As of today, the official number of carry permittees in the state of Minnesota is over 200,000.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Another guy who can legally own guns because he wasn’t committed. The judge let him go.
The problem isn’t guns. The problem is nuts. The civil commitment laws make it nearly impossible to put away nuts where they’re unable to obtain guns. If it were easier to obtain civil commitment, there’d be fewer of these incidents and less work for ACLU lawyers . . . a win-win!
Which is why it’ll never happen.
Since Michael Bloomberg sent her and her rage-addled partner Jane Kay to the bench during the 2014 session, I feel like I’ve neglected one of my key jobs in blogging about Second Amendment human rights in Minnesota.
For those of you new to my blog, and to my coverage of the ongoing battle over that civil right, let me recap:
Heather Martens has never, not once, issued a substantially true original statement. Ever.
Her entire body of work – every last word – is demonstrably false. The reason I say it’s demonstrably false is that I (and many better, smarter writers) have debunked, point by point, assertion by assertion, for well over a decade now, every single substantial thing she’s said.
And since Bloomberg has left town (’til the next session, anyway), she’s back at it. On Monday she put out a press release regarding the GOP’s push to allow Minnesota National Guardsmen to carry their sidearms while on duty, in case someone tries to shoot up their office.
And the press release is, in its entirety, a stunning display of dozey, fact-averse, intellectually-lazy bilge. Put more briefly, it’s a “Heather”.
The release is included below the jump – or, since it’s a “Heather”, I guess we should say “…below the trip and fall”.
SCENE: Washington DC, April, 1861. Heather Martens is being interviewed on the upcoming secession over slavery: “if abolishing slavery were a good idea, the government would’ve already done it”
SCENE: Honolulu, Hawaii, November, 1941. Heather Martens is being interviewed by the Washington Post or guarding complaints about the security at Pearl Harbor: “If there was anything to worry about at Pearl Harbor, I’m sure the government would’ve already taken care of it.”
SCENE: quote from Heather Martens, heard this morning on the Jack and Andrew show, on the lesser talk station: “I’m sure if arming military personnel were a good idea, the military would’ve already done it”
Only one of the quotes above is “real” in the literal sense of the term. But in another way, they’re all still perfectly accurate…
It turns out that a Marine and a sailor at the Chattanooga navy reserve office during the spree killing last week committed a bit of a naughty, and apparently fired personal sidearms at Mohammed Abdulazeez.
A report distributed among senior Navy leaders during the shooting’s aftermath said Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, the support center’s commanding officer, used his personal firearm to engage Abdulazeez, Navy Times confirmed with four separate sources. A Navy official also confirmed a Washington Post report indicating one of the slain Marines may have been carrying a 9mm Glock and possibly returned fire on the gunman.
Federal law, of course, protects spree killers against danger from anyone but law enforcement and military police on federal property.
My fearless prediction: once the politically-correct military leadership and the Obama Administration’s stonewalling falls away, it will be found that the return fire was what caused Abdulazeez to break off his attack. Law enforcement now accepts as fact that getting shots off at a spree killer as soon as possible is the best tactic; it breaks the killer out of his psychotic reverie, and disrupts their lavishly-orchestrated plan. They usually kill themselves, give up, or – as I strongly suspect will be discovered in Chattanooga, commit “martyrdom by cop”.
What the law enforcement establishment doesn
I never gamble money. But I’ll stake bragging rights on this one.
The NY Daily News informs us that last week’s shooting in Chattanooga, claiming four Marines and a Navy petty officer, all unarmed – where a person whose motive can’t possibly be determined, but whose actions absolutely do not define his entire race the way Dylan Roof’s defined all white people – has “renewed the debate on gun free zones“.
That’s incorrect, of course.
There is no “debate” about “gun-free zones”.
There is a faction of society that clings to the notion that telling people to be nice will make everyone be nice.
And there’s a faction of society that notes, correctly, that nearly every mass-shooting in recent years – schools, post offices, the Crosswinds Mall in Nebraska, the Fort Hood massacre, the shootings at Virginia Tech, and even the Charleston shooting – either took place in a “gun free” zone, or in a state with restrictive gun laws.
