I have been asked if I do not get tired of having the same argument/fights/discussions about the Second Amendment over and over. The short answer is yes, I do sometimes. I confess that there are moments I get so saturated of it all, I just turn it off and dedicate myself to a good book or some other activity. But I always come back because I know there is somebody out there that has not seen our side of the story,has been told lies and perchance he/she may land on this blog or the Facebook page or the Twitter feed.
I don’t mean to say that a hardcore Gun Control fascist will suddenly see the light because of my posts. Those are set in concrete and they will rather see you dead than admit they are wrong. My aim goes to the undecided/uninformed who maybe will change his vote or at least will not vote against guns. But the hardcore gun control fascists is where my aimed fire goes because it is them who will inadvertently help you with their fanaticism, lies and inflexible mind.
I engaged this lady yesterday after this obviously lying/misleading post of hers:
She was quoting from USA Today where President Obama cites a percentage given by Chicago PD. The later in the discussion we had, she uses the New York Times and Taco Stand as back up for her claims:
The graphic above is telling on how the authors of the article (
Even though the numbers quoted in the NYT link she provided come from that specific 2014 ATF report, she decided to move the goalposts and declare that report null:
Which turned out to be worse for her since the ratio of guns from Illinois went up 4 to 1 in 2015 and told her so:
After that, she moved goalposts again, went ultra specific, reiterated the Chicago numbers ONLY. Again remember that we are talking about Indiana being specifically the supplier of illegal guns to Chicago. The same 2015 ATF report tell us that the truth is far from what she stated:
Remember that Libs can’t math. If there were 5,804 recovered weapons in Chicago and the total of Indiana-traced guns is 1,158, the logical and mathematical result is that the Hoosier State is not the supplier of the Chicago guns, not even a big or small majority but a paltry 19.9% (if we consider all Indiana guns going to the Windy City.) She promptly moved the goalposts again and “specifically” suddenly becomes vacuous.
So I did a bit of math, got the 60% that Chicago PD claims out of the total ATF numbers of recovered weapons from Chicago and compared it to the numbers of the top 15 states provided by the ATF.
She went silent after that. It is hard to argue math when your only fuel is emotion. Will she change her position after this beatdown? No. I am almost sure she already sublimed it of forgot it or even feels that she actually won. My hope is that a third undecided or barely decided party sees this exchange or this posts and figures that the side that has no shame lying, the side that ignores the numbers and moves goalposts when politically convenient is not the side they want to support.
And then that party tells friends and so on. And that is why we stay in the fight even if it gets tiresome. We have come a long way against well-funded and well=publicized foes, we must be doing something right.
This is indeed tiresome, and IMO is a PRATT — a Point Refuted A Thousand Times. From RationalWiki: “A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, refers to a point or argument that has literally been refuted so many times that it is not worth bothering with. It is a common phrase on Internet forums — as debates have a tendency to go in circles. Once people have refuted a point the first thousand times, it’s hard for them to muster the motivation to do it again.”
In the case above, she clearly is refusing to acknowledge valid points and data, digging in, not responding to what you’ve written, and moving the goalposts (as you say). However, there are some who take their positions because they’re ignorant, only having heard what the other side puts forward. Some of these will come around when valid points and data are presented, which is why we have to get over the fatigue of repeating everything — you know the other side seems tiresome in spreading their viewpoint.
As they say, when someone who is “honestly mistaken” receives correction, one of two things will happen: they will cease to be mistaken, or they will cease to be honest.
Ms. Annemarie Weers here has clearly chosen the latter path.
I observed that her litany of Pound Signs (that’s hashtags to you young people) of the liberal groups she belongs to makes a logical argument with her impossible.
She is supposedly pro-Catholic and Pro-Abortion. Since abortion is the murder of an innocent human being (the woman is not pregnant with a unicorn) that is clearly a conflicting stance. It’s like being a Nazi-Jew or a bacon-loving vegan. Simply incompatible. Likewise, to be Pro-LBGT and Catholic is also a denunciation of those religious beliefs.
She is Pro-Veteran, but also for the Democrats who despise our troops. Don’t get your panties all twisted up. They do hate our troops. They undermine their mission after they have been committed to combat. That is despicable.
She is for the terrorist BLM movement and First-Responders who are targeted (i.e. the police) by their activities.
Finally, she wants to end the NRA. Gee, a civil rights group that supports one of our enumerated Bill of Rights. That sounds pretty unAmerican and radical. She would cringe if I demanded she surrender her First, Fourth, Fifth or any other BORs because I did not like it.
Trying to argue with her is fruitless since she is brain dead with an incoherent liberal world view. Like you said though, it is to show the fence sitters what we are up against.
I’ll bet she’s got 16 ulcers from dealing with all that cognitive dissonance!
I also notice she’s a “#ProChoice #Catholic”.
She’s clearly very practiced at ignoring cognitive dissonance.
On the bigger picture, I used to debate Joan Peterson on her site (I still could if I had time; I’ve not been banned … yet). I know I’m never going to change her mind, no matter how many logical and reality-based circles I run around her.
I did it for the “researchers,” the still-on-the-fence folks who are trying to get both sides. I did it so that her as-yet-undecided visitors understand there IS another side to the argument, and that we debate constructively and factually (and politely). Joan is one of VERY few who allow (some) dissenting comments on their sites; the rest operate in a vacuum. Until Joan disallows all comments, her readers will hear both sides, and if she does end commenting, everyone who’s read through comments will know why.
She has the same Twitter profile picture as the Betsy Riot, a group of passive aggressive gun control extremists. While she may not identify as a member in her hashtag resume, I’ll bet she can quote their boilerplate like a champ.