Quote of the Day: Sean

Sean said here.

I can only hope that someone who loves her is reading what she writes and is planning on staging an intervention. She is in serious need of a few months at a caring facility for the mentally deranged.

I’m a bit more cautious on questioning if somebody needs intensive psychiatric help, and of course things like Narcissistic Personality disorder (Of which many of the anti-rights advocates, including Joan Peterson exhibit all the clinical signs on their blogs and public messages), but Joe wonders if Alcohol or drugs might be a source of their incoherency.

Given that Joan Peterson has deviated from standard Brady boilerplate to more disjointed and paranoid comments that are increasingly difficult to follow, I can only theorize that she has either started a more extreme alcohol or drug regime, dedicated her blogging time at the same time as her imbibing time, or is having a some severe difficulties keeping her mental demons in check.

Given her signs of clinical Narcissism, and my readings on the subject , I have concerns about “Loved ones” wanting to approach her for help, as the Narcissist by nature only pushes people away as the illness becomes more severe.

I am not one of those people who have a desire to see Joan Peterson get help. My relationship with her is isolated as fighting back against her madness to maintain the rights I hold dear. Maybe I’m callus, but she is nothing but an adversary to me and my way of life. I see the world being filled with far too many good people who need help to waste concern or effort on those who do NO good.

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

0 Responses to Quote of the Day: Sean

  1. Linoge says:

    Bah. He stole my line.

    I cannot say as though I care about Joan getting psychological help either, but it blatantly exposes the double-standards of the anti-rights nuts – they make endless noise about keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally afflicted, but when one of their own exhibits all of the classical symptoms of psychosis, they do nothing at all.

    Just goes to show that the hoplophobes do not care about people, only control… and especially control over others.

  2. LC Scotty says:

    OT: More deranged nonsensical ramblings at a new blog.


    • Weerd Beard says:

      Heds or tails, I can make neither from his ramblings.

    • There is plenty of psychosis and truly deep paranoia in the PRO GUN lobby/ownership clique. I know, just raising questions about ethics subjects people to attack, as I have been just for publishing my thoughts. If you cant have an adult conversation and handle a difference of opinion, you cant “shoot it away”. As the blogger you cant understand, I support gun rights, but have legit questions. How do YOU set limits on ownership? No one can police themselves in every situation. This is a nation of laws, and will always be that. It isnt a selective thing when you are part of a nation, a larger society. Take the SELF out of it and ask a question and at least TRY to understand the other side. It isn’t hate to want responsible laws and ownership. Should there be no laws at all? Loopholes left open? buy whatever you want because you want it? No one is serious about TAKING AWAY GUNS, what a load of shit. We have drug safety-needed, airline safety, needed, and alot of safety the states ARE NOT capable of handling responsibly. That is what the”ramblings” are about. I will also link to your blog! Thanks for the opportunity to engage briefly.

      • Bob S. says:


        Care to provide examples of the pro-gun paranoia and psychosis?

        ENFORCE THE LAWS is bullshit when they buy politicians to help write the laws, but the citizens don’t get to be involved.

        Seems to be an actionable statement if the NRA decides to pursue it. Do you have any evidence of them “buying” politicians?

        Of course, you also seem to forget the fact that the NRA has a membership of over 3 million people. How is that not getting the people involved?

        The constitution NOWHERE condones an anarchy of mass killing machines the founders couldn’t forsee or intend.

        Are you saying that the Founding Fathers were ignorant of history? That they couldn’t project the future of firearm development — given the fact that they knew how weapons had developed over time that they couldn’t foresee even greater weapons?

        Of course, you wrote that on parchment using a quill pen right?
        Oh, no?? You used your 1st Amendment rights on the Internet, using a computer, over phone lines or fiber optic or cable connections, using a computing device didn’t exist in 1700.
        Do you not see the irony of your statement?

        The Gun Lobby, believing they are the only TRUE constitutional scholars in the Country, they ignore the words of a “well regulated militia”

        Guess the Supreme Court Justices are part of the “Gun Lobby”, eh?

        See they confirmed the right to keep and bear arms is related to self defense as well as the militia.

        But you can’t have it both ways Buster.
        If the 2nd Amendment is related to milita, then I have the right to keep fully automatic weapons, squad level weapons (anti-tank, grenades, claymores, etc) perhaps even anti-aircraft weapons.

        Now, I’m a member of a sportsman club. We have a Table of Organization, elected officers, regular training — couldn’t that be considered a militia?

        Can’t have it both ways Buster.

        • Weerd Beard says:

          LC Scotty, looks like your little hyperlink doubled his traffic and he had to come check it out.

          I’m totally willing to debate, but frankly his rebuttal was far to rambling and drifting into the realm of the metaphysical.

          Feel free to add more comments William, and welcome aboard, but if you want to discuss an issue, let’s stick to 1-2 points rather than what appears to be attempting to change the world in one fell swoop mixed with a bunch of incorrect assumptions.

      • Linoge says:

        Uhm, wat?

        First up, have you never heard of paragraphs? Or how to construct them? Or even how to construct something approximating a coherent sentence?

