Unabashed Bigotry

Sometimes I’m gobsmacked at the lack of shame the antis have in their abhorrent behavior. Take Joan’s Latest mess.

First up she talks about this messed up story where a children’s book author gets upset that a gun shop is in her town, and demands the zoning laws be changed and the store forced to move. BTW this is REALLY what the antis mean when they talk about Universal background checks. They mean you have to go to a gun shop to buy and sell guns…and THE gunshop (as in the only one) is hundreds of miles away, and in the middle of a military base! Also Joan drops this gem.

I have another question. What does it mean when the owner of the gun store says he hopes New Jersey will recognize Second Amendment rights someday? What second amendment rights does New Jersey not recognize? People have a right to buy and own guns. The fact that the gun store even exists is testimony to the fact that New Jersey recognizes that there is a right for people to buy guns from licensed gun dealers. Just because New Jersey has placed some stricter restrictions on guns and who owns them doesn’t mean they are violating anyone’s rights. Here are the gun rights folks throwing the second amendment around as if any restrictions on who can own a gun, who can carry one and where they can be carried is a violation of their rights.

This is very similar to Joan’s little hand-tip a while back where she pointed out that if gun owners were paid “Fair market value” for their guns when the government took them away it wasn’t “Confiscation”, she’s now beating a common drum that you still have rights so long as you can own a gun in some fashion. They constantly proclaim that England hasn’t banned guns because you can own some very basic long guns and use them ONLY for sport after an extensive criminal background check and many fees. Of course organizations for which Joan labors aren’t “Gun Ban Groups”…just because they seek to ban guns.

But the gem is referencing this photograph

The wording on top of the photo is “UH-OH BETTER GET RAYCO.” It pictures a white man aiming a rifle of some kind at a black man just standing in front of the white man presumably doing nothing wrong. There is no gun in his hands and he doesn’t appear to be threatening to the man holding the gun. Is the black man in the photo real? Was he “photo shopped” into the photo? If so, why? And which person needs be scared enough in this photo to want that gun from RayCo? Can someone explain what the photo means?

The photo is of course a zombie mock-up, which is all the rage these days (also check out the kit Sebastian links when talking about this post), still not only did Joan’s total stupidity get me but why did she notice that his skin was darkish (BTW I can’t tell if the zombie actor is indeed of African heritage or just has lots of makeup) but failed to notice the oozing wounds, exposed ribcage and the fact that his hands are soaked in blood?

OK zombies aren’t real but I’ll tell you if somebody comes up to me in menacing pose with their hands and face soaked in blood…unless they are the worlds most confident EMT rendering aid to a bloody car wreck, he’s going to see the muzzle of my gun too, because he has SOMEBODY’s blood on him, and at the end of the day I want NONE of it to be mine!

And in all of this I’m not going to be all that concerned about his heritage. Joan seems to be…

Oh and I thought I’d close on this note just to flash a little gun-grabber credentials to this sub-par lunatic. At the beginning of the week I noticed that Joan wasn’t tweeting or moderating comments at her usual pace, and wondered what was up.

Turns out Joan flew (or was flown by the Brady Campain) to meet personally with the new director. Reading Joan’s work it may be hard to differentiate her from the rabble of Marxist Cranks who have anti-freedom blogs, or submit posts to Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. I assure you, while her mental capabilities are on the same level as the cranks, she is indeed a leader of the movement, not a follower.

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

0 Responses to Unabashed Bigotry

  1. Thirdpower says:

    Too stupid for words. And she’s one of their Nat’l Board Members.

  2. Tango says:

    Weer’d, you just don’t get it…. you see a zombie. They see a voter!

  3. MAgunowner says:

    There is no other explanation for her zombie comment except stupidity. And her husband is just as stupid. Yeah, the “black” guy was doing nothing wrong, if you fail to recognize he was trying to eat the shooter’s brains. Nice one, Joan.

