Category: Gun Rights

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.

Yes really:

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.

It’s not often that I get to discuss my two favorite topics in one post but thanks to Joan Peterson’s lengthy rambling I finally get to talk about both of these topics. Sadly this makes it difficult to decide what category to place the post in but alas I’ll find some way to manage.

Joan rants for some length about the girl who was harassed by the Transportation Sexual Assaulters Security Administration (TSA) for having a purse with a stylized gun on it. While a sane person realizes the egregious nature of the TSA’s harassement Joan has a bunch of questions that can be easily answered by anybody with even a basic background in economics. As I hold this background I will take the responsibility of answering her barrage of questions:

Why should there even be a purse with this design?

Because there is a market. The beauty of the free market is its ability to fulfill the wants of society. As there are people who want a purse with a gun emblem on it a manufacturer has provided it. It’s really the same reason why very few manufacturers sell anti-gun themed clothing and accessories, nobody wants them. Where demand exists it is fulfilled, where demand doesn’t exist it remains unfulfilled.

Where do you get purses like this anyway? ( in case I want to buy one) I checked here, here, and here with no luck. Oh well.

How stereotypical can one person get? She’s looking for a purse with a gun on it and she checks Lone Star Western Decor, Western Cow Girl, and Country Road Handbags but never stops to consider checking the one place that sells almost everything, Amazon. Perhaps the purse is handmade by somebody who doesn’t have a website.

Maybe she got her purse at this site which seems to be having problems. It says that the site may be harmful to my computer. I wonder what that means?

It most likely means that the site was improperly flagged by Google’s phishing prevention database. This happens with alarming frequency.

But then, here , I may have found something similar to the purse in question in the story. Great. But I digress.

So ultimately you did find it? I’m now really confused what the point of that entire paragraph was supposed to be. Did you want to express the fact that you’re bad at using search engines? That really seems irrelevant to this discussion.

What is the purpose of carrying such a purse around? Is it to provoke people? To make a statement? To let people know that they should not mess with you? Is it just for fun?

The purpose of carrying such a purse is the same purpose as carrying any accessory, because the person carrying it likes it in some way. This enjoyment of the accessory may come from the statement it makes, the beauty of the design, the utility of the accessory, etc. As value is subjective the only person who can properly answer that question is the one who owns the accessory in question.

Why does a young girl think this is a good idea?

Likely it’s for the same reason I wear my shirt with the silhouette of Murray Rothbard and the text, “Enemy of the State” whenever I go through airport security. Agents of the TSA are thugs and one of the few ways we as Americans can rebel against their legalized sexual assault is through free speech. Unlike some people I refuse to blindly submit to force without comment. If I’m ever forced to enter one of those naked body scanners I’m opting out and making the biggest scene of doing so I can. After the TSA agent walks me around the corner I’m going to make obscene remarks to the agent who is tasked with sexually assaulting me.

Follow the motto of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, “Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.”

Did her parents know about this purse?

Considering purses aren’t very concealable I’m pretty sure her parents knew about it. If they didn’t they are two of the least perceptive people on the planet.

Who bought it for her and what were they thinking?

Perhaps she bought it herself because she liked the design.

Does it seem appropriate to you?

Yes.

The teen is pregnant so one has to wonder what role model this will be for her young child? There’s a message here and it’s not one of “peace on earth, good will towards men.” It’s the holiday season- just thought I’d throw that in.

What relevance does the girls pregnancy have to this debate? Oh yeah I almost forgot, character assassinations are favorite tools of the anti-gun crowd. When you lack facts to back your arguments all you can resort to is attacking the characters of those you ideologically oppose.

Having flown recently, I am so aware of what I can and cannot put into my carry-on bag and what I can and cannot wear when going through the security area. When someone says that it was a mistake when a gun is found in their carry-on, I say nonsense. If you own a firearm and intend to travel with it, you should know the rules. Even the NRA has good advice for people when traveling with their guns. There are plenty of warnings about firearms on planes for anyone who can read.

Once again I ask what the relevance of this statement is. The girl in question didn’t attempt to smuggle a firearm onboard an airplane, nor was the firearm image sewn onto her purse in any way realistic (if you don’t believe me click the first link in this post, it has a picture). Thus the girl didn’t break any of the TSA’s rules and they decided to arbitrarily harass this poor girl because some agent decided it would be a jolly good amount of fun to be a dick. People need to realize that a large majority of agents in the TSA didn’t take the job because they wanted to help keep Americans safe, they took the job because it’s an easy way to gain authority over other people without actually having to go through the training required to become a real police officer.

From here Joan goes on a long and pointless rant about those of us with carry permits. I’ll save you the hassle of reading it because it’s entirely hysterical and unbacked with any citations.

This statement was funny though:

Haven’t they learned that some of us, the majority actually since only 2-3% carry their guns around in this country, don’t want those guns around in public where we gather?

I’m sorry to inform you of this fact Joan but unless you own the property you have no say in what other people can do while on that property. If you want to prohibit people form having a means of self-defense while they’re at your home that’s your right as a property owner. Thankfully you and those who believe as you don’t have a say in what people can and can’t do while on public property. As I’ve explained before the government can’t rightly own property and therefore has no right to make restrictions upon people carrying while on any publicly owned property (they do make restrictions of course, but they have no right to do so).

Sometimes people who can’t be trusted want to take guns and other weapons or methods of killing innocent people on airplanes or in other public places.

And sometimes people who can’t be trusted want to write a blog and other material or methods of expressing false statements, lies, and slander. Luckily for you, Joan, this country has the right to free speech declared in the Constitution so you can continue blogging. I will also say it’s lucky that there is a Constitutional amendment protecting my right to keep and bear arms otherwise the lies and slander your ilk spew would have likely prohibited me from legally protecting myself.

The fact that the screeners at the Virginia airport wouldn’t allow the purse with a real looking gun in the design get on a plane makes me hope that they won’t miss the real thing when someone has it.

Have you ever seen a real gun before? If you have you should know that the gun on the girl’s purse was in no way realistic.

This TSA blog is an interesting read about what screeners find ( or don’t find) in carry-ons at airports. “Sometimes after reading the incident reports, it‘s as though they’re having a gun and knife convention at the airport. ” Grenades? Loose ammo? I thought these folks who carry their guns around in public were responsible law abiding citizens.

Notice the bigotry. TSA agents note that they’ve found guns, grenades, and loose ammunition on passengers. Joan doesn’t like people with carry permits. Even though the TSA statements never said the people found with those items held carry permits Joan instantly claims they did. That’s like asking a member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) who most likely robbed a local store. As the KKK member doesn’t like people of color they’re likely to claim it was a person of African American decent even though they never actually saw who robbed the store nor read the police report.