Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Looney time for State legislators

"No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." Mark Twain knew what he was talking about when he wrote that sentence. 'Tis the season for state legislatures to consider all of their social issue bills. It is happening all over the country now that the conservatives are in power in more states. They have been lying in wait to pass their idealogical bills concerning voting rights, guns, abortion and gay marriage. Minnesota is joining a lot of other states to add bad gun bills to the agenda. The loons have come back to the open lakes of Minnesota and along with them come the looney ideas in the legislature.


This week in Minnesota, a bill will be considered to gut the state's currrent gun laws and add new ones that we don't want or need. Why can't we enforce the laws already on the books? That is the mantra of the NRA after all. But when they want their own laws, apparently things are different-hypocrisy as far as the eye can see. Who is clamoring for a law that will allow people to shoot someone first and ask questions later under the pretext of being frightened or "feeling" threatened? The NRA, and it's lackeys in the legislature of course. Never mind that similar proposals to the ones that will be heard this week have already been opposed by the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, the Hennepin County Parole Officers, and the Minnesota County Attorneys Association, among others. These people understand the problems with a bill that will allow someone to murder another human being on the pretext that they feel threatened and then get away with it. No one in Minnesota has been prosecuted for justifiable homicide. This is simply a made up problem looking for a dangerous solution. It has resulted in people getting away with murder in other states where the Shoot First bills have been enacted. No arrest, no prosecution, no jury trial and no time served. That's a pretty sweet deal for the shooter- not so much for the victim and his or her family. Why would we want to continue this charade of NRA sponsored bills that will lead to more rather than fewer gun deaths and injuries? Ask your legislators if they really think this is a good idea. You can find out more about the proposed bill here.


I have discussed the idea of yearly background checks for people who want to purchase handguns and assault guns in Minnesota many times with my local Police Chief and County Sheriff. They think that requiring yearly background checks for permits to acquire these guns is the best way to stop people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Changing the requirement of background checks for permits to acquire to every 5 years  (as proposed in Minnesota H.F. 1467) will allow people who are potentially dangerous to literally slip through the cracks. People's situations change- they may have become a domestic abuser, a drug abuser, someone with multiple DWIs, or even a felon in that 5 years. Why would we then want those folks to be able to buy guns legally? Of course, this makes no sense but then, the gun lobby doesn't make sense. They continue to fool us by saying they care about criminals getting guns and then encourage laws that would allow criminals to get guns. This is backwards and cynical thinking at its' worst. And why doesn't the NRA care what law enforcement thinks? Serious people need to be asking that question. Legislators must be held accountable for their irresponsible behavior if they allow themselves to be led by the gun lobby's spacious arguments. 

Speaking of spacious gun lobby arguments, the Ohio legislature wants to join Minnesota in allowing guns in bars and restaurants. This article pretty much sums up the ridiculous notion that people should have guns where alcohol is served. I love this statement from the article:"Senators also prohibited permit holders who bring weapons into the bars and restaurants from drinking alcohol (wink, wink). After all, bars in Ohio are loaded with customers who sit for hours on end tossing down glasses of Diet Coke." This is also the same illogical argument made by the gun guys on my blog and it comes, of course, directly from the talking points put out by the gun lobby. They want us to believe that since it is illegal to drink and carry a gun, no one will do it so we should all just trust them. You have to be over the legal limit in Minnesota in order to violate the state's permit to carry law. Oh, but wait, once the gun is shot by a person over the legal limit of alcohol consumption, it's too late, right?  


Arizona and Idaho's legislatures considered bills to allow guns on campus. These bills failed because of the intense opposition to them by people with common sense. Texas is still in the midst of the fight about guns on campus. Who knows if the gun lobby will win there but the opposition to this bad bill has been well organized and has awakened a few legislators to the error of their thinking. In California, an Open Carry bill is on the table. Will the legislators there allow people to walk around in pubic with their unloaded guns openly carried? It is, for the gun guys, a protest because they can't carry loaded guns at all in California. Of course, in Minnesota, we allow openly carried loaded guns. What the gun lobby wants is for the carrying of loaded guns everywhere by anyone is just a normal thing, like carrying a purse or wearing a belt. The difference is, guns are lethal weapons designed to kill people. They should not be normal in public. Guns should be kept far away from public spaces. 


