It’s truly difficult to count the number of falsehoods and lies in this post by Protect Minnesota Board Chair Joan A. Peterson, aka japete. Joan is also on the board of directors for the Brady Campaign.
She’ll probably never post my comment – so here it is for posterity:
japete quotes an article that states : “People are not being asked to give up their guns.”
Except that your organization, Protect Minnesota, testified in favor of multiple bills in this year’s Minnesota Legislative session that did exactly that.
And then : “Semi-automatics are physically capable of firing at the same speed, but their firing rate is limited by the speed with which a human being can pull a trigger – a somewhat slower rate, to be sure.”
Patently false. Semi-automatics are significantly slower firing than automatic weapons.
and then : “Two hundred years ago we had murder, too, but we did not have fully-automatic rifles with astronomical firing rates and high-capacity magazines.”
Are fully automatic rifles being used in crimes? I think not. “Assault Rifles” as your organization defines them are used in an astronomically small number of crimes each year as well.
And then: “Let me make it clear, for my second amendment loving cousins and all those who take the time to read this : Nobody wants Grampy’s coyote shooter. Nobody wants my twenty-two. Nobody is coming for old west sharpshooters, skeet shooters, the weapons of honorable veterans, the pearl handled revolver sold on Pawn Stars or the guns I have personally observed Ted Nugent use in his pursuit of wild game on shows aired on the OutDoor Channel.
I have not seen a regulation that would stop me or anybody I personally know, or even any responsible gun owner I have ever observed, from procuring game, from practicing gun sportsman and marksmanship, or from use on the family farm or in the family home.”
Except your organization proposed and testified in support of a bill that did *exactly that* this year before the legislature.
Stop lying about what Protect Minnesota really testified in favor of – because what you’re quoting here isn’t accurate.