Japete IS lying about this

If you recall a few days ago I defended Joan Peterson (aka japete) against a charge of lying. I still believe I was correct; the best explanation for the available data on that topic was that it was a mental defect rather than a willful lie.

Today I present evidence that she is willingly and knowingly lying about something else.

If you read her blog you will find many instances where she claims or implies she and her organizations don’t wish to ban firearms. Here are  some examples:

Also note that Ms. Peterson acknowledges she is on the Brady Campaign board of directors.

I have often given the Brady Campaign a pass in regards to errors and old material on their website. I know I have lots of out of date material on my websites and I have changed my mind about things but not bother to take down the old position. With all the material from the Brady Campaign saying “total bans are off the table” you might take that to mean they are interested in banning firearms anymore. This is not true.

You need to watch their wording very carefully to notice that since the Heller decision they say they are not advocating a “total ban on handguns”. One must presume that a partial ban would be quite agreeable with them. And one can be certain they are still in favor of an “assault weapon” ban:

Boxer supports California’s ban on assault weapons and the revival of a similar law at the federal level. Fiorina has criticized the federal law’s definition of assault weapons as “extremely arbitrary” and emphasizes other ways of combating gun crimes, none of which is a substitute for a ban. She also believes that travelers on the federal government’s no-fly list should be allowed to own firearms.

We couldn’t agree more with the Times on this one.

Learn more about assault weapons and terror gap, and visit our elections page.

And from their position web page on “assault weapons” linked to in the previous quote:

POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines. These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use. Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts.

PROBLEM: The federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in the fall of 2004.

THE THREAT: Allowing easy access to highly lethal, military-style weapons by dangerous people, like terrorists and felons, threatens the safety of our police officers, families and communities.

URGENCY: Since the ban expired, police chiefs across the country report increases in assault weapons used in crime and used against them.

SOLUTION: Congress must pass strong, effective legislation to ban all military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high capacity ammunition magazines. In the short-term, more states must pass their own laws to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

As a board member Ms. Peterson had to know of the Brady Campaign position on “assault weapons”. I therefore have to apologize for being critical of all the bloggers and commenters who said Joan Peterson was lying.


10 thoughts on “Japete IS lying about this

  1. In doing my poking around for my recent AWB-related post, I found myself somewhat surprised that the Brady Bunch was still pushing and pulling for its reincarnation to be passed, and while employing such horrific lies and mistruths as they are on that same page.

    Unfortunately, there is a distressingly non-zero number of anti-rights nuts for whom anything short of a complete and absolutely prohibition of firearms in all shapes, sizes, and variations is not a “ban” – it is either all or nothing, for them, fallacious though that position may be. It is, however, somewhat amusing to see an individual argue that England does not have a gun ban…

  2. Linoge,

    I agree that the restrictions are draconian, but the UK does not have a gun ban in the sense that it is possible (though by no means easy or cheap) for most people to own guns. Technically there is a loophole allowing legal handgun ownership under a special permit from the Home Office, but since no such permits are issued that is in practice a total ban. There is also an “antiques” policy that is quite similar to ours, though I think the cutoff date is a little different. However, non-criminals can get long guns if they go through the police and demonstrate good reason and good character. More info here. Unfortunately, self-defense is not considered a good reason. Since people have been jailed for assault after smacking burglars upside the head before throwing them out, I shudder to think of what might happen if a homeowner actually shot an intruder…but that wouldn’t be very possible on short notice anyway, because the guns have to be stored in a safe, separate from the ammo, which must also be locked up. Makes me glad to be in the USA. BTW, most of them think we are pretty insane for having such “lax” regulations–they seem to have well and truly forgotten that we got the idea from them in the first place

  3. And that is exactly the “logic” I speak of – “All guns are not totally banned in England, so England does not have gun bans.”

    Can one own an AR-15 there?

    Can the UK’s Olympic shooters actually manage to practice within the country, or must they turn elsewhere due to the legislation?

