One of the things that makes the Gun Control debate so contentious is both sides demand the same thing: Safety. There are side issues that you argue, like do all pro-gun people want machine guns legalized, or permitless carry, or do all anti-gun people want guns banned, or do they REALLY consider centerfire hunting ammo “Armor Piercing”, but you’ll NEVER see either of us wanting MORE crime. Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and then Joyce Foundation notices this.
Both sides are convinced they are right which they can’t be. But there is a way to find some common ground if only we would stop fighting. Is that possible? Time will tell.
Did you notice that she seems to wish for us to stop fighting and by “Us” she means “Gun Rights People Give up”. Also if we can’t both be right, then where would the common ground be? Of course there isn’t one, given that Joan has played this card before, and openly admitted she had no intention of ceding any ground. I have no idea why she feels the need to lie, there IS no common ground between the two of us, one side believes the less guns in lawful hands, the safer society will be, the other side believes the more guns in lawful hands the safer society will be.
Where would the common ground be? We’d both agree that something in the middle would just be MORE DANGEROUS.
Of course as a former Anti-gun guy, I know which side is the right one, Joan does too, just look at this post: She goes down a list of some of the most blatant lies of the Brady Campaign and Joyce Foundation and attempts to justify them. Let’s skim through them!
What the “gun guys” want to believe is that I and the gun control organizations are purposely lying to the public so that our true agenda of banning their guns can be more easily carried out. Yes, there was an assault weapons ban from 1994-2004 that banned certain types of guns from manufacture and sale to keep them from getting into the market where they can be used by people who shouldn’t have them. Of course, the ban on some guns was not meant to be a ban on all guns and didn’t affect hunting or self defense uses. But to say that because an organization supported a ban on certain type of guns considered by most to be unnecessary and, yes, scary, is a gun banning organization is a stretch. A lie? Hardly.
Joan? If you’re trying to convince people you’re being honest, a good start would be to NOT LIE! First up the Federal Assault Weapon ban restricted certain guns from LAWFUL people, it never effected criminals, because now, and then, criminals didn’t use guns listed in the federal assault weapons ban. It didn’t effect hunting and self defense uses? Seems to me I know a LOT of people who have an AR-15 as a hunting rifle or a home defense gun. I know a lot more people who carry 11+ round magazines in their carry or self defense gun. There are certain defensive guns I DO NOT have because Massachusetts makes getting these guns nearly impossible because of the Assault Weapons ban. And considered unnecessary? By who? You? You’re off to a good start earning our trust!
No blood has not “run in the streets” since laws allowing people to carry guns in public have been passed in most states. I’m sure some on my side said that would happen. Was that a lie? Hardly. It was an exaggeration. The gun lobby also said that these laws would result in fewer gun deaths because of people being able to protect themselves. That did not happen either. A lie? Hmm- maybe an exaggeration. In fact, what happened is that in states with laxer gun laws and more gun ownership, gun deaths are higher.
Would you look at that, another little shell game where “Gun Death” is confused with overall homicide or violent crime. This is why the anti-gun people invented the metric “Gun Death”, to confuse and mislead people. Oh and check it out, the link is to the VPC, a Joyce Foundation Group…Joan Works for the Joyce Foundation. Hmmm
Is there such a thing as a “gun show loophole”? Is that a lie for me or gun control groups to say so? This one has been countered by me many times on this blog before. Of course there is a loophole in federal and many state laws allowing private sellers to sell their guns to anyone without a background check. Now to be more accurate, it could be called a private seller loophole but it is still a loophole in the law. I don’t know how much more clear that one needs to be since it is a fact. To call it a lie is a lie.
There is no “Loophole”. Selling guns to criminals is a felony on the federal level. Its not a fact, Joan, its a lie. The “Gunshow Loophole” is just a way to disrupt commerce of firearms. Remember that Bill Clinton got rid of over half the gun dealers in the United States under his Presidency, and made it more difficult to start a new business. Restrict all sales to gun dealers, close down gun dealers. Do you think somebody is going to book a plane fight just to buy a gun? Drive for 6 hours one-way? Starting to get the point?
the Tiarht amendment. Does it restrict law enforcement? Is this a lie? Here is some fact checking about this one from http://protectpolice.org/facts. From the fact checking article: ” However, the Tiarht Amendments continue to restrict what state and local law enforcement can do with trace date they have gathered.” Hmmm. Who’s lying here?
That link is broken, and the site is owned by Mayors against illegal guns, a division of the Brady Campaign, of which Joan is a member. The Tiahrt Amendment (of which I can spell correctly) restricts non-law-enforcement groups like the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation from accessing law enforcement data, and of course will only allow law enforcement to access the data if they have cause for the data. Really quite simple. And again, Joan is lying.
I don’t see any outright lies here.
Get your ass to an optometrist! We can’t both be right, but one of us is a blatant liar, and on top of that moderates comments and refuses to discuss the issue. Also one of us (me) used to be anti-gun but switched sides when he realized that limiting lawful people access to firearms only made things LESS safe. If I believed in public safety there was only one side to be part of.