More than 2000 years of Judeo Christian tradition in our country, which is founded on such thinking, values human life. If that is the case, why would we pass laws that so foolishly and cavalierly consider the possibility of innocent people becoming victims of senseless shootings? We already have enough victims and more than any other civilized country not at war. We don't need more. Ask your legislators what they are thinking. Or maybe- what they are not thinking. Common sense needs to prevail.

52 comments:

  1. you missed part of the 5 year change includes the provision that requires the Minnesota Department of Human Services and state courts to make their background check records available electronically to authorized agencies, including the National Instant Background Check system (NICS) –– a process that was supposed to have been in place 16 years ago! This should reduce purchasing delays as well as ensuring that state and federal checks produce the same results.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The fortunate thing is the State Legislature has been listening to facts and truths rather than to your and heathers fearmongering.


    First off, your statement about murders being unprosecutable is patently False. Flat out lie. If someone has a valid reason to use deadly force in self defense it will be there. This law simply cleans up the duty to retreat. This proposed bill removes a legal hurdle many people simply do not have the ability to fulfill.

    The fear about chasing down permit to purchase holders is totally smoke blowing. If someone loses the right to buy a pistol, that will be immediately forwarded to NICS, Secondly at adjudication a Judge simply has to say, "turn it in" or face additional charges. Non issue.


    Your comment regarding Ohio and bars and the smear on permit holders in Minnesota is completely untrue, but you know this. Minnesota has had legal carry in bars or restaurants selling liquor for eight years. How many problems has this caused? Pretty much none.

    You see, TGIFS, Chilis, Outback and many more places are called bars under the law, So if I wanted to go have dinner with my wife and kids I would have to go unarmed, and I don't do that. Yes Joan. I drink diet Coke in the bar. Lots of it. And no, there is no Beam or Captain in it.

    So eight years we have this legal ability to go to an establishment that sells liquor and minnesotans have had no problems with it. Certainly far fewer problems than other patrons.


    But see this is fact. Real numbers, not "I'm afraid". Or "common sense says". Nope this is eight years of history saying people who have a history of behaving keep behaving.

    The legislators the People have elected have decided to trust the people. Gee what a concept.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "No one in Minnesota has been prosecuted for justifiable homicide."

    But they can be sued in civil suits, which this law is to prevent. It's basically an extra layer of protection. It ensures that when one does commit a justifiable homicide, they can walk away clean and worry free.

    "People's situations change- they may have become a domestic abuser, a drug abuser, someone with multiple DWIs, or even a felon in that 5 years."

    People's situations can change over night. From hour to hour. So why not have a background check every 30 minutes?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You get upset when we accuse you anti-right pro-crime people of playing fast and loose with the truth but then you post this.

    "I have discussed the idea of yearly background checks for people who want to purchase handguns and assault guns in Minnesota many times with my local Police Chief and County Sheriff. They think that requiring yearly background checks for permits to acquire these guns is the best way to stop people who shouldn't have guns from getting them."

    You don't actually say that the once a year background check is gone but you imply it. However the bill actually says...

    The chief of police or sheriff must conduct
    3.5a background check by means of electronic data transfer on a permit holder through the
    3.6Minnesota Crime Information System and the National Instant Criminal Background
    3.7Check System at least yearly to ensure continuing eligibility.
    3.8EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2011, for all valid
    3.9transferee permits issued by the chief of police or sheriff on or after August 1, 2010.

    You state "These people understand the problems with a bill that will allow someone to murder another human being on the pretext that they feel threatened and then get away with it. "

    What the law actually says is ..

    Subd. 4. Presumptions. (a) An individual using deadly force is presumed to possess
    7.4a reasonable belief that there exists an imminent threat of substantial bodily harm, great
    7.5bodily harm, or death to the individual or another person, if the individual knows or
    7.6has reason to know that:
    7.7(1) the person against whom the defensive action is being taken is entering or
    7.8attempting to enter by force or by stealth, or has entered by force or by stealth and remains
    7.9within, the dwelling or occupied vehicle of the individual; or
    7.10(2) the person against whom the defensive action is being taken is in the process of
    7.11removing, or attempting to remove, the individual or another person from the dwelling or
    7.12occupied vehicle of the individual.
    7.13(b) The individual is not entitled to the benefit of the presumption in paragraph (a) if
    7.14the individual knows that the person against whom the defensive action is being taken:
    7.15(1) is a lawful resident of the dwelling or a lawful possessor of the vehicle, or is
    7.16otherwise lawfully permitted to enter the dwelling or vehicle; or
    7.17(2) is a person who has lawful custody of the person being removed from the
    7.18dwelling or vehicle or whose removal from the dwelling or vehicle is being attempted.
    7.19A person who is prohibited by a court order from contacting another individual or
    7.20from entering a dwelling or possessing a vehicle of another individual is not a lawful
    7.21resident of that individual's dwelling and is not a lawful possessor of that individual's
    7.22vehicle.

