Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign may give me writing material for years to come. In her latest piece of hypocrisy she rants about carry permit holders wanting to have a legal means of defending themselves while on college campus. First I would like to point out that Joan is a fellow Minnesotan and therefore lives in a state that allows campus carry (a college can prohibit it if they choose, but such prohibitions only apply to students and faculty) and had zero incidents. Let the fun begin!
Then another VCDL member says that the “government should not be the enemy of honest people and that’s the situation we’ve got here.” Really? Is that the situation?
Yes. We’re talking about the same government who decided to run guns into Mexico to fabricate justification for additional gun control. It’s obvious that the government isn’t on the side of the law abiding so they are, by default, the enemy of honest people.
The fact that the Universities do not want loaded guns to be carried around on their campuses, as actually the majority of people agree about, does not make them the enemy of honest people.
First of all if the university is public what they want is irrelevant. I would also like to see a citation for your claim that a majority of people agree that guns shouldn’t be allowed on campus.
So anyone who wants to have reasonable gun laws is the enemy of honest people. How can you explain that with any facts behind the statement? Dishonesty in action.
Emphasis mine. It’s curious that a person who makes numerous claims not backed by any citations should demand facts from her opposition. Dishonesty indeed.
So the man who talked about sexual assaults on college campuses is right to bring up that problem. But what does it have to do with the gun debate? He didn’t say. He must be implying that women should shoot their attackers dead.
Actually Joan you shoot your attacker to stop them. That is to say if they when they cease their assault on your person you stop shooting. Anyways…
I’m not sure that’s the way to solve that problem and campuses have other programs in place to deal with sexual assault even though this guy is claiming that campuses are sweeping the problem under the rug. What proof does he have of that? Hyperbole in action.
If you’re sure that granting women the ability to defend themselves against an attack isn’t the way to solve the problem what is? You claim there are programs in place to deal with sexual assault but don’t mention what they are. What proof do you have that such programs exist? Hyperbole in action.
Because the University wants to keep guns off of its’ campus, it trusts criminals?
Again, what a public university wants it irrelevant.
Can you back that up with any facts or is that an emotional statement?
This coming from a woman who has made several claims without providing any facts.
I think he is implying that the people who don’t want guns on campus are saying that he and others like him are considered to be violent criminals because they want to carry their guns on campus. It’s the other way around.
It’s the other way around? Really? Please do explain.
The people who think students should have guns on campus seem to be thinking there is a violent criminal lurking in every shadow necessitating their need for a gun wherever they go.
What an insinuation. People who believe students should be allowed to legally carry guns on campus don’t believe a violent criminal is lurking around every corner, they simply realize the potential for violent criminals enter the campus and desire that students be given the option of having a means of self-defense. I don’t ensure the spare tire under my truck is inflated periodically because I think there are nails strewn across every street, I realize the potential that there may be a nail on the street and I want to ability to drive away if one of my tires in punctured.
Here’s another example of the gulf between the sides of the gun issue. Now that Newt Gingrich is soaring in the polls, many are critical of his views and his character. This one is coming from an unlikely source- the NRA- who makes claims about the Brady Law that are simply not true in order to criticize Gingrich.
[…]
Really? The Brady Law is a national gun registry? No it’s not.
Police suspect the siblings are carrying “an arsenal of weapons,” after tracing prior background checks run by gun sellers and confirming that Ryan bought an AK-47 assault rifle at a pawn shop two years ago. Authorities say the rifle is similar to the one used in the bank robbery. Similar checks also show Stanley owns guns.
While the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is required to destroy all data of approved Nation Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) within 24 hours I’m left to ask how they were able to determine somebody legally purchased an AK-47 two years after the purchase using a prior trace. Seems a bit suspicious to me. We lack any proof that the FBI actually complies with the data destruction laws so we’re left to simply guess.
And the Lautenberg amendment (keeping guns away from domestic abusers) means taking away gun rights for spanking your child? Not true.
I take it Joan has never witnessed a domestic abuse case. They’re based heavily on hearsay so in such a case it can be construed that a person did beat their child even though they merely spanked the child. If they get convicted on such charges they lose their right to keep and bear arms. While you can claim that the spirit of the Lautenberg Amendment was never meant to do that it is ultimately irrelevant because it can be used to do that.
And we disagree about a lot of things but it sure is hard to disagree about the fact that when guns are available in times of stress, sometimes people shoot others they love and even themselves. This story should be bold printed in every newspaper in the country.
So are we to assume that a single incident implies a trend? In that case:
A mother of two children says she shot her ex-husband in self-defense in the trailer they shared in Hayden, Ala. Authories in Blound County say Elsie Thomas shot Matt Allen with a small shotgun after he threatened her with a handgun. Sheriff Loyd Arrington told Fox 6 reporter Karen Church that he will not be pressing charges against Thomas at this time because he believes she acted in self-defense. See the attached video for the whole story.
Just saying.
We just got an appeal from our local food shelf and homeless shelter. Here is a quote: ” According to the National Center on Family Homelessness, families with children are the fasted growing population among the homeless. Children now make up 40% of the homeless population”. Don’t even get me started about this national disgrace. Actually gun deaths pale in comparison to what is happening to the poor and middle classes in this country. Shame on all of us for letting people starve, go homeless, or become so desperate that they think of shooting their families and themselves to avoid the suffering.
Wait… what? Let me rephrase what Joan just did, “OK people guns mean people under street are more likely to shoot their loved ones. Children are homeless!” If there is supposed to be an implied connection I’m not quite sure what it is.
It is possible to have honest discussions and honest disagreements based on facts.
I agree. Here’s mine [PDF], where are yours?
It must be said that I rarely read anything said about me on the gun blogs because it is so hateful.
So I guess this means you’re not willing to enter a debate with me? Shucks.
But the pro gun folks have come unglued by my last post for some reason.
Although you won’t read this I’ll statt it for the record, we didn’t like your last post because you lied numerous times in it.
I must be doing something right, though, when the undies of the gun guys are all in a bundle over the “ramblings” of a poor woman who is actually “insane”.
Actually, for me, it has more to do with the fact that you are a resident in the same state as me. That makes this a bit more entertaining but I digress. From here she jacks herself off (that may not be the right phrase but she has never provided proof that she’s a woman and we all know she’s big on requiring proof) about all the things she’s done in her life. Congratulations I guess. If you want a cookie or something just say so.
Obviously our world views are quite different from each other. But attacking those with whom you disagree with insults, derision and hateful language is immature and small to put it mildly.
Pot meet the kettle, it is also black.
I prefer to associate with people who have integrity, honor, are polite and tolerant and care about their fellow citizens enough to want them to be safe from being shot to death.
And I prefer to associate with people who have integrity, honor, are polite, and tolerant and care about their fellow citizens enough to want them to be free of tyrannical government control.
Because I believe this is possible without carrying guns around on my person wherever I go or have an arsenal in case of a tyrannical government take-over, does not mean that I am desperate and despotic.
I agree, it merely means your naive.
Because I believe that common sense legislation can help prevent people from being shot does not mean I am delusional.
I submit, for consideration, that “common sense legislation” is an oxymoron.
One person wondered why there weren’t as many comments on my blog lately. You can see why. I just don’t publish this stuff for obvious reasons.
How do we know you’re not censoring opposing viewpoints? Where’s the proof that you’re all of the sudden such a fan of? Let me explain why there aren’t many comments on my blog, it’s because I don’t have millions of page hits a day. I’m perfectly OK with my mediocre, at best, numbers and have no need to make excuses for them.