A Reliable Gauge of How We’re Doing

I gauge how we’re doing by the Joan Peterson hysterics meter, and we’re doing a bit better. I actually don’t support ordinances requiring people to purchase guns, but if it drives the right people nuts, I’ll take that application of heat to our opponents at this critical time. I’m really not sure what the Brady folks expected, though. You’ve taken a large community, attacked it and insulted it, and now that its dander’s up, you’re surprised at what’s coming out. We’re actually making quite serious gains in the gun friendly states while they are busy trying to get anything through in the few states they have any real influence in.

Joan notes finally: “Let’s have some real discussion about whether guns in the home are a good idea or not. Let’s talk about whether using a gun for self defense actually is necessary or actually works.” How? This is laughable from a blog that repeatedly censors pro-gun viewpoints and makes discussion impossible. Whether everyone should have guns in their home is a discussion I’m willing to have. I believe in choice, and I actually don’t think gun ownership is for everyone. But that’s vastly different than suggesting the government needs to step in and make those choices.

13 thoughts on “A Reliable Gauge of How We’re Doing”

  1. So who is sponsoring a “send a Colorado citizen a free 3D printer” effort??? Could the NRA sponsor this?

    1. Drop them in by parachute. Include a manual, some material, and the URL for Defcad. Now that would be a sight!

  2. “Let’s have some real discussion about whether guns in the home are a good idea or not.”

    No. Let’s not. Its nobody else’s business whether I have guns in the home or not and someone else’s opinion about that because THEY don’t like guns is completely and utterly worthless and without merit.

  3. “Real discussion” means, and has meant for a long time, “HELP! I’m losing the battle of ideas because I showed up unarmed!”

  4. Part of what’s driving Joan nuts is the new NRA/GOCRA backed bill introduced by a DEMOCRAT in the MN legislature with what’s now nearly 80 co-sponsors (more than enough to pass).

    Her and the other leaders of “Protect Minnesota” are spinning their wheels on this one.


    Particularly because two of the main sponsors, including the author, were folks they thought were squarely in their camp..


  5. Remember, a while back, you were talking about your neighbor moving your fence, initially, 100 ft onto your property, then considering only 50 ft as an acceptable compromise? I think I’d mentioned at the time that you need to propose that no, you want the fence 100 ft onto his property. That way, the compromise puts the fence back in the original location? Well, this “everybody required to have a gun” law is pushing the fence 100 ft onto the gun grabbers property. This should have been proposed, loudly, at the beginning of the debate. To bad we missed that opportunity.

  6. The only thing I can see in the Constitution REQUIRING Gun Ownership is Article One, Section 8, where the Congress is “To Provide for the organizing, ARMING and disciplining the Militia…”

    Even the 2A only tells us that the RKBA shall not be infringed. Nothing about forcing Ownership.

    Same applies to Voting, running for Congress, attending Church, etc. If you don’t want to do it, no one is forcing you to do so.

    Hmmm. Maybe that explains part of Joan’s Wackiness. Most of the people on our side say “No one is forcing YOU to Own a Gun. Why are you trying to force ME in to giving mine up?” But all she can understand is that the “Other Side” must be FORCED, if necessary, to comply with HER Side, while Our Side really doesn’t give a Damn if she goes Armed or Not.

    That is sure one Personality Defect in her head.

    1. I think it’s perfectly constitutional to require gun ownership. Governemts have long had that power. But I do think it’s not necessary public policy in the modern world. When forced gun ownership was common, community defense was a much bigger issue. It was difficult, for instance, to hold off attacking hostile natives individually. You needed the collective firepower a community could bring to bear to hold off that kind of attack.

      But today I can bring more firepower to my own defense individually than a whole community could when compulsive firearms ownership was commonplace in the late 18th, early 19th centuries. That’s why I think these laws are mostly to make a statement, rather than serving any real public purpose. My neighbor not owning a firearm doesn’t make me any less safe, because I can hold off anything short of an invading army on my own.

  7. I noticed that all the gun control people have been in full reasoned discourse mode. I wonder if it is due to the admin’s gag order.

  8. Over one week since she approved a single comment that wasn’t from her, or fellow Joyce Drone Jason “Baldr” Kilgore.

    That’s a pretty “healthy” discussion right there.

  9. “Let’s talk about whether using a gun for self defense actually is necessary or actually works.”

    Always remember:

    They don’t believe that using a gun for self defense actually is necessary. They don’t believe that using a gun for self defense actually works.

    So pay no attention to all the talk about whether 15rd mags or MSRs are good for self defense. They do not intend to allow you ANY gun for self defense.

    But you knew that. A nice thing about anti-gunowner activists: Although they know that they should lie about their real goals and heaven knows they try to do so often, they cannot keep their mouths shut or their fingers off the keyboard.

  10. “Let’s talk about whether using a gun for self defense actually is necessary or actually works.”

    OK. It has been my experience that having a gun has on several occasions been useful for my own self defense. Once, when threatened by someone much larger than I. Once, when threatened by a group of thugs. Once, when a guy pulled a knife.

    Necessary. Yes.

    Actually worked. Yes.

    Next question.

  11. Sci Fi hypothetical – personal force-shields are invented; can Congress force you to buy and wear one? Certainly, protecting yourself against violence will lower your health care bills, reduce the load for first responders.

    Right now, the closest thing we have to a personal protective force-shield is concealed carry. From a ObamaCare perspective, forcing people to get training and to carry will ‘bend the curve’ of prison, police, and emergency medicine costs.

Comments are closed.