Joan Peterson: Modern Don Quixote

Of course Don Quixote jousted with windmills he thought were giants, that fantasy is maybe too scary for her. Instead she debates with straw men she thinks are gun owners!

What is the logic in laws that allow people who shouldn’t get guns to get them anyway? What is the logic in making assault weapons seem like just any old gun used by hunters and recreational shooters? What kind of logic is it when laws are passed to let someone with a gun shoot someone when “feeling threatened” without being held responsible for the shooting? Do the rights of gun owners trump the rights of the public to be safe from senseless shootings? Shouldn’t laws be passed to protect the public instead of protecting the gun industry, the gun lobby and gun carriers?

Nobody is saying violent felons, and people involuntarily committed for mental illness should get guns, we’re talking about banning private sale, but more on that later. So-Called “Assault Weapons” ARE just “any old gun”, and they are used frequently by hunters and recreational shooters. Also nobody who shoots another person is held without responsibility in America PERIOD…again more on that later. And yeah we do need laws protecting gun owners because gun owners ARE THE PUBLIC!

“Common Sense” has become a JOKE in the gun-rights debate because you are so illogical and closed-minded Joan!

Let’s take conceal and carry laws for an example of the reasoning of the NRA. If we just but let anyone who doesn’t have a felony record get a gun permit, we will all be better off and safer and people will be able to protect themselves in public from some mythical threat. The facts don’t show anything of the kind. The facts, in fact, show the opposite. The Violence Policy Center is keeping track of conceal and carry permit holders who have killed people. The numbers are increasing and should be of concern. I refer often to the Ohh Shoot blog that highlights the number of accidental discharges of guns by law abiding gun owners all over America. It is not a pretty picture. Facts also show that there are few instances of permit holders using guns in public places to defend themselves against an actual threat. What we have seen instead are the increasingly numerous instances of permit holders purposely shooting people in public places.

Of course carry permits are at an all-time high, and agencies who issue permits are totally swamped with work…oh and violent crime in this nation is at a record low. But who are you going to trust, the FBI, the CDC, and the ATF, or the five people who work for the Joyce foundation running websites filled with errors and inconsistencies?

” Thompson said Ambrose wouldn’t have received a permit under the old discretionary process.” Indeed. That is a problem with the laws that took discretion out of the process of granting gun permits to people. Clearly this was a man who should not have been able to get a gun permit but he got one anyway thanks to the NRA and its push for “shall issue” conceal and carry laws in almost every state. Before this young man was shot to death by law enforcement, he endangered the lives of the public by brandishing his gun. Another tragedy was avoided. But what other young men who get their permits because everyone is doing it will cause the next public shooting? Who knows?

Here Joan is blabbing about a man who plead guilty to a minor possession charge and got two days in jail. TWO DAYS! And with this she wants it to be a yardstick for blanket denial of rights. Oh BTW when this particular bad apple acted up, he got killed for his behavior. Problem solved. Still Joan ignores that Police “Discretionary Processes” use no discretion at all. In all cases “May Issue” is simply “Shall Issue” or “No Issue” across the board. Police don’t have time to interview EVERY DAMN PERSON on the planet who asks for a permit who has a clean background. Instead they interview only the people who make a huge stink on crappy laws and injustice…and sometimes tell THOSE people to fly a kite! Sounds good to Joan! The only reason why she likes “May Issue” laws is because it at least denies SOME lawful citizens their rights….she’d prefer ALL, but that’ll come later!

The private sale loophole in our gun laws is illogical. Traveling Americans expect that they will be safer because everyone is treated the same when going through airport security. There are very good reasons for the security that has tightened since the attacks of 9-11. Everyone is treated the same at airport security lines. There are also very good reasons for requiring background checks on all gun sales. All gun sales should require the same background checks as are required by federally license firearms dealers. The incident linked above is proof positive.

Ok so first the “Terror Watch List” is bullshit, and mostly non-terrorists, as well as free of many KNOWN terrorists, and of course its fully outside the due-process of law. (Remember, anti-rights, not anti-gun!), but then there’s the whole ban on Private Sale that Joan wants. We talked about it recently here where the whole national system went down several times on black Friday due to large call volumes. The whole country! This of course is also not noting the fact that some gun shops charge HUGE fees for transfers, like DC where it costs $150 for the one shop in town to run a background check, or the simple logistics, like if two people live 100 miles from the nearest shop, and want to exchange a gun. There’s some logic for you, Joan. I expect you’ll continue to ignore it!

There had better be a good explanation for the actions taken by this “law abiding” gun collector. In Florida, of course, there is a Stand Your Ground Law now made famous by the Trayvon Martin shooting where George Zimmerman killed an unarmed teen ager over his fear that Martin was doing something wrong by walking around in a gated community.

Umm No! Well first George Zimmerman was arrested THAT NIGHT and investigated for murder, and released. He was later charged with murder for political reasons, and will likely be acquitted. Why? Well because your “logic” is a LIE Joan! George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin only AFTER Martin was ON TOP OF HIM AND BEATING HIS HEAD INTO THE PAVEMENT! We call that “Attempted Murder”, why is it your “Logic” wants to overlook violent criminal actions? Where’s the “Common Sense” there? Oh yeah it isn’t about that, its about guns!

