Why Joan Peterson of Protect Minnesota Won’t Publish My Comments (or Yours)…

According to Joan Peterson, the Chair of the Board of Protect Minnesota – the local anti-gun group here in Minnesota – and a board member of the Brady Campaign – in her most recent comment – here’s the reason why she won’t publish your comments:

you have no idea what kind of comments I receive because I don’t publish so many of them. It is just too hard to deal with the continued demeaning comments and those that are not relevant and miss the point.

I publish the ones that seem to make a point or don’t ask me questions in a snarky or accusatory fashion. Many times I answer what you guys ask me in another post. But most of the time, I tell you what I am all about and what I want to do about it in my post.

There is no sense in fighting about this stuff. You all resist even the most reasonable of gun laws without cause. You ( not necessarily you personally) don’t seem to care about the victims, and indeed, often deride them or make rude remarks about them.

We all, meaning me, Baldr, Mike, and the many others who blog on my side, just tire of the offensive comments. It leads to nothing but acrimony.

We so obviously disagree on so many levels that it doesn’t seem possible to have a decent “discussion.” Besides, as I have pointed out, you represent a small minority of Americans. The rest agree with me- even gun owners and 75% of NRA members. So the point is to get Congress to do the right thing because you and some of my readers will never agree with me.

In other words, I won’t publish your comments because you disagree with me.

I’m now up to one hundred and thirty-four comments that she has refused to publish.

It is impossible for Joan Peterson of Protect Minnesota to tell the truth on gun control

Joan Peterson, the blogger at “Common Gunsense”, who also serves as a member of the Brady Campaign Board of Directors – and the chair of the local anti-gun group Protect Minnesota continues to lie about even the basic facts of the gun control / Second Amendment debate.

In a post that Joan has since removed (as of 10:13am CST on 9/1), she claimed in a comment the following about the Texas Department of Public Safety’s 2011 report on permit holders:

One of my readers thought he was sending me links to research or actual facts about gun violence. Unfortunately he sent mostly hyperbolic articles from far right media source, Breitbart misquoting and misinterpreting results of actual studies. But I do thank him for sending me stats about Texas conceal carry permit holders and crime. You can see it here.

Raise your hand if you think 51 homicides by permit holders is acceptable. Or if 1353 incidents of “deadly conduct” is acceptable. Or if 244 “deadly discharge deadly weapon is OK. Or 112 cases of manslaughter and 461 murders committed by CCW holders. This is great information and very useful as well. Why? Because it shows that permit holders are not the law abiding citizens that the gun lobby promised they would be. As I have said repeatedly, though these account for a small percentage of the total crimes, these are people trusted to carry deadly weapons around in public. There should be no crimes committed by these folks. Would these people have committed crimes anyway? Perhaps. But then we shouldn’t have given them the privilege of carrying deadly weapons around in the first place.

As is typical for Joan, she either cannot read the report itself, or she is deliberately misrepresenting the facts – because she is quoting the total # of crimes committed in Texas rather than crimes committed by permit holders – which we know to be significantly lower than this.

My rebuttal comment, submitted to her site, which is now the one hundred and thirty-first comment of mine that she has refused to post, reads as follows:

Your information is completely incorrect on the texas report. You are entirely misreading the columns on the report.

The 51 incidents of criminally negligent homicide is of all citizens. CHL holders have committed 0.

Of the 1353 incidents of deadly conduct, 9 were committed by CHL holders.

Of the 244 incidents of deadly discharge of a weapon, 2 were committed by CHL holders.

Of the 112 incidents of manslaughter, 3 were committed by CHL holders.

Of the 461 incidents of murder, 3 were committed by CHL holders.

Again, permit holders commit violent crimes at a rate several magnitudes less than the general population.

Even though Joan claims that she wants to have a rational discussion, the truth is that she and the other leaders of the gun control movement don’t want that – because it’s impossible for them to tell the truth – even when the facts are staring them right in the face.

Again, my offer stands. Joan, I’ll debate you anytime in public, with a fair set of rules, and with audio and video recording running. How about it?

More at Shall Not be QuestionedPost 1 and Post 2 and at Weer’d World.

Update: Joan is claiming that she accidentally deleted the post and comments. You decide.

