Quote of the Day: Joan Peterson

Have a look!

It’s election time. And the lies are flowing widely about guns and gun rights. They need to be challenged. With a recent poll showing even 92% of gun owners support measures to keep guns away from those who should not have them

Well Joan has finally come to her senses and is Challenging that dubious “90% Support Gun Control” statistic.

Of course I kid, here’s what she really thinks:

This is the question that has to be asked over and over again. If large majorities of Americans support common sense measures to keep us all safer in our communities, why do politicians pander to the corporate gun lobby? It’s pretty simple. The NRA lobbyists and leaders and other gun rights organizations have for years now hyped up fear and paranoia about gun rights. Their minions who believe this stuff go after the politicians in a not so subtle way by telling lies about gun rights and throwing money and support to the opposition. I guess that’s politics. If something is said often enough it can become a “truth”. What the corporate gun lobby continues to say is that any measure concerning gun safety reform leads to gun registration, confiscation and gun bans. That is simply not true. But the truth gets lost in the election hype and candidates avoid wanting to talk about it. We are talking about an issue that affects thousands of Americans and senseless loss of life. The truth is vitally important.

Got that! Almost nobody supports so-called “Assault Weapons” being legal, or allowing people to sell their own property privately. The only reason why no new laws have been enacted is the lobbyists of the “Corporate Gun Lobby”. Still this doesn’t pass the sniff test. I guess it COULD be argued that since most gun companies make at least ONE gun that is considered an “Assault Weapon” under various definitions. To modify, or stop selling those firearms would cost the company a lot of money. (Of course I suspect the Federal AWB of ’94 might have paid for many of those setbacks simply by adding extra shifts and stockpiling pre-ban magazines, and selling them at a markup) Still why would gun companies care one bit about background checks and back-door registration. Once a gun is sold the gun companies have made their money. When I buy a Mosin Nagant, or a Makarov, The Soviet Union/ Russia doesn’t see a cent of my money, because the gun had been sold ages ago to American companies. Same goes if I buy a used Smith and Wesson revolver. If I buy it at a gun shop, or if I buy it privately, the boys and girls in Springfield don’t see a penny. They made their money selling it new to whatever FFL got it first, and that’s that. The gun changing hands after the fact means nothing to them. Still if I had to walk into a gun shop every time I did a horse-trade, I’d have to walk past all those NEW guns, Magazines and Accessories, and I might be tempted to make additional purchases.

They might argue that the NRA has “Bought off” the politicians, but at the same time Michael Bloomberg alone (and the Joyce Foundation, and the Brady Campaign, while weak, are still able to spend some money too) is spending as much as the NRA is on political action.

“Hyping Fear and Paranoia”, also doesn’t really seem to hold water, as the News Media is still good about seeking out anti-gun cranks to give “their side” of the issue. Remember Elliot Fienmann? He was the crank that told all the national news agencies he would organize a boycott of Starbucks, and essentially bankrupt the company. Of course he’s just a lunatic….but he got air time on all the major news networks talking crazy. Funny, I’ve never been asked to be on the National News to talk about pro-gun things. So it isn’t a better peddling of a message, since the anti-gun forces indeed still have the bigger megaphone.

The bottom line is the 90% number isn’t true. It might be a valid number, but an invalid question, ie people supporting the idea of background checks, but not realizing in the various laws proposed it would make selling your own property outside of a gun shop illegal, or even letting a friend shoot your gun at the range, or on a hunting trip. Or it could be just pure crap.

Either way, if 90% of all gun owners were in favor of these laws it would have passed AGES ago. Hell the 94 AWB didn’t have that level of support, and it passed!

Also funny that Joan says “If something is said often enough it can become a “truth”.” Joan is referencing “The Big Lie”, but rather ironic that she claims the pro-gun side is lying, uses terms like “Paranoia”, “Fear”, about registration and confiscation (which Joan openly supports!) and talks about public safety….yet she has never mentioned the declining violent crime rate in this country. Hell she seems to be working double time to make it appear that we are LESS safe today than we were 20 years ago when gun control was at it’s apex.

Who’s spreading the big lies?

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

10 Responses to Quote of the Day: Joan Peterson

  1. Bob S. says:

    why do politicians pander to the corporate gun lobby?

    She asks the question but supplies the wrong answer; it isn’t the ‘NRA lobbyists’ — it is the 80,000,000 gun owners. It is the Millions of people who answer polls seeming to support gun control but consistently vote against those measures and the politicians who support them. Let’s cast our mind back to the results of the 1994 midterm elections shall we.

    What the corporate gun lobby continues to say is that any measure concerning gun safety reform leads to gun registration, confiscation and gun bans

    Right because what is happening in California with the confiscations there, based on their registration program isn’t really confiscation. Nor is it a ‘gun ban’ although so many guns are banned.

    Right because what is happening in New York State isn’t a registration — although people have to register their firearms there — and limit the number of rounds available.

    Time and time again antis-rights cultists like Joan lie about what happens if we pass just one more law until it becomes apparent to everyone just how much they are lying – the reality is here in states like California and New York.

    Or in cities like Washington D.C. – try getting a permit to carry there.

    Bob S.

    • The_Jack says:

      Yeah, it’s not like New York is on it’s 2nd AWB…

      Oh.