    What the bill does is shift the burden of proof from the individual to the prosecutor to show that the individual was not in danger.

    In addition, the law gives you some of the strengthening of the background checks you have been asking for.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joan,

    Why do you leave yourself out of the proposed background checks?

    Surely your hunting rifles can be used for murder, right?

    So, why not call for all gun owners to have yearly background checks?

    ReplyDelete
  6. You missed the part where they passed this 2 years ago and we are still having trouble sending the records to NICS. A carrot- it doesn't make up for the rest of the crap in the bill.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You do not have to be over the legal limit in Minnesota to be in violation of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act. Re-read the statute.

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=624.7142

    .04 is the limit

    How many shootings have occurred in MN since 2003 when the MPPA was passed where to permit holders were intoxicated or otherwise in violation of 624.7142?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, actually, I think it would be a great idea to have yearly background checks on all sales of guns no matter where they are purchased.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Its still held to a "reasonable person" standard. If a "reasonable person" would not have been in the situation, or not have acted as the shooter did -- they are still subjected to prosecution. You're screaming about nothing.

    Even in bars and restaurants - .04 (or less, remember the "reasonable person" standard)...is awfully easy to get to...but instead of prosecuting someone for having dinner with the family at Outback, theres personal responsibility involved. Oh the horror!

    ReplyDelete
  10. "And why doesn't the NRA care what law enforcement thinks? Serious people need to be asking that question."

    Again and again, law enforcement has supported the death penalty for those who kill on-duty law enforcement officers. Why don't death penalty opponents care what law enforcement thinks?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "What the gun lobby wants is for the carrying of loaded guns everywhere by anyone is just a normal thing, like carrying a purse or wearing a belt."

    Correct. Aside from my guns I carry at least one knife, a belt, one or more pens, boots and bootlaces, a flashlight, a keychain, and a wallet on a cord. Each and every one of these items is a lethal weapon in my hands. I can stab an attacker with the pen, bludgeon him with the flashlight and boots, or strangle him with the other items.

    "The difference is, guns are lethal weapons designed to kill people."

    No, they are designed to launch projectiles. Many projectiles are expressly designed for shooting paper. In fact, most cartridges and bullets made and sold and used in this country are not designed to kill people. They are designed to punch holes in paper.

    "They should not be normal in public. Guns should be kept far away from public spaces. "

    Liberty should be normal in public. You wish to prohibit the rights to life, liberty, property in public. If people do not have their rights in public they will not have them in private either. What you are wanting is a police state. You want the police to have the guns and for them to attack anyone else who has a gun. Anyone who is prepared to defend their own life, liberty, and property, as is their right, should be subjected to a vicious violent attack by men with guns because of "common sense" - or so you argue. Common sense doesn't mean sending men with guns to attack peaceful people to prevent men with guns from attacking peaceful people. You can't prevent a problem by institutionalizing the problem and calling it a solution. There is no sense at all in that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "No one in Minnesota has been prosecuted for justifiable homicide"

    That is funny how do you charge someone if you say it is justified? They would change it to another charge and the person would be found not guilty. Do you have the stats on that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Distraction, Jay. What are you talking about anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "People's situations change- they may have become a domestic abuser, a drug abuser, someone with multiple DWIs, or even a felon in that 5 years. Why would we then want those folks to be able to buy guns legally?"

    This law changes the permit to purchase from a one year permit to a five year permit. Background checks are still conducted annually. There is no change in what's happening year over year. I'm not sure why this statute change creates a problem for you? Can you explain?

    As far as your statement above - it's already illegal under federal law for a person that is a convicted felon to purchase a firearm (they would be denied in the NICS check anyways).

    It's already illegal under federal law for a person convicted of domestic violence to purchase a firearm (also denied via the NICS check anyways).

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Why can't we enforce the laws already on the books?"

    Because the current laws are inadequate in a number of ways that create infringements upon the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.

