I love it when someone from the anti-rights crowd steps up and lays out their agenda for all to see, especially when they do it publicly in writing.
Joan Peterson runs the group of hysterical nanny-staters called “Protect Minnesota”, and is a Brady board leader. She was kind enough to post her actual agenda on her blog recently. Let’s examine her latest diatribe against our rights, shall we?
I wrote in my last post about the access of guns by kids who too often actually shoot themselves accidentally but more often use them to kill themselves intentionally. The majority of gun deaths in America are labeled as suicide.
Right, because there are no other ways to commit suicide. It’s not like overdosing, suffocation, slitting your wrists, hanging, or anything else is ever an option. It’s all about the evil guns for Joan. She must feel that the guns actually whisper to suicidal folks like a gremlin on their shoulder.
Joan, if you think inanimate objects cause people do things, there are therapists who can help you. Seek them out.
Doesn't it just make common sense to safely store a gun(s) in the home away from those who shouldn't have access? Some states have safe storage laws and child access prevention laws. But too often gun owners who have purchased a gun for self protection think they need a loaded gun readily accessible to them just in case. Just in case of what?
Let's make something absolutely clear. Joan phrases this to lead her van load of followers to believe that Minnesota doesn't have child access prevention laws.
We do. MN 609.666, Joan. I know you're busy trying to rewrite the Bill of Rights, but could you spare a few seconds and read the current Minnesota statutes?
How about in case the gun is needed for self-defense?! An unloaded gun that is out of immediate access is nothing more than an expensive brick. There are dozens if not hundreds of quick access options for gun owners that keep guns within reach and secure…but that’s not what Joan wants. She doesn’t want our guns loaded or accessible. She wants bricks. Sorry, I don’t defend my family with a brick. We’ve evolved, we use better tools.
Children seem to love guns. There is a curiosity and fascination with guns. My grandsons, as my son did when he was young, love to pretend shoot with anything available- fingers, sticks, other toys- some of which don't even resemble guns. I am not sure why this is true because my granddaughter does not do this nor did my daughter when she was young. The oldest of my grandsons has been exposed now to Air Soft guns in his neighborhood. These guns are very real looking handguns and assault guns, like AR-15s. Sure, kids have played with guns for years. The guns of my youth were real looking pistols carried in holsters seen in the cowboy movies of that time.
I played cops and robbers, army, and everything else when I was a kid. Joan acts like realistic-looking airsoft guns are something new. I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, and my cap guns and squirt guns not only looked real, but they didn’t have orange safety barrels on the end. Somehow none of my friends ended up shooting each other for real, even though they had actual guns in their homes as well. Shocking, I know (sarcasm, in case someone is context-impaired).
Back then, 12 year olds were not shooting up teachers in schools. I can't remember any school shootings in my youth actually. But then they started. It became a recognized phenomenon, unique to America, that kids could bring guns to school and shoot teachers and other kids. Remember Columbine? Remember Paducah? And many others since. Naturally when law enforcement officers see a teen-ager with a gun, they fear that that gun is real and could be used.
This is just Joan spouting utter crap.
School shootings here date back into the 1760s, prior to the United States even being the United States. Joan may be older, but she’s not THAT old.
Uniquely American? Snort. Hardly. Canada has them, as does Mexico, Germany, Finland, Greece, Norway, France, Hungary…and the list goes on. Crazy criminals exist in all parts of the world Joan, not just in Minnesota.
Unfortunately, police shot a 13 year old California boy carrying a replica AK-47 which looked an awful lot like the real thing when the boy aimed at the officers. They shot and killed him. The article doesn't say that the gun had a red tip, typical of most of these kinds of "toy" guns. This is a tragedy, to say the least. Should the officers have shot? The gun looked real to them. They asked the boy to put the gun down and he didn't. There are a lot of questions here to be asked and answered and now another family and community are devastated by a shooting. Police officers shouldn't shoot young kids with replica guns. Kids should not have real guns accessible to them. This is a complicated and tragic story for sure.
I’m entirely lost on this. Let’s break it down step by step.
Person has replica firearm.
In Minnesota, carrying a realistic replica is ALREADY a criminal act without a permit. We have a law. Move along.
Person is told by police to drop firearm (not known to be a replica).
Ok, so drop it.
Person disobeys police order to drop it and points it at the police.
Good way to get shot.
Sad? Yup. Justified shooting? Very likely.
Joan wants only police officers to have guns, yet here she rails at the police for what was likely the justified use of them.
Again, Joan, seek help. Your irrational fear of inanimate objects is showing.
She finishes this by saying kids should not have real guns accessible to them.
Tell that to parents teaching their children to hunt and target shoot. In this case, her comment is entirely out of context. The person in question had a REPLICA. Read your own words for comprehension, Joan.
After all that, Joan proceeds to insult open carriers, Texans, and conservative radio hosts. Finally we get to her true agenda.
"There's no such thing as an accidental shooting. The gun doesn't go off by itself. It takes the wrong person to pull that trigger."
Yes, the wrong person. Who are the right people? This was presumably a law abiding gun owner. Guns are dangerous, designed to kill people and they pose real risks.
There it is, plain as day. Joan doesn’t believe that anyone, including law-abiding citizens, should be allowed to own guns. She then restates her irrational fear of inanimate objects.
How does she plan to accomplish her goal of total disarmament? Let’s go to the end of her rant.
This is just not OK. It's time for that to change. Passing gun laws such as universal background checks, safe storage, one gun a month and others that won't affect law abiding gun owners rights to own guns can start the sensible conversation that this country needs to have.
Ah, it all makes sense now! Joan believes that they can begin the endgame of taking away our rights through the farce of “reasonable” restrictions.
Joan wants to tell me how to purchase, store, and carry my guns, and she wants to limit my ability to grow my collection.
My rights aren’t up for debate, Joan. They aren’t available for compromise, and they aren’t a discussion topic. You want my guns? No. Why not come out and say it? What you really want are my RIGHTS, and you can’t have those either.