That’s not a debate.
That’s the smart people being nagged by the ignorant.
Fact: You are at much greater risk in a gun-free zone than elsewhere.
A man motivated, I’m sure we will be assured, in no way, no how by Muslim extremism, has left US Marines dead in… wait for it… Wait for it
… in a gun free zone.
Not that it matters, of course, because as we found in the Fort Hood massacre, even major post, much less recruiting stations, are gun free anyway.
Looking at the financial statements from major gun control organizations shows us a couple of things; Michael Bloomberg owns the industry, and they sure raised a lot of money – some of it from people other than Bloomberg, sort of – after Sandy Hook.
The essential PAGunblog rounds up the usual suspects:
First, let’s look at the Brady Campaign. In 2012, the Brady Campaign made 4.91 million dollars in revenue, which was up from 2.93 million in 2011. We suspect most of that money poured in during the few weeks after Sandy Hook on December 15, 2012. It was the fight into early 2013 where it became apparent that Bloomberg and the White House were running the gun control agenda, and Brady started falling off everyone’s radar. So it is not surprising that in 2013, the Brady Campaign did not raise as much money as it did in 2012, most of which was probably raised in the first several weeks of that year.
For all their decades of blather, Brady is actually relatively moderate. The “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” is not…
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence had a similar story to the Bradys. They had raised 333 grand in 2011, and 492 grand in2012. But again, in 2013, they were down to 484 grand. EFSGV, their 501(c)(3) branch, also tracks the Brady Center. In 2011, 460 grand in revenue, then 638 grand in 2012. In 2013, EFSGV raised 950 grand, almost a million dollars. I guess maybe that foaming at the mouth stuff works! They outperformed the Brady Center in terms of revenue growth.
…and it seems a lot of extremist money came out of the woodwork in the fever swamp this last couple of years.
The “Violence Policy Center” – whom I’ve made my personal kick toy in this space for well over a decade now – is perhaps the ultimate gun control group; literally, as well as morally and financially, controlled by liberals with deep pockets:
VPC is largely supported by wealthy foundations, but their revenue was also up in 2013. They managed to boost their public support percentage to 21.50%, which is actually still pretty sad, but better than 2011 when it was 17.28% and2012, when it was 18.17%. I’m sure they are hoping since their public support is heading in the right direction, the IRS will stay off their backs.
That’s so cute – thinking Obama’s IRS is going to go after a gun control group.
And now, the big kahuna – Bloomberg:
It is without doubt Everytown is now king of the gun control movement, with 2103 revenues of 36 million. Their 2012 revenue was 4.86 when they were [Mayors Against Illegal Guns]. I’d note that Everytown spends previous little on fundraising, which means most of that money is likely coming from Bloomberg. We all pretty much knew as much.
If it weren’t for progressive plutocrats with deep pockets and deeper agendas, the gun control movement would have to hold a bake sale to raise money.
The long story short? Part 1: Michael Bloomberg has basically purchased the American gun control movement.
Part 2? One liberal plutocrat can’t fight five million Real Americans (emphasis added by me):
I would not get despondent over their improved fortunes, however. Why?
Because in 2012, NRA’s revenues went from 219MM to 256MM, and in 2013 they went to $348MM. Get that? Between 2011 and 2013, NRA’s revenue increased by 129MM. That’s more than 3x the amount of every other gun control group’s revenue increase from 2011 to 2013 combined. And that’s just NRA proper.
And unlike the alphabet soup of gun-grabber front groups, the NRA is actual grassroots Real Americans.
Take heart. Conservatism isn’t winning every issue – but the gun issues shows that it can win in today’s America.
Do guns in the hands of the law abiding citizen reduce crime?
They certainly reduced three crimes, this past Monday, In different locations, within a few hours of each other.
Don’t tell Representative Martens.
Better yet – tell her.
Caught on Twitter a little while ago, Minneapolis Police chief Harteau said:
@ChiefHarteau: @CrimeWatchNE @MSP my officers and the community see too much gun violence and little if any is due to self-defense.