  4. Bob S. says:

    I’m going to disagree with MAgunowner; there is another reason for her Zombie comment — total isolation from reality.

    white man aiming a rifle of some kind at a black man just standing in front of the white man presumably doing nothing wrong.

    First the picture clearly shows the arms of the “zombie” to be the same hue and tint as the person pointing the gun. The dark face could have resulted from the same thing that charred the zombies shirt.

    Second, what type of isolation does Joan live in where she has trouble identifying one of the most common and known memes around — Zombies. Not just an internet meme but a pop culture one.

    Can you say Zombieland ?
    From Wikipedia about the 2009 release of the movie:

    Zombieland received positive critical reviews and was a commercial success, grossing more than $60.8 million in 17 days and surpassing the 2004 film Dawn of the Dead as the top-grossing zombie film to date in the United States.[3]

    Third, What does it say about her mentality and view of self defense that a person isn’t supposed to aim a rifle at an obvious threat?

    presumably doing nothing wrong</i.

    Think about that — is Joan saying the Zombie has to actually bit a person before they can even start to defend themselves?

    That is isolation from reality. Notice her constant harping that the mere presence of a weapon is a threat to everyone — but the mere presence of a zombie isn't a threat to anyone yet.

    sorry for the mini-rant.

    • Bob S. says:

      Forgot #4

      Fourth, it is obvious Joan is trying to use any angle to smear gun owners. This is a not-even thinly veiled attempt at besmirching gun owners as racists.

      Joan is so desperate for anything she can use to ruin the reputation and good standing of gun owners she over reaches in an attempt to brand gun owners as oppressing ‘black’ people.

      By the way Joan, the preferred term is still “African-American” — at least for now. You might want to check yourself for racism thoughts Sweetheart.

  5. Pingback: 3 Boxes of BS » Blog Archive » Saving me most of the trouble…

  6. If she’s upset that people are making fun of violence, then what would she have to say about a fellow anti gunner making faces while having a toy axe in his chest?

  7. Rob Crawford says:

    I admit, I do have a nasty bigoted streak against zombies. I don’t want any to move into my neighborhood, definitely don’t want any of my nieces or nephews marrying one, and would resign rather than work with one. I probably would use a weapon on one before letting it into my house, too.

    Utterly unreasonable, I know. I just have this thing about being eaten alive.

  8. Tango says:

    dollars to donuts she does not publish this:

    Joan, this is a serious question. Why is it that when you accuse us of racism and we point out that you’re mistaken, you refuse to admit that you were wrong? You won’t even apologize for calling us racists, even though it was your mistake that lead you to believe that? If you truly have the moral high ground in the gun vs anti-gun fight, surely you’d admit when you made a mistake like this…

  9. Wally says:

    When I first read the post, I figured a gun pointed at a black man as a “Ray”Co ad (think James Earl) would have been an incredibly racist. After clicking, well, it’s just silly.

    As to fair market value of contraband, it is zero because the items are rendered unsaleable and thus have no value. You don’t see cops paying drug dealers for the contraband cocaine that gets confiscated now, do you?
    OTOH, if that were not the case, I could make a mind building guns just to turn them over – it would be an infinite, insatiable customer!

  10. From looking at that picture. I’m going to say the zombie actor was white. Look at his arms. They’re lacking any obvious makeup and they’re quite pale to be anything other than white….. Just sayin.

    Joan is an idiot, and she just keeps proving how much of an idiot she is.

  11. Greg Camp says:

    Once again, gun grabbers confirm my suspicion: They have no sense of humor. Peterson has her sensitivity meter cranked up to maximum, but seriously, zombies are among us. Of course, when I am lacking in sufficient caffeine, I can pass for one. . .

  12. Braden Lynch says:

    I love the zombie stuff, but my real concern are her first noted comments.