    For example, this statute requires police to deliver upon the statutory requirement to issue a permit to purchase within a seven day time period - and creates penalties for them if they do not adhere to the law.

    Today, many individuals are illegally delayed from obtaining their permit to purchase with no repercussions for law enforcement leaders that do not follow the law.

    This bill addresses that gap.

    Wouldn't we both agree that individuals should follow the existing laws?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Its pointless to change the laws. If someone wants to use a gun for violence they will do so, no matter the law. People that own guns for recreation or hunting are not the issue here.

    The whole point of a Law or a "standard" is for people to enforce and obey the given criteria.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "What are you talking about anyway?"

    You asked why the NRA doesn't care what some law enforcement thinks about guns ownership on campus.

    Yet opponents of the death penalty (including some gun control advocates) don't care what the majority of law enforcement thinks about the death penalty for those who kill police officers.

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Where did you get that nonsensical idea Jay? The death penalty isn't what we are discussing here. Stick to the subject matter with your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Joan it's a fair question.

    Also, it's not law enforcement who disagrees, it's the political appointees who do the bidding of those who appoint them who are disagreeing.

    Street cops actually support this. I have yet to meet one street cop who has a problem with permit holders or law abiding citizens who defend themselves or their family. Invariably their responses have been "when it's your family you do what you gotta do". From rural deputies to city and suburban cops, they KNOW what response times are and what the hoodlums can do in that time frame.

    Jays question about the death penalty was rhetorical. He knows the answer just as you know it but choose to ignore it under the premise that it's not the topic of discussion.

    Just as you know that permit holders have not been a problem when it comes to having a beer with their burger or a glass of wine with their veal parmesan. You know it hasn't been a problem because it's never made the news nor has it been raised by law enforcement. Your side wishes to make it an issue, but people who get permits, people who have a lifetime of law abiding behavior do not suddenly become Hollywood style gunslingers after an adult beverage. It just doesn't happen.

    When you were a child you were afraid of monsters outside and creatures in the basement until you learned it was trees waving in the moonlight and furnace ducts creaking in expansion. You got over those fears, why can't you get over these fears of illusion you have?

    The general public has seen that all the hysteria was just that, hysteria over fears and emotions not over facts and reality.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Isn't it interesting that the pro-gun side claims to want these bills in order to protect life, yet when the very people tasked with that duty -- our law enforcement officials -- object to the measures, they are ignored completely. And when shootings happen on campuses or bars by legal gun owners, those must surely be exceptions worth ignoring as well. Hypocrits.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think what Jay was getting at is that you mentioned one group that advocates something (guns on campus) against LEO's wishes (who want it stopped).

    Jay's point is that there is another group that advocates something (abolishing DP) against LEO's wishes (DP for copkillers).

    It was loosely on subject. I get what he was going for, but it was a little too loose.

    Thing is, common sense dictates absolutely that misuse comes after proper use. A law that is meant to prevent criminal ownership, transfer or misuse of a weapon can only legitimately be called sensible if the law-abiding can still own, transfer and use the exact same item.

    Similarly, any modifications to current law that prioritise the law-abiding (such as the ones mentioned in the post) are sensible.

    If these laws go through, common sense *will* have prevailed, so you have nothing to worry about.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous, which side are you on. This is a brilliant idea. "So, why not call for all gun owners to have yearly background checks?"

    There is NO gun control in the US. There is a mish mash of laws which are easily circumvented and as a result are ineffective.

    What I don't understand is why are supposedly law-abiding gun owners so opposed to laws which would inconvenience them only a little and would prevent many criminals from having access?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ah, P, the difference is clear. Furnace ducts and trees waving in the wind don't have the potential to kill me while guns carried by people who drink too much in a bar could.

    ReplyDelete
  24. mikeb: "What I don't understand is why are supposedly law-abiding gun owners so opposed to laws which would inconvenience them only a little and would prevent many criminals from having access?"

    mikeb, why don't you tell us of several places in the world that already have laws which inconvenience gunowners only a little and prevent many criminals from having access? Surely you can do that, right? Then we can examine those places to see if gunowners are indeed inconvenienced only a little.

    ReplyDelete
  25. japete, you asked why the NRA doesn't care what some law enforcement thinks about guns ownership on campus.

    I pointed out another group (that includes many gun control advocates) that also "doesn't care" what law enforcement thinks.