Not sure when Chief Harteau got so bloodthirsty. Self-defense only rarely ends with someone dead.
In theory, you’d think someone with 28 years in uniform would know that.
All the effort from this past session paid off starting yesterday. The five new gun bills passed this past session are now in effect:
- Governor Flint-Smith may not order firearm confiscations during states of emergency. To me, this is the big daddy of ’em all.
- Minnesota is now one of forty states that is compliant with Federal law regarding suppressors (aka “Mufflers for your Gun”, an accessory that is mandatory for hunting in some countries) and purchasing of long guns in non-contiguous states – both areas where Minnesota lagged federal law by three solid decades.
- Also – on August 1, it’ll be legal to use suppressors while hunting.
- Now, your carry permit is valid without any additional muss and fuss at the Capitol complex – the Capitol (not that you can get in there), the SOB, the SLOB (when it opens), the Supreme Court, the Minnesota Historical Society, and probably a few more buildings I’m forgetting.
- Finally, our carry permits are now reciprocal with more other states. No more stopping at gas stations in Moorhead or East Grand Forks to transfer something that’s legal in Minnesota but a gross misdemeanor in North Dakota from your pocket to your trunk. So says a friend of mine.
This is all to the good. But the question is – what next?
Obviously, we, the Real Americans of the Minnesota Second Amendment movement, need to focus on the big two; Stand Your Ground, and Constitutional Carry. Both of those will be long-term jobs, though, depending on an even more human-rights-friendly legislature than we have, and a pro-gun, likely GOP governor. That’s going to take some time and effort. We can do it – and this blog is going to focus on both.
But in the short term? I think banning physicians from asking about guns as part of routine patient screening would be a great place to start. It’s an entirely political exercise, suggested by the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians and adopted by doctors both maliciously anti-gun and, mostly, those who don’t care. And it’s nothing but an attempt to use the prestige of the medical profession to bully people out of owning firearms. Several states have already acted; Minnesota should get doctors out of doing Michael Bloomberg’s work for him.
There are many things that need doing – but I think that’d be a good project on the way to the big win.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Sen. Harry Reid wants expanded background checks: “Is that asking too much? Couldn’t we at least do this little thing to stop people who are mentally ill . . . from purchasing guns?” Reid said on the Senate floor.
Den. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va) specifically mentioned an effort aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people diagnosed with mental illness.
President Obama noted last week that once again, someone got a gun who shouldn’t have had access to it.
The South Carolina church shooter sparked the talk but he wasn’t mentally ill, not according to existing law. So Democrats are using bait-and-switch tactics to argue for restrictions on people who have Not been diagnosed with mental illness but who act strangely, hold unpopular opinions or have few friends. After all, we must Do Something, before those lone-wolf weirdos snap and kill people. Sounds perfectly reasonable, right?
One small problem: it’s unconstitutional.
The Second Amendment was adopted to ensure Congress would not regulate firearms, because the Founders feared an arbitrary and powerful central government like the one they’d just thrown off. In the Founders’ time, it was universally understood that children, felons and the mentally ill shouldn’t have firearms and those limitations continue, under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008). But who are “the mentally ill?”
Federal law prohibits ownership by a “mental defective.” There are court cases discussing whether “mental defective” is different from “mentally ill” for gun control purposes (mental defective might mean “retarded but not dangerous” and thus not be a disqualifying condition). Leaving aside that hair-splitting, Federal law defines “mentally defective” as having been adjudicated such or committed to a mental institution. 18 USC 922(g)(4). The Code of Federal Regulations, 22 CFR 478.11, further clarifies that “adjudicated” means a determination made by a court.
Yes, but so what? Federal law, federal regulations, Congress can simply change them, right? That’s where it gets tricky. There are a long line of Supreme Court decisions holding that when the government acts to deprive a person of a fundamental Constitutional right, that person is entitled to Due Process consisting of, at a minimum, notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a neutral decider. That means a court must make the decision, after hearing, at which the burden is on the government and the accused has a chance to rebut the state’s case.
