The Continuing Saga of “We Have to Talk”

Bryan Strawster, who stands on the other side of Joan in this debate in Minnesota, has had “more than one hundred and thirty comments that I have submitted to Joan’s blog that have never been posted,” and indicates he’s willing to have a talk anytime in a fair an open forum. Weer’d Beard says much the same, and notes Joan’s response to my post:

Nope. There will be no discussion on that blog which regularly demeans me and calls me names. We will have the “discussion” on my blog if you want.

So disagreeing with Joan is equivalent to “demeans me and calls me names?” I’m pretty sure most people who have read me for a while know I am accepting and even welcome dissenting opinion. I might turn on the snark sometimes, but I’d like to think were all adults here.

In fact, Joan seems to have done an entire post in response to my original piece, which confirms she’s more desiring to speak at us than speak with us:

But the “gun guys” missed my point, as is often the case. I am always amazed that these folks pick out several of the smaller details about which to quibble but ignore the main point- the victims of the shootings.

No, we didn’t miss your point. Your post’s title said “We need to talk,” and implied that there wasn’t somehow a conversation already going on. So do you want to talk or don’t you?

So when the “gun guys” on my blog want me to come to their sites to have a “discussion” while calling me names and demeaning me on their sites, it’s really not too possible to have a “discussion” with them.

And we are supposed to ignore the regular demanding of us on her site? I could just as easily take offense to the things she says daily about the “law abiding gun owners,” and trying to paint us all as “fearful and paranoid” nut cases just a hair’s breath away from murdering loved ones or shooting up a coffee shop. But I understand spin, and the fact that both sides, in any public debate, engage in it.

When Joan says “I guess I struck a nerve,” that nerve is pretending to want a conversation when clearly she does not. What she wants is an echo chamber, and she’s welcome to it. She’s pretending to want a conversation but intent on allowing nothing of the sort. That is what some may classify as “disingenuous,” and perhaps even “hypocritical.” Maybe that’s the kind of “calling me names” or “demeaning me” Joan is speaking about here, but there’s an old saying that if the shoe fits ….

27 thoughts on “The Continuing Saga of “We Have to Talk””

  1. I shan’t be clicking on her link as it would do nothing but encourage her.

  2. The few times we have broken the wall she raises it. Why, we truly did hit a nerve. A gun got up off a table and killed her sister not a man. We know the fallacy of that. We cannot change denial, though there is treatment for that.

    Oddly we can learn from them. We know what not to do and why
    not to do it. We know their next steps as their lies are obvious and they have already telegraphed the truth of what their goals are.

    And yes embracing a lie to become reality is the heart of sociopathy and makes them a danger to all. As we know a
    person with a distorted reality is potentially dangerous.


    1. She can’t even keep the lie straight, I read partway thru one of her posts (sorry, all the stupidity I could handle for one day) and within the first 2 paragraphs the story changes drastically.

      And if I see one more lie started with “Does anyone remember” and ended with “I do” I’m gonna be sick. I know why You Do, it’s because you’re delusional lady.

  3. In the comments she posted the following link:

    A chart with felonies committed by CHL holders in Texas.

    She can’t even read that simple chart. She claims there were 461 murders by CHL holders. While of course there were 3 murders by CHL holders among the 461 *TOTAL* murders.

    I wonder whether she is that dumb or she’s trying to deceive, in a not-so-subtle manner …

    1. She really is that dense. She once claimed that you could easily buy grenades at gun shows then posted links to a paintball grenade and a ‘Take a number’ novelty sign.

    2. I already posted a response along those lines – I’m sure it will never see the light of day…

      Here’s my submitted comment.

      Your information is completely incorrect on the texas report. You are entirely misreading the columns on the report.

      The 51 incidents of criminally negligent homicide is of all citizens. CHL holders have committed 0.