        Secondly, pick a point, run with it, and then move on to another point, instead of trying to develop some horrid mishmash of nonsense.

        Thirdly, on to the points I can pick out of your hamburger-like thought process:

        No one can police themselves in every situation.

        Yes, yes I can, because I choose to. Thanks for your concern, though.

        This is a nation of laws, and will always be that.

        No, this is a nation of free citizens, who have chosen to come together under a body of laws that was originally intended to protect and preserve those citizens rights. Unfortunately, thanks to petty authoritarians, it will not always be that, and has not been that for some time now.

        Take the SELF out of it …

        Uhm, no, thanks. I know how “collective”-based governments have handled their people in the past, and I would very much prefer if America did not go down that road – we know what is down there, we do not need to experience it for ourselves.

        Should there be no laws at all? Loopholes left open? buy whatever you want because you want it?

        Great job at the strawmen, but do you know what “shall not be infringed” even means?

        No one is serious about TAKING AWAY GUNS, what a load of shit.

        What does the word “ban” mean to you, Buster?

        Wow, LC. You surely know where to find some… interesting… individuals. One has to wonder if everything William consumes is… legal.

        • All I can say is that I have been checking out your comments as well, they are as objective in interpreting law and constitution as anyone on the other side of your argument. As I stated, just touching on this issue has been engaging, entertaining, and sad, disturbing. Your need to provide “editorial commentary” is really fun. Thanks for your concern over my paragraphs, etc. Talk about rambling from the subject…I support gun ownership and free speech. I have no problems with conflict, great things come out of it. There is PLENTY of “actionable” rhetoric from gun advocates against all who favor restricting certain items, and the against president, the Orwellian Nightmare of having men in trucks removing all guns in America. If you believe that, I am sorry. I have yet to hear anyone with a brain propose that. If you don’t feel there is a need for reform, I wont agree, but I respect you.

          Too long, the gun lobbyists have held sway over individual states and federal govt for decades. It is NO secret. This hanging over our legislature, where they have NO PLACE, has resulted in a mess of flawed laws that let criminals get guns without question in some states and pollute the entire country with assault weapons. Do YOU want to pay for the extra police it takes to deal with that issue? Build the courts? Set up military zones in our cities? You should. What has been done to date has brought totally failed legislation and laws on the books that disregard the constitutional rights we have to disagree, to stay alive, and not get shot by weapons or prescient founders meant (in your eyes only). Nor should any lobbyists from any group influence legislature of any kind. Period. Supreme Court Ruling also leaves plenty of room for discussion. Maybe you favor them because they have been needed to shape laws that have been written/rewritten in favor of guns.

          Where is the gun lobby after crimes? Shouting for more guns. Helpful. Somehow, the mother of my dead brother in law, shot through the head, don’t find comfort, or even recognition from gun lobby when the awful happens, not just in the press. There are so many deaths you don’t hear of. There is little demonstrated, expressed concern over protecting the lives of people caught in gun violence, by people who have “legally” bought guns, because the laws are shit.

          I am sure you are all responsible owners, and you care enough to want to talk about it. BUT there are too many fruitcakes with guns, and the courts are not designed in to handle all problems, including prevention, that would save lives. If you have the best ideas, bring them to the table and convince the entire population or majority of the USA. PLEASE, if you have all the answers only on your side, and no one else does, you have quite a sell job ahead of you. By all means put the ideas out there. The country needs all of our ideas,and to weigh them ALL equally.

          Just remember that perceived threats are a two way street. It is all a matter of perspective, and no one is immune. I get paranoid mail from someone PRO GUN who was allowed to post an ad on my blog. It is the most delusional, hillbilly fear-mongering I haven’t heard of since the civil rights movement. No one side,yours or mine, has all the answers. Period. But it will not be an ALL or nothing battle. BOTH sides are going to compromise. Our country doesn’t work in authoritarian ways, for or against guns, and never, ever will. Respect that.

          • Weerd Beard says:

            You’re full of shit, Bill. You’re comments are long, rambling, and filled with misconceptions, stereotypes, paranoia, and empty rhetoric.

            This is a blog for grown-up discussion. If you cannot engage as a respectful adult please do not.

            You have admitted to to being a demagogue, and the way you conduct yourself here and on your own blog, you are a hypocrite.

            Sorry, I don’t have much time for people like that. If you’d like to come back with a rational argument, you know where to find me.

  3. Bob S. says:

    I’ll go against the “she needs help” axis.

    She is free to live her life the way she wants to without intervention or interference — until she shows herself to be a threat to herself or others.

    As it is now, there is nothing actionable in her words or actions. Everyone is allowed to make nonsensical, unsupportable statements and posts.

    See, I’m willing to give her the freedom she and Sparky are unwilling to give anyone else.
    Besides, I don’t think they would allow internet access in any facility. If she can’t post, a great many of us would have to actually work to find blog fodder.

  4. Pingback: Weer'd World » 100%

  5. Pingback: Weer'd World » Having a Bit More Fun

  6. Pingback: do not play their games | walls of the city

Leave a Reply

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