You’ve heard it’s nearly impossible to get a person committed these days, no matter how much they need it? Clayton Cramer’s book “My Brother Ron” is a heartbreakingly frank, scrupulously researched account of how civil liberties lawyers created the case-law that now controls. And the case-law is not limited to civil commitments: Due Process extends to mental illness for purposes of gun control, which means the government cannot deny guns to people merely because they are weirdos, act strangely, hold unpopular opinions or have few friends.
What the President and Democrat Congressional leaders propose to do is precisely what the Founders explicitly designed the Constitution to prevent. The plan is unconstitutional on its face. Of course, that’s never stopped Democrats before.
As we saw last week, the left isn’t above writing new law from the bench to suit “community” demands.
If you’ve had a checkup over the past ten years, you may have noticed your doctor (or their nurses) asking you or your kids if there are any guns in the house.
It is, of course, part of a politically-motivated campaign to a) try to compile “public health” data attacking our right to keep and bear arms, and b) an attempt by left-leaning medical organizations to use the prestige of the medical profession to bully people out of owning guns.
I’ve always answered “No”. I figure “backdoor to registration”.
Turns out there may be a better approach to take.
In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, the vultures at the Brady Institute for Gun Grabbing filed a large, punitive lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, an ammunition vendor where Adam Lanza apparently purchased his ammunition.
The courts threw out the suit with prejudice, ordering Brady to pay over $111,000 in court and legal costs to Lucky Gunner.
Lucky Gunner is donating the entire cash award to gun rights organizations around the country – depending on their vote totals in a national poll.
And the good folks at the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance would deeply appreciate as many votes as they can get.
What is one thing, besides mountains, that Colorado has that Minnesota doesn’t?
Amy Klobuchar giving them the unvarnished facts about her beliefs:
Senator Klobuchar was the first woman elected to represent the State of Minnesota in the U.S. Senate when she took office in 2007. She was interviewed by Walter Issacson, CEO of the Aspen Institute, in one of the first events of the 2015 Aspen Ideas Festival.
“What I will never, ever forget was this one mother who said they were all in the firehouse after the shooting,” [at Sandy Hook] said Klobuchar. “And one by one, the kids would come in from the school. After about a few hours had passed, the parents that were left knew that their kids were never coming back into that firehouse.”
Her story left the entire room quiet, the silence only being punctured by sniffling and crying.
“So when you sit there with those parents and think of the courage that they have and think that the Senate did not have the courage to pass a simple background check bill, it was really the lowest,” said Klobuchar, adding that the possibility that the Senate could do something about gun control would be a step forward.
Hmm. She seemed pretty quiet about background checks in 2012 and 2014…
…here at home, at least.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that you want to join a gun rights group.
Let’s say that you don’t read this blog – or worse, you read it, but don’t take it seriously. So you don’t know, or haven’t taken seriously, the news that the group “Minnesota Gun Rights”, is basically a Potemkin fundraising front the transfers money from Minnesota to Iowa, and spends a bare minimum of it on Minnesota political campaigning.
You send in your hard-earned money.
“These are the people that we report to – not a boss 1,000 miles away who doesn’t understand Iowa and what Iowans want”.
That may be the most hilariously ironic slip of all this group’s hilariously ironic slips.
If you were this fictional person, who might now be wondering “hey, maybe there’s a point to all the things that people’ve been saying about Minnesota Gun Rights“, you might follow up by asking the people looking out for your
Iowegian Minnesotan gun rights a few questions:
- What “backroom deals” are you referring to, and what specifically was wrong with them? What rights did they cost me, or anyone, in
- Precisely what “bribes” are you referring to? That sounds pretty serious, so please be very specific.
- What rights have existing groups – the NRA, GOCRA and others – “bargained away”? Again, since I’m a concerned shooter, this sounds really serious. Please be very, totally, utterly specific.
Let me know if you hear back from them.
Wherever you live.
The Tea Party and me go way back.
In 2009 and 2010, I spoke at a couple of the big Tea Party rallies, including the big Tax Day 2010 rally at the Capitol, as well as more in other, smaller locales.