Update #2: Joan has the post back up but conveniently left out her complete fabrication of the Texas data. Typical.

Update #3: Weer’d has more on the “deletion”.

What matters…

What matters about John Edwards is not whether paying for his love-child’s Pampers with a donation from Bunny Mellon sluiced through a third party fronting as a 501(c) for tax-deductible carbon credits registered as a UNESCO branch office in Haiti is a violation of applicable campaign finance laws, but that he’s a contemptible slug who succeeded in flattering the genteel spinsters of America’s legacy media that his unfitness for office was a subject far too vulgar for such elevated souls to pursue.

– Mark Steyn

A Don Rumseld Funny

As relayed in today’s Politico Playbook by Mike Allen:

DON RUMSFELD, author of the bestselling “Known and Unknown: A Memoir,” to Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union,” re what would happen if Osama bin Laden were caught: “Oh my goodness, I think he’d probably end up in Guantanamo Bay.” …

CROWLEY: “Just out of curiosity, if we did catch him down and he was down at Guantanamo Bay prison, would you like to go down there and see him?”

RUMSFELD: “No. He’s not my type.”

Money Quote #2

From the conclusion to Florida v HHS:

The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by
everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements
that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way
that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how
laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act,
Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again,
this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the
Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded
the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is
not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and
inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth
of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

The Money Quote

The money quote from today’s ruling in Florida v HHS:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

What the NY Times Editorial Board fails to understand

Today, they write in an editorial entitled “Voting for an Odious Tax Deal”:

Liberal Democrats are in revolt at the tax deal that President Obama struck with Republicans on Monday, and it is not hard to understand why. By temporarily extending income tax breaks for the richest Americans, and cutting estate taxes for the ultrawealthy, the deal will redistribute billions of dollars from job creation to people who do not need the money.

And here is where they miss the point.

It’s not that any of us need this money, its that it’s *our* money. Not theirs, not the governments, it’s ours.

We earned it. It’s not yours or anyone else’s to say whether or not we need it.

And that, right there, is one of my fundamental disagreements with today’s Democrats.

Awesomesauce disguised as Ayn Rand

I can’t begin to describe the awesomeness contained within these two blog posts.

First up, Eric Hague writes an ingenious post entitled Our Daughter Isn’t a Selfish Brat; Your Son Just Hasn’t Read Atlas Shrugged.:

I’d like to start by saying that I don’t get into belligerent shouting matches at the playground very often. The Tot Lot, by its very nature, can be an extremely volatile place—a veritable powder keg of different and sometimes contradictory parenting styles—and this fact alone is usually enough to keep everyone, parents and tots alike, acting as courteous and deferential as possible. The argument we had earlier today didn’t need to happen, and I want you to know, above all else, that I’m deeply sorry that things got so wildly, publicly out of hand.

Now let me explain why your son was wrong.

When little Aiden toddled up our daughter Johanna and asked to play with her Elmo ball, he was, admittedly, very sweet and polite. I think his exact words were, “Have a ball, peas [sic]?” And I’m sure you were very proud of him for using his manners.

To be sure, I was equally proud when Johanna yelled, “No! Looter!” right in his looter face, and then only marginally less proud when she sort of shoved him.

The thing is, in this family we take the philosophies of Ayn Rand seriously.

That post in, and of itself, was enough to make me warm and fuzzy inside. But then Lex came in with something even better:

Aidan can’t make a living in the marketplace, so he gets a nice, safe job with the Ball Redistribution Agency. And when he finally wanders over to Johanna and asks for a ball, he doesn’t say, “Have a ball, peas?” he says, “I’ll be taking those balls, missus.” On on either flank, he will have a couple of bigger kids with sticks, thumping them in their palms menacingly.

Johanna was a clever kid, and she saw this coming some weeks before. She has stashed a supply of balls in the Caymans, and when Aidan comes and takes all her balls but one, she picks up that ball and goes to her new home in the islands. Her workers are thrown out on the streets, her factory is shuttered, the board loses access to the taxes their output and wages once yielded and is forced to take care of the laid off workers, spending money that the board doesn’t have. The kids in the playground see all this and grow restless.

Now running at a significant deficit relative to predictions, the board turns its eyes to the Frisbee maker.

#awesomesauce… seriously