    Their reasons are similar.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I will revise my comment:

    I subscribe to the NY Times and read it daily. Their editorial page supports gun control about as much as any I have seen, yet their editorial page often opposes law enforcement on a range of issues -- searches, profiling, stop & frisk, bail, and more.

    japete, if we are supposed to follow the wishes of law enforcement, why does the NY Times so often oppose the wishes of law enforcement? You asked why the NRA "doesn't care" what some law enforcement thinks about gun ownership on campus. If you consider why the NY Times "doesn't care" what some law enforcement thinks about many other issues, you may have your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  27. mikeb: "There is NO gun control in the US."

    The problem with that statement is that it might be used to excuse gun control failure ad infinitum.

    Let's look at what happens in the real world. Look at countries that already have "strict gun control" when a horrific multiple shooting occurs. Do gun control advocates there usually say: "Well, we already have strict gun control, so maybe we should now try something else?

    ReplyDelete
  28. What I don't understand is why are supposedly law-abiding gun owners so opposed to laws which would inconvenience them only a little and would prevent many criminals from having access?

    You don't understand it? You've had it explained to you, on this blog, time and again. You may disagree with it, but it's not hard to understand. You choose to "not understand."

    It's really too easy, mikeb.

    1) A right is not subject to license from the State. You need not get a license to write a blog anymore than I need get a license to posses a firearm.

    2) Registration (which you advocate) is useful only as a prelude to banning and confiscation; it has no other legitimate purpose.

    3. The laws you propose will not prevent criminals from getting guns. See, they don't obey laws . . . . that's why they're criminals. Duh.

    4. We do not trust the motives of those who propose these measures, as experience and common sense has taught us that there will be further restrictions sought down the road.

    Want to find common ground, mikeb? Accept that the possession of arms is a right, protected (not granted) by the Constitution of the United States and subject to regulation only pursuant to strict scrutiny review, in much the same way 1st Am. rights are protected.

    When the gun control side accepts this fact, and internalizes it (much like we all have largely internalized the values of the 1st Am.), then there is room for discussion of "common sense" regulation along the same lines as "time, place, manner" restrictions of 1st. Am. expression. We understand that no right is absolute.

    But until that fundamental truth is accepted, there can be NO compromise whatsoever.

    Bottom line: we don't trust you. We have no reason to trust you. History has taught us not to trust you, and especially not to implicitly trust governments. No rational people would EVER surrender a monopoly of arms to the State; we know how, far too often, that turns out.

    It's not rocket science; it's a basic understanding of human nature and human history. Until your side "gets it," there is little to talk about.

    - GMC70

    ReplyDelete
  29. Quote Ah, P, the difference is clear. Furnace ducts and trees waving in the wind don't have the potential to kill me while guns carried by people who drink too much in a bar could.
    Unquote.

    This answer does not address the issue. It's misdirection.

    An example. Florida has issued nearly two million permits since the law was passed. Two million. Currently there are over 800,000 active permits in the State of Florida. Since Jan of 2008, only four people have had their permits revoked for cause. Four. That's one for every 200,000 active permits. That's .0002% of permit holders who have messed up. Of those, three have had them revoked for non violent reasons. (reasons are listed, but according to the law, the reasons could be for carrying in the wrong place, etc) so the final number comes out to ONE in 800,000, in three plus years. That equates to the entire population of MPLS going three years with only one violent crime. Yup, us permit holders are a wild and crazy bunch. We're just thugs itching to use our "heaters" willy nilly to create mayhem and crime.

    Just doesn't add up for your side. I believe falling trees have caused more mayhem, death and injury during those three years than have the permit holders of Florida.

    Face the truth Joan. We are not threats to your safety. We are just the opposite, we might be the safest people you can associate with.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm a CCW permit here in Ohio and I've been thinking. The anti-gun crowd seems to be really worried about being caught in a crossfire at restaurant.

    So I propose this. If the Ohio law passes and I'm ever in restaurant when shooting starts, I promise to do nothing but get MY family to safety. If you are unarmed and they are shooting at you, you are on your own. After all you are all big kids and obviously understand the risks and consequences so the least I can do is to help you stand on your principles and not interfere.

    To be clear, if your family is providing a convenient distraction for the bad guys, I'll use that time to get out and call 911 to report the massacre.

    That IS what you want us to do right?

