"As a result [of the AWB expiring], criminals and others have more and more of these type of dangerous weapons [formerly-banned so-called "assault weapons"*] and have been using them on our streets- mostly to kill police officers. Cops are outgunned on the streets so they have found it necessary to buy more powerful weapons to protect themselves and the public."
(You can follow links from Sebastian's. I won't give her one)
Let's take a closer look. Did she really say what I think she said?
Yes, she said that non-criminals ("and others," meaning you and me) have been using our "assault weapons" on the streets, to kill police officers. Which I ain't never and seeing as you're alive and out of jail, you either. But it's too late in her mind -- we have that "touch of the
And she appears to be drawing a distinction between those private individuals who own guns and "the public," leaving me wondering just when "the People" are not "the People." Is it simply owning guns, or is it the refusal to ride in the back of the bus with 'em that does it? Or did we try'n use the wrong lunch counter again? She's a bigot.
As the courts have pointed out, policemen are not actually required to protect "the public" as individuals (that would take one-to-one correspondence of officers and publicans, no, um, non-police citizens, wouldn't it?); the police protect society in general. Your individual protection is your job and while a firearm can be a part of that, mostly it's paying attention to where you go and who's around you -- me, I try to avoid self-panicking noseyparkers; YMMV.
Plus she rings in the escalation-of-firepower canard; I guess no 1930s criminal ever used a BAR, especially not one he acquired by stealing it from the police. Unpossible; and never you mind that the .38 many an LEO carried a revolver full of (and plenty more on his person) back in the halcyon days when japete spent all her free time watching Andy Griffith has terminal ballistics clustered right up there with the 9mm, .40 S&W and .45ACP sidearms many of 'em carry now. Or that a shotgun and/or an Army-type rifle was the trunk gun of most motor-patrol officers from the git-go. That's all outside the acceptable narrative and therefore, unhappened.
...But don't you worry. "japete" tells us over and over she doesn't want to ban any guns, and, why, neither do her pals at the House of Brady, or the VPC, or even Senator "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" Feinstein. Not in a million, zillion years has it ever crossed their minds, except for every seven seconds. --In the meantime, she'd just like to poison the discourse a little. She thinks you're a big ol' stinky meanie if you call her on it.
They lie. They smear. They're bigoted. And they keep sayin' "Trust us."
Suuuuuure we should.
* Like my SKS or AR-15, even with the .22LR conversion in the latter. 'Cos it is filled with eeeevil.
"Like my SKS or AR-15, even with the .22LR conversion in the latter. 'Cos it is filled with eeeevil."
You too? I've got an FAL and I swear, I clean it and I clean it and the eeeevil just keeps coming back.
I'm thinking maybe a coat of eeeevil preventative, maybe in pink. Whatcha think?
Japete reeks of suck and fail. But I'm happy to know that she's still blathering away, as the more she rants, the more reason we have to distrust her and her ilk.
The psychiatrist I drink coffee and attend antenna raising parties with has some choice words about child Janet Peterson and her ilk.
Basically, it's a condition. There's a name for it, I did not catch it because the MD between us said something.
Most gun control advocates minds are set in concrete. Leaving them functional, sometimes at a high level, but in a condition much like this Peterson:
Sad - but that's the way it is.
Cognitive dissonance.. and reality.
The more posted raves the lower the credibility goes. Generally trust is earned by honesty.
In the end its about fail.
But here in MA that type has created the wacky state of affairs wher not only the AWB is in full effect but there is another list of handguns that are banned for whatever unknown reasons.
Guess what it still hasn't prevented here any of that crime ranted about.
Is it simply owning guns, or is it the refusal to ride in the back of the bus with 'em that does it
I definitely believe it is the not riding in the back of the bus -- because she and her husband own firearms.
What! Did you read that right, you most certainly did!
Peterson says supporters of such legislation are often painted as people who hate guns, but she says she's not anti-gun, anti-hunter, or anti-anyone's rights. She and her husband own guns and come from a hunting family. They keep the guns locked in a metal safe
She has chided me for asking provocative questions such as
Was a background check performed before they obtained the firearms?
Did the transfer go through a FFL?
Did she and or her husband receive training prior to obtaining the firearms.
Such provocative and insulting questions, eh?
Wonder if that "Japete" hominds head would explode if she saw the picture at Breda's of 10 year old Destiny shooting my M1 (Universal) Carbine? Good thing I didn't put in a 30 round magazine! (and yes, I'm the B.U.F.F. beside her ready to catch it). : )
Post a Comment