The Rhetoric Currently Being Used by Gun Control Advocates

I’ve been searching around to see what the gun control advocates are currently saying and I came across some rather questionable content on Joan Peterson’s blog (she’s a Minnesotan who keeps trying to squash gun rights). What I found most interesting was the picture she included in her article to show the equipment used by the Aurora, Colorado shooter:

I recognized that guy from somewhere and after some digging I found him:

It would seem that the shooter in Colorado had access to military equipment that the military itself doesn’t have access to yet. In fact I believe I found the source image and where it was obtained from:

I wonder why they photoshopped his gun out of the picture. Oh, yeah, because that gun is a nonexistent prototype just like the armor but is far more obvious. It would behoove the gun control advocates to do a little research before Googling “scary looking guy in body armor” and using the first picture that appears (in all fairness I had to Google “future warrior 2020” to get the picture because “scary looking guy in body armor” turned up nothing close).

So we have proof that the gun control crowd are circulating pictures of, at best, prototype equipment and passing it off as the equipment used by the shooter in Colorado. The remainder of Joan’s article is nonsensical, mostly accusing the National Rifle Association (NRA) of, well, all of the world’s problems. I’m not sure how the NRA comes into this because they certainly do not advocate the use of firearms to commit massacres. In fact they advocate firearm safety and even host firearm safety training seminars. She also fails to provide citations for any of the numbers she uses. Considering the picture she used to demonstrate the equipment used by the shooter I’m not surprised she failed to provide citations for any of the numbers she use. When you’re stretching the truth or simply making things up it’s difficult to find citations.

2 thoughts on “The Rhetoric Currently Being Used by Gun Control Advocates”

  1. She’s patently dishonest about the facts – or really doesn’t understand them. I’ve seen this time and time again on her blog, her testimony before the Minnesota legislature, her public appearances, or on twitter.

    She doesn’t even understand the existing gun laws – and flat out misrepresents them frequently. None of this should surprise us.

  2. Bryan has a point, though lately I have seen a few cases of anti-gunners turn a new leaf and drop the protest on presentation of overwhelming facts. The chances of this working on her are a bit less because there is only so much programming you can overwrite. but maybe if we info bombed her she could at least not make shit up.

Comments are closed.