Hey but its scarier if you say “Stand your ground repeals the laws for murder!” It isn’t true, but its scarier! That’s her idea of “Logic”.

I’ll leave this link in her comment section. Watch to see if it appears. You see Joan’s idea of a “Debate” is to barricade herself into a room and talk to the walls!

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

13 Responses to Joan Peterson: Modern Don Quixote

  1. Bob S. says:

    Joan knows that “may issue” practically means no issue and she is okay with that. After all, she has admitted she will keep pushing restrictive laws until there are Zero firearm related murders.

    And as long as there are firearms, there will be murders committed with firearms.

    So, logic dictates her goal is total citizen disarmament; regardless of what lies/stories she tells on her blog.

    As far as self defense; look at their reactions to the defensive gun use in Texas on Thanksgiving/Black Friday.

    After a rude thug cuts in line, assaults a person; they decry that person using a firearm to stop further violence.
    Time and time again they don’t want to stop armed self defense then criticize a person for doing just that.

    We just have to keep pointing out their lies and lack of common sense.

    Good post Weer’d

  2. Kristopher says:

    Comments on these tard’s blogs disappear unless they thing they have a scathing reply they can use.

  3. Archer says:

    Reading some of the comments, I had to leave my own reply. I don’t expect she’ll allow it, but I thought I was plenty polite.

    It came up in comments that she believes self-defense is not a “basic human right”. I’m taking the position that “no right to self-defense” is the moral and logical equivalent of “right to harm/kill others without opposition or resistance”. Unintended consequences at work, and certainly not a world I want to live in!

    I’ve got a few replies planned if she allows it and responds. 😉

    • Rob Crawford says:

      I say your position is the logical one. If I cannot defend myself, it means others are able to kill me as they choose.

      • Archer says:

        That’s my thought. It’s a binary, heterogenous belief spectrum: philosophically, “right to harm/kill others unopposed” and “right to self-defense” are both mutually exclusive and have zero middle ground. Legally is another matter, but because “basic rights” by nature are recognized separate from and regardless of the legal landscape, it’s a philosophical question.

        Her replies have been … illuminating. She did not answer the direct questions, but that’s par for the course over there. Her position is that self-defense is not a “basic human right”; instead, it’s defined “in law”. Logically, then, without written law defining self-defense, the right doesn’t exist – but she wouldn’t commit to that stance when asked directly, instead referring me to her previous comments and falling back on the Trayvon Martin shooting.

        I think I’m done over there for the day. Amazingly, she approved every comment I submitted, but I think she’s reached the end of her mental contortions.

        • Stuart the Viking says:

          It doesn’t appear that she believes in “natural rights” at all, it appears that she believes that all human rights must be granted by a governmental authority.

          So, some standing in the wilderness with no governmental or societal strictures whatsoever, in her view would have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS. In our view, that person would be ultimately FREE.

          Of course she would probably never agree to boiling it down like that, but that’s the logical conclusion that I get to when I read what she writes.

          s

          • Weerd Beard says:

            None at all! She has no respect for any sacred rights. Pro-gun people don’t have the right to state their opinions or challenge her talking points. We have no right to privacy or search or seizure when it comes to guns. And don’t forget no due process under the law!

            Oh and our money should pay for their projects.

            They are all anti-freedom, not anti-gun.

  4. RuffRidr says:

    I hadn’t been to her blog in quite awhile. Wow, she has really gone off the deep end lately. Every single commenter is met with scorn and distrust. I wonder if she treats people this way in her everyday life as well. If so, that has to be a miserable existence.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I’d bet my lunch money she does. Also I suspect she’s just as much of a blowhard bigot in person as she is online, which means she probably gets even less comments in meatspace as she does in cyberspace!

      • Bob S. says:

        Every single commenter is met with scorn and distrust. I wonder if she treats people this way in her everyday life as well.

        Let her own words answer that thought.

        JapeteNovember 27, 2012 4:01 PM

        You didn’t answer my questions, Pat. They are important to me and the efforts to stem the tide of gun violence. Will you wear a gun strapped to your hip or on your person in any potential meeting? That would be a no go for me or anyone else who would consider a meeting with you.

        She is a gun owner who distrusts anyone carrying a gun.

  5. Cargosquid says:

    I’ve stopped going over there, if only to point and laugh. I’ve still sent a few people to her blog to show them the craziness of the gun banners and they come back enlightened.

    Its not that she’s crazy….she’s always been that. Its that she’s now boring.

  6. TS says:

    Japete “The Violence Policy Center is keeping track of conceal and carry permit holders who have killed people. The numbers are increasing and should be of concern.”

    The VPC’s “Concealed Killer” is a running total since the last five years or so. It is not a per year average. I would be a lot more concerned if that number was decreasing because that would mean the dead are rising to walk the earth.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Also many of the “Concealed Carry Killers” don’t have permits, don’t have convictions, or were vindicated by the courts.

      Its not an average, and also many of the numbers aren’t valid.

Leave a Reply

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