So a while back Brady Board Member and Joyce Foundation Puppet Joan Peterson made an odd statement. Somebody asked Joan what was her end goal for “Gun Death” that would lead her to proclaim “Mission Accomplished”. Her answer was the letter “O”. Kinda strange but we got the message, well now she’s clarified it a lot more.
A friend of mine on Facebook, when reading one of my posts about the tragic shooting in Arizona, said this: “More than zero is too many”. Yes indeed. More than zero gun deaths is too many.
Yep, that’s EXACTLY what she meant. Let’s see where she’s going with this.
What we also know about the gun and the ammunition is that Jared Loughner had 2 ammunition clips each holding more than 30 rounds. He was attempting to load the second clip when he was tackled by some people at the scene. A witness thought it only took about 10 seconds to shoot off the first round. It needs to be said here that if the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 had not been allowed to lapse in 2004, this type of high capacity ammunition clip would not have been legal to import or sell in gun stores. That would have made it more difficult for Loughner to get his hands on these clips.
ummm
There’s my FAL, you’ll see that in the well is a 20 round magazine, what you can’t clearly see is the brown paper bag behind it FILLED with more 20 round FAL Magazines.
Massachusetts has an Assault Weapons Ban, the FAL is considered an “Assault Weapon” in its standard configuration. This gun does not have the threaded barrel or flash hider, so it is ban compliant. (Furthermore if this gun had been in Massachusetts before 1994 it would be legal even with Flash hider, muzzle threads, rifle grenade launcher, or bayonet lug) and the magazines are all pre ’94 so also legal.
Same goes for Glock 19s and 30 round magazines. Neither are allowed in Mass, but pre-ban examples exist galore. Without confiscation, a re-boot of the ’94 AWB would do close to nothing. So Joan is again full-of-shit.
If you are not a criminal or a prohibited person, you will not be giving up your freedoms.
Sorry Hon, either you are completely illogical and out-of-touch with reality, or you’re simply lying to support your gun-banning and confiscating agenda. Both are believable to me, and since Joan doesn’t want to discuss or debate the issue, we’ll never know for sure. Also because she’s such an illogical/dishonest person she’ll never achieve her goals.
Sorry but your “Common Sense” doesn’t mesh with reality.
Nice pic of the FAL, but I gotta say ya got a bit ripped not getting the traditional foreguard. The original allows an integral bibod which makes Sarah Brady cry. Keep an eye out for the original equipment.
I’m pretty sure the forearm I American made, but its a damn good copy of the Commonwealth L1A1 rifle. Also I’m building this gun as a SHTF Battle Rifle. So Its purpose is to be carried, and shot offhand with Iron sights. A Bipod is a feature I’m not interested in, and would just add to overall weight. Of the piece. But I can aquire and install one without much trouble.
She IS supporting the agenda… period…
Yep
Cabot has been parroting the same bullshit of “all ‘high capacity’ magazines would be illegal under a new AWB” over at The Truth About Guns – I wonder if it was a talking point pushed down from above?
If it were not for me admitting to their ownership, no one would know if I had normal-capacity magazines or not, and no one would know what I did with them if I did, given that they are not serialized, are not registered, and are not controlled in any particular fashion at all. I wonder what Joan’s solution for that “shortcoming” is, or even if she is mentally capable of identifying the problem.
Well the trolls are just trolling. I just suspect they make statements that are so outlandish that they raise temperatures, but no so outlandish that people assume the troll is joking.
Robert needs to smarten up and stop feeding the trolls.
I’ll take credit for getting her to say she wouldn’t stop calling for more restrictive laws until there were Zero Firearm related murders.
I’ll also take credit for continuing to bug her with related questions.
The one she didn’t post but responded to is
“What short of a complete ban and total confiscation of firearms will accomplish your stated goal of Zero Firearm related murders?”
And don’t you love her eventual reply to the conversation?
If that doesn’t fit the category of “Lies of the Antis” I don’t know what does.
Freedom to own and use magazines containing 11 or more rounds — gone
Freedom to transfer firearms between friends, family or others without government knowledge – gone.
Freedom to own certain firearms – gone.
And still she doesn’t answer the question of what short of a complete ban and total confiscation will accomplish her goal — because she knows, in my opinion, that will expose her lies.
I thought that sounded like you, but I didn’t want to assume
It’s funny that MikeB302000 also pegged it as one of my comments.
It’s also telling that he tried to deflect the question
Now either he is too stupid to read plain, easy to understand English or he is deliberately twisting what I said.
You be the judge.
I have no desire to wallow in the muck over there, as I have better things to do with my life than try to communicate with someone who has a reading comprehension level slightly lower than that of my friend’s greyhounds. That being said, it would be amusing to posit this hypothetical (not that it would be likely to see the light of day):
Suppose there were 3,000 “gun deaths” per year, every one of which of which was the result of legitimate self-defense use of a firearm (i.e., an attacker who initiated the use of deadly force was shot to death by the person (s)he was attacking). Would that allow japete to claim “Mission Accomplished”? If not, why not?
On that subject, exactly how do the wannabe-tyrants classify self-defense “gun deaths”? I mean, they can’t list them as a separate category, since that would undermine their crusade. OTOH, they can’t just ignore them completely, since that would reduce the overall number of “gun deaths.” My guess is that they lump them in with “homicides,” thus drawing a moral equivalence between aggression and self-defense.