      It’s also amazing the doublethink. Given these folks go: “Nobody wants to confiscate guns! But woudln’t it be lovely if we did ban ’em!” Or “Private Sale ban’s won’t lead to registration. But registration is a great idea!”

      And then the brazen hurt-fawn afrontery when challenged on their lies.

  2. The_Jack says:

    “Still why would gun companies care one bit about background checks and back-door registration. Once a gun is sold the gun companies have made their money. ”

    Hell, there’s already Universal Background checks on every Single NEW gun.

    The only guns that don’t are used guns that aren’t transfered via FFL.

    You know… the very guns that the “Gun Lobby”TM doesn’t make a thin dime off of?

    Now why would they lobby and fear-monger politicians to maintain a competitive disadvantage?

  3. TS says:

    You guys have it all wrong. Walmart makes a ton of money when their products are resold on Craigslist. Don’t they?

    Japete has no understanding of basic economics. She once argued with me that the ATF numbers on gun manufacturing don’t mean sales are up. As if gun makers doubled their production during a down market just to stack warehouses full of unsold guns.

    • TS says:

      And Ruger and S&W saw their stocks soar with this “make more/sell less” plan. Who knew business was so easy?

      • TS says:

        Maybe she can’t help but think like a communist. If the Soviets want to make more widgets just to keep the proles busy, or to show the world how many widgets they can make, they can just keep making more and just bury them in a ditch.

  4. Archer says:

    Joan says: “92% of gun owners support measures to keep guns away from those who should not have them”

    This is probably true, but it’s not the same – nowhere near the same – as saying “92% of gun owners support Universal Background Checks”, or full registration, or confiscations, or mandatory “safe storage” laws, or mandatory “smart guns”, or AWBs, etc.

    Ironically, her blaming the “gun lobby” for the failure to pass “gun control” laws indicates her failure to win her own straw-man debate. She starts with a correct-but-unusable premise (“Gun owners support ‘reasonable’ regulations [for some definition of ‘reasonable’].”), builds a straw-man by warping it into something she should be able to manage and promote (redefines “reasonable” as “anything Joan wants”, i.e. “Gun owners support what Joan wants.”) in order to make normal gun owners sound unreasonable when we argue against her, but is unable to make that label stick because “what Joan wants” is plainly unreasonable on its face.

    Law-abiding gun owners are reasonable people, and Joan – despite her herculean efforts at the straw-man argument – is unable to disprove any part of that. Therefore it must be the “unreasonable” “gun lobby” that’s the problem – another straw-man that misses the fact that the “gun lobby” is “every gun owner/enthusiast/seller/manufacturer in America”. Multiple layers of logic fail.

    This is why we win. Anti-rights people can’t even win their own internal arguments.

  5. Jack/OH says:

    Polls, schmolls. 99% of respondents to XYZ survey say they favor a perfect world. Yeah, like National Socialist Germany or Bolshevized Russia, where genuine utopian feelings had a really dark down side? Or, how about the “full employment” that could be found in the slave-owning antebellum South?

    Details, intentions, consequences all make a difference. Joanie and Jason want a perfectly safe America, right? Per-fect-ly safe. All they ask for is registration lists, property restrictions, restraint of trade, presumptive intent rules and mind-set, bureaucratic oversight, police intrusiveness, civic disempowerment, etc. That’s all.

    I’ll pass. Joanie and Jason can save that for their ideological buds in North Korea, Cuba, or some corrupt dumpocracy in Africa.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      That’s really the big problem with “Progressives”, not all of them are STUPID, per say, but generally a “Progressive” isn’t very interested in the petty details, rather more concerned with the “big picture” (You don’t see “Act Locally, Think Globally” on the bumper of a car with GOP and NRA bumper stickers), and they tend to be more emotional than rational. Meaning they read The Communist Manifesto, and rather than seeing it as the angry ravings of an Anarchist Starving Artist fantasizing about using big government power to steal from people who actually brought some good to society, they see it as a solution to all their lives’ problems.

      And given that they really don’t care about the small details, they see the failure of EVERY Socialist state with a population bigger than Vermont as a problem with the people implementing it, not the system itself.

      Add in some malignant narcissism and the total aversion of taking an honest look at the ideals and methods of their opponents that comes with any ilk of full-partisan politics, and you have their views on gun control.

      Ban guns, and you have effectively banned murder and crime! Done and Done! Never mind that it’s never worked, it’ll work THIS time for SURE!

      • Jack/OH says:

        ” . . . [M]alignant narcissism . . . .” You’re right, Weer’d.

        I walk among the self-styled progressives (they’re not) at a state university. There’s a strain of self-involved guilt mixed with snobbery among some whiteboard warriors that has them taking knee-jerk, drama-mama, unthinking anti-gun positions that make no sense. They’re book-smart folks who make a clean-fingernails living taking money from young folks who depend upon them for a grade. They–some of them–are completely baffled by people who commit illegal violent acts. They’re too “smart” to believe in sin or evil. The idea of LEGAL violent acts to thwart a criminal assailant is just way out of their skill set. So they short-circuit their own academic training by simply blaming the inanimate gun itself for a host of evil.

Leave a Reply

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