Monday, January 16, 2012

Some more responses to 'Only Gun Victims' Peterson



Something else from Weer'd:
Joan is claiming certain victims as “her own” and other victims as not only the result of cynicism, but her words “Try to Find” when their names and stories are all there for everybody to see, claims that they are in themselves somehow invalid.

And this is where we get the term “Blood Dancing”, they only respect the lives lost that are useful to them. Also you’ll note that while Joan takes offense to me pointing out that she invokes the name of her dead sister for any number of irrelevant laws that played ZERO part in her sister’s death, but she makes no effort to refute it.

There were no “High Capacity Magazines” at the scene of her sister’s murder, but you have invoked Barbara’s name for magazine bans.

There were no “Assault Weapons” at the scene of her sister’s murder, but she has invoked Barbara’s name for “Assault Weapons” bans.

Conceal Carry was illegal in the state of Minnesota at the time of the murder, but she has invoked Barbara’s name for restrictions on Conceal carry.

None of the weapons found at the scene were bought through private sale, nor were any legally posessed because Russell Lund was the subject to a restraining order, but she has invoked Barbara’s name for the private sale of firearms, and universal background checks.

She has also claimed that Russell Lund was not a criminal until he pulled the trigger murdering her sister and her friend, but Mr. Lund was in and out of court, and in and out of mental facilities, as well as a known abusive man with a harsh temper.

She won’t refute these facts because they are true.
Yeah, true, but inconvenient.
She's got a habit of saying "They were not criminals until-" Someone could be a violent con(illegal to pick up a gun) and under a permanent restraining order(illegal to pick up a gun) and in possession of a firearm(worth a number of years in a federal prison, not counting state laws) and she still insists he's not a criminal until he kills/rapes/assaults someone. I really can't tell if she's just that dishonest, or that unwilling to understand.


1 comment:

Gerry N. said...

It's dishonesty, no one could be that stupid and still be capable of feeding herself.

Or could she?