Year: 2013

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 ….

Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign Board Member and Minnesota gun control activist, laughably says:

We do need to have a serious discussion about what’s going on in our country concerning guns and gun permit holders.

I’m all for it. Let’s have a discussion. Does this mean she’ll stop censoring dissenting opinion in her blog comments? How can you have a “serious discussion” when you refuse to allow any kind of open discussion on your blog. I mean, I get it’s your sandbox, and you can do what you want, but let’s not pretend you want to have a serious discussion when people who try regularly find themselves silenced when they say things you don’t want to hear. When you are ready to have a serious discussion, we are certainly ready and willing. But that’s going to require everyone to be adults.

We need to talk about the wisdom of letting citizens carry guns around with them wherever they go. We need to talk about why it is dangerous to ramp up fear and paranoia amongst people who have been led to believe in myths and outright lies about our nation’s President.

OK, let’s talk. But we’ll have to do it here because your side won’t allow for open discussion in any forum you control. It’s part and parcel for the gun control movement. I haven’t seen any of the half-dozen or so anti-gun blogs that have existed that didn’t censor dissenting viewpoints, or disallow any kind of discussion outright.

That’s not the marker of a movement that has strong arguments and is self-confident. That’s a movement that knows it has no arguments. We have been having “serious discussion” about these topics. The problem is, you guys aren’t convincing anyone.