Well, I think it is fair to say that Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence Ownership board member and weblog writer under the moniker of “Japete”, has finally gone of the deep end. Honestly, it took longer than I was expecting.
In the space of two days, Joan banned Sean Sorrentino for his heinous use of facts to support his argument, and then turns around and speciously accuses him of harassment and libel when he finds information concerning her sister’s murderer.
The fact that most murderers have at least one prior criminal conviction is so plain and obvious, we are not even going to address it, except to wonder why it is that Joan is incapable of understanding that 70% is a majority. Is an inability to perform basic mathematical functions a requirement for being an anti-rights nut?
Moving on, I would normally agree that digging up information on people’s carbon lives is something of a no-no for interpersonal relationships on the cortex, except for one small detail: Joan Peterson has made it clear, time and time again, that the primary reason she is looking for any and all methods to abridge, infringe, and limit our Second Amendment-protected rights is her sister’s murder (a crime perpetrated by the sister’s husband). With that in mind, it only seems fair for us to be as informed about the incident as she is, and it is only common sense for us to research the murder and the situation around it. But, worse still, Joan has used her ex-brother-in-law’s supposedly clean record as a vehicle to insinuate that all firearm owners are supposed potential murderers who are only a brief snap of their sanity away from shooting people they know.
Except for one small detail: her brother-in-law’s record was far from clean, and if our judicial system was worth a damn, he probably would not have been eligible to own a firearm for years before he murdered Joan’s sister, and definitely would have spent the years afterwards in very uncomfortable facilities.
So for having the nerve to point out that her sister’s murderer was nowhere near pure-as-the-driven-snow the fateful day when he pulled the trigger, Sean is now faced with bans, accusations, and threats from Joan Peterson. Does that sound like the actions of a rational person?
To someone of a sound mind, Barbara Berglund’s murder, and the handling of the case afterwards, presents an overwhelming reason to cast a scrutinizing eye on the Minnesota judicial system, and work on some rather significant overhauls of the same – it is only common sense, given that it is conjectured that Russell Lund Jr. repeatedly escaped both conviction and trial on the basis of his money and his family’s position in the community (and, finally, his eventual suicide). Instead, Joan takes the path of the absurd, and goes on a single-minded crusade to blame the inanimate tool and remove it from society. Does that sound like the actions of a rational person?
Much like other pro-rights webloggers, I lost interest in Joan Peterson a while ago… especially after exposing her misappropriation of a simple phrase and debunking every single one of her arguments in a single post, but this recent turn of events is important to highlight.
This is the face of hoplophobia – a woman who is so blinded by her own personal pain and fear that she would strip you of your Constitutionally-protected rights by any means available.
This is the face of the Brady Campaign – an individual who would violently deny basic facts that are substantiated by repeated research from wholly impartial authorities.
This is the face of modern “gun control” – a person who would threaten others with “libel” suits for daring to publish known information regarding her sister’s deceased murderer.
Is this starting to damage your calm a little? It should.