      Of the 1353 incidents of deadly conduct, 9 were committed by CHL holders.
      Of the 244 incidents of deadly discharge of a weapon, 2 were committed by CHL holders.
      Of the 112 incidents of manslaughter, 3 were committed by CHL holders.
      Of the 461 incidents of murder, 3 were committed by CHL holders.

      Again, permit holders commit violent crimes at a rate several magnitudes less than the general population.

        1. I posted a response as well. The post was then “accidentally” deleted. Maybe, but I doubt it.

  4. Guys its real simple. She wants to lecture not talk. She wants to demean us not discuss.

    And she just can’t understand normal thinking.

    1. Why? The more she’s the public face of gun control, the better off we’ll all be. I don’t even nofollow links to her anymore. Not that I plan to make her a regular feature or anything, but how often does the other side point to our goofs and try to make hem the public face f our movement. This just turns the tables.

      1. I think you are exactly correct on this.

        The more here in Minnesota that we have her, Heather Martens (Protect MN’s executive director), or the two leaders of the local Moms Demand Action group on TV – the better off we are. All of them hurt their cause whenever they speak.

      2. +1 being a public face means you speak for more than just yourself. Jim Zumbo called AR-15s “Terrorist Rifles” on Remington and Field and Stream’s dime and lost his job because of it.

        Ted Nugent says a ton of inflammatory things and keeps being re-elected to his board position, so indeed he speaks for the NRA and their members.

        Joan is a known and vetted board member of the Brady Campaign, and the director of a Joyce Foundation anti-gun Astroturf group. These people are likely aware of her and her activities (they have shit for staff and funding so no sure HOW closely they watch her, and since they have no real public support they don’t have the independent grass-roots watchmen such as the people who spoke out against Zumbo leading to his termination, but I find it hard to believe they haven’t read several of her rants)

        Yet there she is, their mouthpiece on her blog and at all her public protests and appearances in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and DC.

        She speaks for them, and they take no issue in what she’s saying, so let’s make sure her words are heard because others seem to have a lot more tact and restrain than her.

      3. I’ve sent “on the fence” people to her site. 100% come back pro-gun, saying that she’s nuts….and if she’s a board member of a gun control group…and thus the public face….how bad are the rank and file?

  5. She plays this game a once or twice a year. Puts out a call for ‘conversation’, gets a bunch of comments that she deletes, refuses to comment on the other blogs, then puts up a post about us being ‘bullies’ and how unreasonable we are.

    I haven’t bothered w/ her for years outside of emphasizing she’s a leader in the gun control world.

    1. Saying that gives her too much credit, more like a leader in the gun control village…..

      1. Well the “Gun Control World” isn’t like “Planet Earth”…more like those little sparsely populated Moons in the Firefly universe.

  6. This woman lost the ability to see things rationally. Her sister was shot and killed by her sister’s abusive husband, so naturally she blames the gun and not the husband. Thankfully he didn’t drown her or she’d be on a crusade to ban water. She probably believes that this honors her sister somehow, so good luck trying to reason with that. You can’t reason with someone like that – it’s a lost cause.

    1. Well, that ‘could’ be a good thing, just think if she DID blame the Husband, she might be trying to ban husbands or men…..

      And it would be just about as laughable as the crusade she is on.

  7. Oh, and the post you linked to just happened to be the one post she “Accidentally” deleted, yeah right.
    I believe that….

  8. The link to the Joan’s article leads to a page that has been removed at the time of this writing.

    I read through the other links. It is disturbing how negative the excerpts from her post are. There is no bridge building between two sides that have different views. If anything it serves to further isolate her and her views from any conversation at all.

    I have to give credit to those that tried to talk to her. I don’t think I would have weather she is pro or anti.

    Sadly, reading Thridpower’s comments reminds me that behavior is like North Korea’s diplomatic measures.

  9. well after scanning through her blog I need to go bleach my brain. talk about a waste of electrons

  10. “Nope. There will be no discussion on that blog which regularly demeans me and calls me names. We will have the “discussion” on my blog if you want.”

    so, in other words….Joan reads the gun blogs.

Comments are closed.