    Are short-barreled devices and fully-automatics available, idiotic tax stamp or not?

    “A gun ban” != “bans all guns”, and just like one must only murder one person to be called a murderer, a city/country must ban only one firearm to be considered to have a gun ban. This is true for Kalifornistan, this is true for Chicago, and this is true for once-Great Britain.

    Unforutnately, we already know exactly what would happen if a UK subject managed to rightfully perforate a home-invader – Tony Martin’s life sentence tells us all we need.

  4. Linoge,

    Yes, you can have an AR-15, but it has to be modified as a straight pull action instead of semi-auto. I will concede that semi-auto rifles are also banned. But to call it a gun ban is to overstate the case. To summarize:

    Handguns: Banned in practice

    Semi-auto rifles: Banned

    Guns: Severely restricted. Even almost-banned. But since most people can get some kinds of guns after jumping through a lot of arbitrary and often stupid hoops, and some do, the blanket statement that that they have “a gun ban” is misleading–ban means total prohibition.

  5. Sight correction/addition to the above:

    You cannot modify an AR-15 from semi-auto to straight pull. It must come from the factory as such. Otherwise, you can have all the “evil” features that you want.

  6. Sorry, forgot the other questions…

    Full auto–almost completely banned for private ownership since 1937 (they got the idea from us & took it much farther). Now only a few special collectors, museums, & props companies (oh, and the military) can have them. Sounds familiar…indeed, in a lot of states in the US you can’t own FA weapons or even the parts (e.g. Washington and Illinois).

    Short barreled rifle/shotgun: Banned in practice. But the limit is 30 cm (12 in) for the barrel and overall length 60 cm (24 in)–this is actually shorter than the limits here in the US. Also banned in many US states (e.g. Washington and Illinois). Shorter than these limits is classified as handgun.

    Olympic shooters…can (in theory) practice in the UK but don’t because regulations are so tight.

    Can it be fixed? Unlikely. The 1689 Bill of Rights is still in effect, but the relevant language is as follows:

    “And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare: … That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;”

    The only thing that could really be challenged on these grounds is the refusal to consider self defense as a valid reason to approve the certificate. This restriction has been in place since the ’30s so by now would be unlikely to be considered worthy of being questioned & the rest is so loosely written that short of an act of Parliament loosening the restrictions (which is unlikely) the courts will uphold it all.

  7. Was the Assault Weapon Ban a gun ban?

    Are “Handgun Rosters” defacto gun bans of the firearms not on those rosters?

    Was the handgun ban in D.C. a gun ban?

    As these examples, and countless others, indicate, there are about as many ways to ban guns as there are types and fashions of guns – the only thing “misleading” (through incompleteness, not exaggeration) about my statement that England has a gun ban is that I omitted the words “lot of” and to make the last word plural.

  8. Linoge,

    they are bans–but my argument here boils down to careful use of terminology. I am so insistent upon this point because the antis play very fast and loose with words and their meanings. A classic example example would be “assault weapon”. What the heck is that supposed to mean? Except to us, it doesn’t usually mean “a weapon used to assault someone”, it means what the antis say it means–it’s a made up term with a made up meaning that has no basis in logic or even common sense.

    As a result, this may place me in the minority, but to me “gun ban” when left unqualified implies a blanket ban on all gun ownership, which is not the case in the UK. Certain (read: a lot of) classes of guns are banned, which is not as it should be, and the ones that are not banned are heavily restricted, which is also not the way it should be. But in sum, I think you are using the phrase too broadly here.

  9. My view on this is that by their own words they support “banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines”. They are being more than disingenuous if they think that doesn’t qualify as a gun ban.

    They can’t say “we aren’t trying to ban guns” and simultaneously say, “ban guns and accessories”. They can’t have it both ways.

  10. On this subject, Joe, they have to be lying even if they’re also lying to themselves. The Other Side has defined the problem as “too many guns.” The ONLY logical conclusion that can be reached is that those guns MUST be removed from circulation, QED.

Comments are closed.