or Scientologists, religion is polarizing and there has been much violence based on faith alone.

This leads me to another anti-rights activist who lays the irony on thick. Brady Campaign’s own Collin Goddard.

@bergerjd @SebastianSH I support the May-Issue system in general but believe there are certain places where guns have no place i.e. schools

As a man living in a “May Issue” state I’ll point out that in the most part “May issue” is simply “Shall issue” or “Won’t issue”, with some nice smattering of violations of due process. Some other examples here and here (Note this is why we shouldn’t call them “anti-gun”, but “anti-rights”)

But guns have no place in schools? How’d you manage to get shot in French class, Colin? I thought guns were banned on the Virginia Tech Campus? Certainly there was time to act when the shooting started, and before the police could respond. Are you so partisan that you can’t see that? Is you paycheck from the Brady Campaign worth more than the safety of students like you?

I’ll end again with Joan’s quote:

Such is the way of gun deaths. They are sudden, unexpected and violent. They can happen to anyone. Just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it won’t.

“Just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it won’t.” Remember that, and carry your damn gun, people! You just might need it!

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

0 Responses to Do They Even Think We Believe Them?

  1. Bob S. says:

    Since I have had my Concealed Handgun License (CHL), I have carried in church when I’ve attended.

    Since October 2008, not once have I shot anyone.

    Our church recognizes the danger of spree killers and has responded appropriately. I won’t mention the details (defeats the purpose) but will state that the church does not just tacitly approves of Concealed Carry.

    I would also like to point out since September of 2009; Harrold ISD in west Texas has allowed teachers, staff and administrators to carry in their district.

    How many problems have been reported?


    I’ll end with one last note about Mr. C. Goddard; he is on the record of repeatedly stating that he wouldn’t have had time to react to the shooting at VT but he did have time to crawl under his desk.
    So, either he is a liar or recognizes that he is so clumsy he couldn’t pull a handgun from a holster while seeking cover.

    I’ll leave it to others to decide which.

    • Jake says:

      Re: Goddard: He had time to crawl under a desk, take out his cell phone, and dial 911. Taking out a pistol, even from deep concealment, doesn’t take any longer or any more coordination than pulling out a phone – and you don’t have to dial the pistol.

      When Colin Goddard says “he wouldn’t have had time to react to the shooting” he is flat out lying.

      • Weerd Beard says:

        I’m starting to think a FOIA request from the VT FBI case files might turn up some interesting things.

        #1. I want Cho’s weaponry. Seems that nowhere is it officially written down that Cho only had two 15 round magazines and the rest were 10 (Because that’s all ebay sold at the time)

        #2. Be interesting to hear Goddard’s 911 call and see how long it was and how things went down.

  2. Jennifer says:

    I carry at church. Honestly, I could hide anything under my choir robe.

  3. Eck! says:


    They are not stupid. It’s propaganda-101. They practice the BIG LIE technique of propaganda as a mean of garnering the unknowing and uncaring. The big lie does not have to even be marginally true to only has to sound like it makes sense.


    • Weerd Beard says:

      Valid point. Back when I was an Anti I bought the Kellerman argument in it’s most perverse interpretations hook-line-and-sinker. Note:

      -I wasn’t aware of the man Kellerman, nor had I seen or read his study directly

      – I had all my info 3rd hand through anti-rights lobby so it wasn’t “More likely to kill somebody known to the shooter” which is what Kellerman states (with some pretty bad science to get there) but the anti-rights talking point “More likely to shoot a loved one than a deadly threat”.

      – I just naturally assumed that gun owners in America were on a regular basis shooting their little boy who was bumbling to the bathroom late-at-night, or shooting their daughter who was trying to sneak back to her room after a night of forbidden necking.

      Of course Kellerman had cooked his samples so that the most people defending their lives could be excluded, and furthermore took advantage that Gang hits, and rival gang populations would indeed know who they were going to go shoot, despite this NOT being a normal or legal behavior in America.

      But it puts some scientific window dressing on a lie to make it seem more legit.

      If I hadn’t been engaged enough times in the gun debate I might have never sought out those base numbers and looked to see who was lying and who was telling the truth.

  4. Braden Lynch says:

    I view the anti-gunners as in league with the forces of evil. I don’t do this lightly, but anyone who fails to recognize how disarmed citizens have been routinely abused or murdered by their own governments fail in basic history. They argue that they are on the moral high ground, but their goals prove otherwise. They would rather see a huge body count of the innocents, than see a citizen use a firearm to end a rampage or any personal attack.