    ReplyDelete
  31. You had a good story today.... too bad you completely discredited yourself in 12 seconds by (falsely) accusing Cornish of calling you a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thanks. But let's get something straight. I am always amazed at how you guys can twist things. David Gross clearly said at the beginning of Tony Cornish's presentation about the bill that the committee could expect to hear lies from the opposition since they had been sending e-mails with lies in them. When I sat down, I addressed the committee as I always do by saying, "Chair Cornish and members of the committee" And then, as you know, I introduced myself. The first thing I said was that I was offended that I had been called a liar before I even had a chance to make my remarks. This statement by me was addressed to the committee as a whole in response to David Gross's remark. Tony Cornish is not a nice man, by the way. He also demeaned us in his offensive and arrogant manner by calling us the "Brady Bunch". I'm sure he thinks that is cute and catchy and has a way of dismissing us as nobodies. He told me that he has no respect for my organization. That's a first. We may not agree but I have never been addressed so rudely by an elected official. As an elected official, you have a certain responsibility to maintain some public decorum. I know that from having been an elected official. I might think something privately or say something to my friends or other colleagues but would not attack a constituent or someone who comes before the body. He was rude and combative towards me after the hearing when I asked him to please refer to the Brady organization by it's right name.

    ReplyDelete
  33. We state that we'll hear lies from your organization because your organization's characterizations of this bill have been dishonest from the beginning - as we've discussed (unanswered, by the way) in the comments in this very post.

    I always will respect an honest, open, factual debate about an issue - even a divisive topic such as this one. But facts come more difficult to some individuals and groups.

    Bryan

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ah, there's the rub-- no matter what we say, we are assumed to be lying. I guess it's your word against ours then since we are not lying.

    ReplyDelete
  35. When Heather states in public that we all "open the windows and shoot into the dark"...that is a GROSS mischaracterization and a lie.
    I dare you to publish the truth!

    ReplyDelete
  36. "no matter what we say, we are assumed to be lying"

    There's a reason for that.

    In this post, you wrote "Changing the requirement of background checks for permits to acquire to every 5 years (as proposed in Minnesota H.F. 1467) will allow people who are potentially dangerous to literally slip through the cracks".

    But H.F. 1467 proposes nothing of the sort. In fact. H.F. 1467 mandates background checks be run on all permit holders at least once a year.

    In our world, we call that a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Let's go to the Video!

    http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/ls87/pubA042811.asx

    46:03

    "I do need to start out by saying first, Chair Cornish, I do resent being called before i've even appeard before you to make my remarks"

    We're supposed to believe you were talking about Gross?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Again- I didn't say that Rep. Cornish called me a liar. I was addressing him as the chair of the committee. Get real here and stop the stupid accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Well, Cornish wasn't the Chair at that time... Woodard was...

    And where exactly did Gross call you a liar?

    Starting to wonder why we question everything you say? You can't even be honest about your own statements, how can we trust your record of anything else?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Indeed, but Cornish is the Chair of that committee and I was still addressing him as the chair though Woodard was temporarily running the meeting. Gross said it at the beginning of his testimony. He did not single me out individually- he said that the committee would be hearing lies from the opposition and that they had alreay lied in their e-mails. So I am a member of the opposition so I am a liar. Just as I did not call out Rep. Cornish as individually calling me a liar and he took it that I did, Gross did not single me out as a liar but grouped the opposition into one lying group. But Cornish assumed I meant him, and given the chance, I have not doubt he would have said we were all liars. I assumed Gross meant all of us who were going to testify, including me. I'm done with this one.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Here is the quote in question as close as I can get it (I have not included any punctuation). I like him will leave it up to people to make their own decision

    I would encourage everybody to keep their seats today because the opposition will come up and if it is anything like the claims that have been made in the paper and media and some of the e-mails thought many of them are false and just down right lies and so it will be interesting if you can stay in your seats to listen to both sides and hear the support afterwards and then just make up your mind on what is real and what is imagined here.

    ReplyDelete
  42. And how old are you guys again? Na na na booboo. We got you. We won you lost. How does it feel? Really guys- I'm a big girl. I can take care of myself. There were plenty of them at the hearing. Tony Cornish very clearly called us- the opposition- liars. He said we had made false statements and that they were down right lies. That was his opinion not based on any facts nor did he give any examples of what he was talking about. Where are they? I haven't heard them yet. I have found that his statements are false and based on little fact, by the way. And thanks to whoever sent me the video. It proves my point very nicely.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90RSHllMnWE

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Where are they? I haven't heard them yet."