    If someone, somewhere, after some sphincter-opening background checks, interviews with neighbors and co-workers, review of voting records, undergoing years of mental evaluation and deprogramming by the government, and finally castration to remove testosterone poisoning effects, can FINALLY get a firearm, that somehow proves that the right has not been denied. Wrong! The encroachment never stops: cool off waiting periods, magazine limits, approved firearms, safe storage, ID cards, sensitive areas, registration, training requirements, and zoning laws. I challenge Joan Peterson to show even modest evidence that any of these are not USELESS for the expressed purpose of reducing criminal violence. No, they are their to remove firearms in an incremental fashion.

    A right delayed is a right denied. Infringement of a right means just that, it has been compromised in some fashion. The degree of which is not what is really important! The Second Amendment does not read that some infringement is OK if it is for police officer of public safety.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      If you were there when Joan first started her blog, she started talking a LOT about compromise, and actually published more pro-gun comments.

      But when it came out that gun owners are actually concerned about safety and started discussing possible safety rules, she quickly got hostile and started shutting down comments and refused to address any open debate topics.

      Why? Well simple, she wasn’t out to Compromise, she was out to see what gunnies were willing to give up next.

      She wanted to know what we’d give up next because her organizations have decades of failure in attempts to take it all, so their current goals is incremental removal of rights.

      What’s nice is they have no power, and have no allies so even if we ignore them, they still lose.

  13. Linoge says:

    If there were ever a better indication that Joan Peterson is in need of a psychological intervention, I honestly do not know what it would be.

    Not only does the woman claim to be completely ignorant of one of the more-popular concepts in modern media (hell, it was even featured in a James Bond made decades ago), but she refuses to acknowledge that it is one of the more-popular concepts in modern media. That denotes a marked, dangerous disconnect from reality and fact – the kind which tends to require professional treatment / attention.

    Of course, on the flip side, her friends / coworkers could never admit that there might be something psychologically wrong with Joan, because then, by their own rules, they would have to take her firearms away, and something tells me none of them are actually willing to do that, their anti-rights rhetoric aside.

    If she were not so busy trying to forcibly tell us how to live our lives, I would genuinely feel sorry for Joan… I wonder what it must be like to go through life with that much hate pent up inside, and no real understanding of what it is you are hating.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Yeah but “live and let die” was one of the worst damn Bond films anyway. Also that film hit theaters back in 1973! I bet Joan was burning her bra outside the local theater because James Bond is a Chauvinist pig!

      • Pyrotek85 says:

        Oh God don’t give me those mental images Weerd, I need some bleach

      • Linoge says:

        Yeah but “live and let die” was one of the worst damn Bond films anyway.


        • Weerd Beard says:

          I’m glad we agree on that! Might be some trouble if we disagreed!

          • Linoge says:

            Well, since I do not consider “Casino Royale” or “Quantum of Solace” to be actual Bond, it is not hard to agree ;).

          • Weerd Beard says:

            Oh Jeeze now you did it! Solace was as much of a turd as “Live and Let Die”, but you didn’t like “Casino Royale”? Wow that’s my #1 fave with a wide margin before we get to From Russia With Love.

            Of course I have a lot of love for the less Orthodox Bonds. I felt Dalton in “Living Daylights” had a lot more of the anti-social grit that is present in the books rather than the sly charm Connery made a standard starting with Goldfinger (which is an enjoyable film but I have a loathing for it because it is really the first “Franchise” Bond where Connery winks at the camera, tells one-liners, and has goofy gadgets)

            Also I’m a HUGE fan of the non-cannon Thunderball Re-make “Never Say Never Again”. Its fresh because if it went with the series momentum they would be sued, and I liked seeing James Bond in his 50s and still doing what he does….as opposed to Bond in his 60 and being…well lame.

          • Linoge says:

            If it helps you any, I was referring to the Daniel Craig Casino Royale, not the first one… that one… confuses me.

            And Never Say Never Again is pretty much my favorite one, so that works :).

  14. Pingback: just trying to help out | walls of the city

Leave a Reply

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