    Let’s look at some of their proposals…
    1) Waiting Periods/One Gun a Month…so the stalker or psycho can kill you in the mean time and also limits where you can have a firearm stashed for quick use (i.e. you might need several firearms to protect home and hearth, workplace, and the car).
    2) Gun-free zones…so people in church or in school can be killed at leisure by the spree shooter.
    3) Prohibit any “scary looking” firearm attributes (i.e. bayonet lug), which after they are successful with some will continue to morph into additional restrictions that will include nearly all guns eventually.
    4) All firearm sales through an FFL for a background check (probably to include later a psychological evaluation, urine sample, etc, etc). If such restrictions occur, it is only a hop, skip, and a jump for the government to make a list of gun owners in America. I do not have to be paranoid to realize this is always a bad thing. Gun registration often leads to confiscation. Points 3 and 4 also have hidden intent of making it so restrictive or expensive to own a firearm that you give up trying.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Well I would point out that not ALL anti-gun people are evil. There are many who are not active in the debate but will nod their head at parties when one of the die-hard anti-freedom advocates gets squawking.

      I’m sure there are people who think Joan Peterson is a devoted and smart women simply because they have no idea what she’s talking about, but her talking points sound good enough.

      That’s not evil, but people like Joan, and other people who work directly for the Brady Campaign and the Joyce foundation I 100% agree, and also agree the term should not be taken lightly.

      But indeed, they KNOW they are lying, and for whatever reason they justify, they justify that its OK. They will say that banning or restricting X will make crime go down and make us all safer. That’s a lie and they KNOW it. Whatever their reasons won’t justify it. That IS evil.

      Also on #4. Registration (and confiscation) is a very real outcome. Also look at how the market has changed since the GCA of ’68, and from Clinton revoking all the “Kitchen Table” FFLs during his rein. My Dad bought guns through the sears catalog though the mail! Lots of pre ’68 people bought guns at hardware stores and general stores, or department stores. Post ’68 huge numbers of places simply stopped selling guns.

      Still with the Kitchen Table guys you could get your own FFL for your own personal uses, or you could find one at the local flea market, Church picnic, or you could bump into a guy with some REALLY good deals at the local gun show because his only overhead was the table fee for the show, and his gas driving there.

      Now those guys are gone, and frankly the deals at the gun shows suck, unless you’re looking for non-gun items, or you can do a private sale with another visitor.

      Private sale gone now guns are vastly more expensive because you need to pay for the gun…AND the shop, and the staff, not to mention all the insurance and security demanded of FFL storefronts. That prices more people out of the industry which is a victory in the end-game of killing US gun culture.

      But now how do you buy a gun if you live in Bear-fuck Maine? It might be a 3 hour drive to the nearest FFL, and that likely won’t be a shining-star FFL that has everything you need. I’m sure that’s even worse in the larger states out West.

      Now let’s say a new insurance rider is thrown onto FFLs, or there is further requirements to show they are in an EXCLUSIVE business selling guns. Now gone are the small-town guys, and now you need to drive even further to go see an FFL.

      Not only can it lead to registration and confiscation, but it can lead to what Mexico has, which is ONE (1!) gun shop in the whole country (!!) and a person needs to make an appointment and be cleared to cross into the military base (!!!) before they can even look at the limited selection of guns you can legally buy in Mexico.

      And meanwhile the Cartels are trading in full-auto G3s and AKs, and M16s…..

      This is what they want for us, and no I don’t think its the LEAST bit unfair to call that “Evil”

      • Braden Lynch says:

        I stand corrected. I would not cast ALL of the anti-gunners into the “evil” category if their only transgression is ignorance. For those that are true champions of severe gun control I have utter contempt for them because they expose all of us to the very real dangers of criminals, breakdown of civil society after a disaster, and possibly that of a genocidal tyrannical government.

        Fortunately our society seems a bit more restrained than some of those hell holes of the world where killing people is done for fun. Also, the fact that a good number of our citizens are armed does help keep our politicians from going tyrannical on us.

        I miss the days when you could order a gun through the mail. Right now, we have the administration denying the importation of M1 Garands from Korea. Those are literally pieces of history and yet they do not want them here. What a shame!

  5. Linoge says:

    Eh, I do not actually have that much beef with what Joan said – I expect non-violence, but I plan for violence.

    … Oh, wait, was that not what she meant?

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Well it depends on which quote (if any) she was telling the truth in saying.

      Certainly she says we should always be prepared for violence…..but also that we shouldn’t as well…..

Leave a Reply

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