    Here:

    "Changing the requirement of background checks for permits to acquire to every 5 years (as proposed in Minnesota H.F. 1467) will allow people who are potentially dangerous to literally slip through the cracks".

    ReplyDelete
  44. Calling it a license to murder? "The bill guts current MN background check requirements as well as other things"

    Now I know you do not like to call lies lies how about we call them a common sense stretching of the truth

    ReplyDelete
  45. Joan-

    What set of circumstances would cause you to change your mind about being anti-gun?

    Play pretend for a minute, and let us know what sort of facts you'd have to see to relinquish your stance as an anti-gun advocate?

    ReplyDelete
  46. First of all, you use the word anti-gun advocate which is false and inaccurate. That being the case, I won't change my mind about my positions regarding common sense gun legislation and trying to reduce and prevent gun violence by stopping people who shouldn't have guns from getting them in the first place and by limiting places where people can carry and also maintaining current Mn law regarding castle doctrine and background checks. That is because those laws are working and there is no need to change them. By changing, we will risk allowing people who shouldn't have guns to get them, we will endanger the lives of Law enforcement and women who are at risk from abusers. We will allow cases of homicide to be called justifiable homicide when circumstances don't indicate they should thereby allowing murderers to go free. It's as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  47. JayF, Why do you and so many others want to see examples of other countries where gun control works? Is it too hard for you to think for yourselves? Are the common sense suggestions we make not simple enough for you? Or do you think it's a trick question and that there are no other countries where it's worked.

    Actually, Australia and England are examples. It's only be cherry picking data and spinning results that you guys claim they're not. And let's not forget the repetition, that's what you guys really excel in.

    But, what I say is comparisons are not necessary, not to cars or swimming pools and not to England or Australia.

    ReplyDelete
  48. GMC70 asked me, "Want to find common ground, mikeb?"

    Where ever did you get such a crazy idea. I don't want common ground with you extremist, fanatical type guys. When your side starts so far out, I'd be at an immediate disadvantage. I'd have to start out saying ban all guns, make all of them illegal for civilians, no exceptions, in order to balance out with your extremism. Then we could get some common ground maybe. But what I say is so much more reasonable than what you say, it's not fair to talk of common ground or compromise. I guess that's why you guys keep bringing it up.

    No, forget common ground and compromise, says I. We're talking about right and wrong and about 30,000 preventable deaths a year. You don't want to do something about that? That makes you WRONG, my friend. DSo, don't talk to me about common ground.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Mikeb -

    My "side" seems so "far out" only from your particular point of view. When one is so far out of the mainstream, normal thinking does indeed seem "extreme," and that is where you are. Calling me an "extremist" or "fanatical" does not make it so. And defining yourself as "reasonable" to the exclusion of other points of view does not make it so.

    The common ground is not so radical at all, I think. I, and most gun rights folks, understand that no right is absolute; but it is premised on the understanding that there is indeed a right. Moreover, rights are inherent and not granted by any government, as reflected by the language of the Bill of Rights itself, carrying forward the position of the Enlightenment as reflected in the Declaration of Independence.

    YOUR position - and it is indeed an extreme one - is that there is no such thing as a right. Apparantly, moreover, there is no such thing as any right, in fact; for if any one right can be whisked away at the whims of the state, all rights can.

    THAT, my friend, is an extreme position. And one I think you'd be extremely (pun intended) hard pressed to defend.

    So let's be clear just who is the "extremist" here, MikeB. And it ain't me.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hmm- anon- I'm pretty sure that MikeB did not say there are no rights. Aren't you viewing his comments from your own biased position here? You are the extremists, by the way, and that is pretty well agreed to by the majority of folks who are reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Mikeb: "Why do you and so many others want to see examples of other countries where gun control works? Actually, Australia and England are examples"

    Mikeb: "why are supposedly law-abiding gun owners so opposed to laws which would inconvenience them only a little"

    The reason that we ask for examples is that we want to see what "only a little" inconvenience looks like. England has banned and confiscated most handguns, banned and confiscated most pump action and semiauto hunting rifles and shotguns, and prohibits gun ownership for self defense.

    See, Mikeb? Now when you talk about "only a little" inconvenience, we will know what you mean.

    ReplyDelete