I must say, since I’ve discovered that Jepete is in fact Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign (No-follow link to her profile page here) I gotta say, when I first found her blog I assumed she was just a small-time activist, with a deep-rooted honesty issue. Then it came out she’s a board member, and frankly everything she says now has a different light.
I have a problem with former military guns being used for hunting but I know people do use them. But an AK47, for example, for hunting? Yes, a “gun guy” told me he needed his AK47 to hunt. I don’t think so. These guns were originally designed to be used in the military and then gradually made their way into the market place for use by anyone. It’s a fact that the police feel “outgunned” on the streets because of more of this type of gun used by gangs, criminals and others. It seems to me that guns for self defense don’t need to be AK47s and AR 15s or even M1s. For hunting, maybe. I need to be convinced.
When I thought she was just a small time kool-aid drinker this just sounds like talking-points recitation, or just plain-Jane ignorance.
But let’s face it, White Tail deer in Maine (where I’m most familiar with them) are about 6′ long and weigh around 170lbs for a medium buck or a large doe. What else do you know that is about that size? Yeah, any gun that’s proven to effectively kill people is a gun effective on deer. For bigger critters like moose, you might need a larger round….say like the .30-06 Springfield which is proven to have taken every form of game animal in North America…the same round that the M1 fires.
This Cow Moose was taken with a .30-06 auto-loader (a Winchester of some sort), so blah blah blah.
That being said the 2nd Amendment is NOT about Ducks or Deer, nor were the founding fathers all that crazy about showing off their 200 yard 1MOA group on paper. I own a ton of guns, and carry one with me every day…its not because I’m worried that I’ll spot a deer, or an impromptu marksmanship contest. I carry for self defense, and no I don’t carry a gun because I’m concerned the other guy will have a gun, so I need a gun of my own…or that the other guy will have a 9mm, so I need my .45 to one-up him, or any of that incremental force bullshit. I carry a gun because I understand that the world is a dangerous place, and while the chances of me being accosted are small, my chances IF I am accosted of me going home if I do nothing but grovel and surrender my wallet are small. It doesn’t matter if its a gun, a knife, or bare hands, I don’t qualify death, stabbed, strangled, or shot are all dead to me and equally undesirable to me, dispite what people like Joan might say I carry a gun because I refuse to be a victim, and I want to go home at the end of a day, and I know that a personal firearm is the best tool for that desired end result. Also while I carry a .45, which is a really impressive handgun cartridge (Especially my +P defensive loads) handguns are only relevant because I can can carry a load of groceries and still carry my 1911, and carry it concealed, and pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles. So if things get bad enough that I know hell is currently breaking loose (Like say the LA Riots, or Hurricane Katrina, or the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks) If I’m reaching for a handgun, its for a handy backup gun, and my primary weapon will be a rifle or a shotgun.
But all of the above is written as if Joan is unaware of what an “Assault Weapons” as defined by her organization. Do you think that’s likely? Or do you think its more likely she’s feigning ignorance, because she values the seat she occupies on the Brady board MORE than coming off as an honest person.
Given that her position is likely unpaid, how sick is that?
Also I mentioned not wanting to be a victim. Now I’m sure you’ve read this post, but read it again and look at how often she references that I refereed to her as “Hon”.
Now my use of the pronoun “Hon” was certainly a diminutive use (and hasn’t her actions shown my judgment to be sound) but look at how she brandishes it. “Oh this nasty gun guy called me this HORRIBLE name! I shouldn’t have to speak to somebody so crude!!”
I carry a gun because I refuse to be a victim. Ms. Peterson appears to have a strong desire to be viewed as a victim…so hard she frankly comes off as an ass for one fairly benign term. And you wonder why this person thinks making us all disarmed as “Reasonable”.
Now here’s something that really turns my stomach. Ms. Peterson is VERY open that her sister was murdered by her husband. Feel free to Google “Barbara Lund” from Minnesota for more details, or read her comments.
I can understand how having somebody close to you murdered might taint your view of guns, or the second amendment, and I can’t even blame her for wearing it on her sleeve.
But What I’ve learned from Joan herself is:
-Barbara and her Boyfriend were shot by Barbara’s estranged husband at his house while discussing divorce proceedings. (Joan also mentions that Hubby had a Girlfriend too, if you think that’s relevant)
-Husband had a clean criminal background.
-Husband had a restraining order against him.
-The gun was not acquired through back channels or gun shows et al.
All of this and Ms. Peterson seems to think this instance is relevant for:
-Banning Assault Weapons
-Banning Magazines
-Restricting Conceal Carry
-Banning Private Transactions
-Registering all Firearms
-Expanding the reasons for prohibiting a person from owning firearms, including the notoriously error-filled “Terrorist Watch List”
-Restricting adults from letting their children engage in the shooting sports.
I’m sure there are countless more things she’s proselytized about, but what do all these things have in common?
NONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING FOR HER SISTER!!!
Look, I’m sorry your sister was killed, that’s horrible, and I wish it hadn’t happened, but when you constantly juxtapose unrelated issues like you do, it again sounds more like playing the victim card, than making a relevant argument. Worse yet, you’re using your own sister’s blood as currency to an only vaguely related issue.
How sick is that?
Lastly, she of course is fixated on Gun Death as a means to further her dishonest agenda, but as is standard with those who want to strip our rights, defensive gun use is an elephant in the room that cannot be discussed. And it never can be for these people.
And this is the face of the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March (of which she’s a chapter President).
Gun Control is a disgusting and bigoted practice, and must be opposed and fought until it becomes a footnote in American history.
