Joan Peterson has a post up on the recent termination of Guns and Ammo editor Dick Metcalf. In it she drops this statement.
The thing is, the majority of gun owners are not afraid of changes to gun laws that will strengthen them and lead to safer communities. It is this minority of folks on the fringe who are uncompromising and paranoid about all kinds of things that aren’t true. So recently the Editor and a member of the editorial staff of the popular Guns & Ammo magazine got themselves into trouble for suggesting that common sense should prevail about guns and gun regulations. The writer, Dick Metcalf, was actually questioning the worldview of the gun rights extremists. For that, he suffered the consequences.
Joan has an interesting theory. We know from American Politics that gun owners are a large demographic that indeed can steer elections. Yet if her assessment is both honest and correct (two traits Joan has been proven in the past to be deeply lacking) this HUGE demographic block can’t be bothered to vote, lobby the NRA, vote in NRA elections, or even write letters to the Guns and Ammo editorial board.
My own theory is that this alleged Majority was invented from a flawed study. Still even if it IS true, a “Majority” unwilling and unable to actually stand and be counted deserves exactly what they get.
As for Metcalf, if the various paid lobbyists from both Brady, Joyce, and MAIG (of which Joan counts as two of those) are singing Metcalf’s praises, and meanwhile those organizations have called for bans of EVERYTHING on that magazine’s cover for the past few decades, that’s reason enough to issue Metcalf his walking papers.
Oh and might as well close on some Irony. Joan is quoted as saying first:
The thing is, their echo chamber of paranoid rhetoric that ramps up fear amongst themselves is potentially dangerous. The things they say, they say to each other and themselves.
And then later:
A few days ago I received a comment to my blog post that I did not publish. Why? Because it reflected the insanity and hatred of the gun rights extremists. Their “reasoning” has gone off the rails.
Pot, meet kettle!
…their echo chamber of paranoid rhetoric …The things they say, they say to each other and themselves.
Plus
A few days ago I received a comment to my blog post that I did not publish. Why? Because it reflected the insanity and hatred of the gun rights extremists.
So does that mean Joan is actually a ‘gun rights extremist’?
Who knows. For a group that doesn’t want to discuss the issues, Joan seems to delete and ignore a TON of pro-gun comments on her blog.
Joan is a wingnut. She is as dangerous as they come because she is dishonest and her agenda has been exposed and she operates as if it had not been. They don’t want a few good laws, they want total control. After guns whats next…
Eck!
Something I discovered long ago; if you read her blog with the clinical description for ‘projection’ in the back of your mind, everything she says takes on a whole new meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I believe the anti-rights types such as Joan are not in the majority.
Her fondest wish would be that her opinions and beliefs were a majority,
The bottom line is that we are a Republic, not a democracy and our basic human rights cannot be voted away.
Paul in Texas
“…The things they say, they say to each other and themselves.”
So she doesn’t like what we say? She would have oversight on that too? Is she suggesting that what we say should be controlled or somehow approved by someone? That would be a clear violation under the 1A about all things 2A. Then again… preaching tolerance unless your view differs.
DWH