At the time, the Tea Party was a fairly organic thing; lots of little groups of people, angry about Obamacare and taxes and immigration and gun control and the general sense that Obama was going to sap the bejeebers out of whatever liberty, economic future and choice we had left.
One of my big memories of my big speech was asking the crowd “How many of you voted Republican in 2008?”. About half the crowd cheered. “How many voted Democrat?” A few people cheered, gingerly. “How many voted Ron Paul?” Many cheered lustily. “How many would rather jab a screwdriver into your skull than vote for Ron Paul?” Other cheered with gusto. “How many of you didn’t care because you hated politics?” Many, many cheered.
What made the Tea Party so fun at the time was that it was that, as I discovered in my speech, it was a little bit of everyone. And it worked; the Tea Party, and its outpouring of energy, was disproportionally responsible for flipping both chambers of the Minnesota House in 2010.
It was the biggest political tent I’d ever seen – because nobody involved knew enough to try to keep anyone out (except, of course, for liberals carrying signs designed to make the Tea Party look bad; we kept them out pretty handily).
The Tea Party – at least a part of the big, decentralized whole, anyway – seems to have unlearned that vital lesson.
Jack Rogers and Jake Duesenberg have built up a pretty big network of Tea Party groups around the metro. The groups involve big monthly meetings, speakers, lots of education…
…and, well, I’m not sure what.
The other day on the Tea Party podcast with Jack Rogers and Jake Duesenberg, they took a run at the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance – one of the most accomplished, successful civil rights groups in the state.
Here’s what they had to say:
To closely paraphrase Duesenberg (it’s the first half of the clip above) – GOCRA does some big things, but they do it by playing the political game with politicians. By doing this, they make incremental improvements, but fail to go for the BIG improvements in gun rights.
I think Duesenberg is trying to compare GOCRA’s approach – he calls it “Access-Based”, which to the non-access-based is a term that means “belonging to the country club” – with some of the more confrontation-based groups, whose model is based more around making a big noise (almost always in front of people who vigorously agree with you). Groups like “Minnesota Gun Rights”, the Iowa-based group we’ve written about in the past, as well as some of the “liberty” groups that focus on building large groups of followers, and then…
…well, we’ll get back to that.
Of course, if you want to focus on confrontation, it helps to show you’re able to go politically medieval on your opponent. For example: while GOCRA certainly can work the “access” angle, they can also bring the political pain; ask the Capitol legislative assistants and receptionists how many phone calls they get when GOCRA puts out a call to their troops to melt the phone lines. The phone lines melt; tens of thousands of calls, emails, letters and visits follow. And behind those calls are votes; when GOCRA decided to confront the outstate DFLers in 2002 on “Shall Issue” carry reform, every single outstate DFLer that’d voted against carry permit reform lost their election. Carry permit reform followed in the next session.
After 25 years of “access-based” lobbying mixed with “kicking opponents asses at the polls”, GOCRA has achieved something any grass-roots group should sit back and study; we’ve got a legislature where the GOP is 100% pro-gun, and where even the DFL is about evenly split, giving pro-gun forces a solid majority. Think how much shooters in Colorado – where the push this past session was led by the “confrontation-based” National Association of Gun Rights, and was a complete fiasco – would like to have such a situation.
And between the combination of access-based influence carrots and “Bring the Pain!” political sticks, GOCRA got a hell of a lot done this session; barring gun confiscations in emergencies, repealing the capitol felony trap, expanding carry permit reciprocity, and bringing Minnesota into line with federal law on Suppressors and purchase of long arms in noncontiguous states. Is there more to do? Absolutely; much of it depends on getting a GOP governor into office.
So what has the Tea Party done lately?
I’m not saying that to needle Jack and Jake; I say let a thousand flowers bloom.
But when you say “GOCRA would like…” to a legislator, they sit up and pay attention – either because they like or respect GOCRA and its leadership, or because they loathe but fear them for what they can do at the polls. And when you’re trying to get policy passed, being liked or feared are equally useful.
So here’s your question: when it comes to influencing votes on policy, do people like and respect the Tea Party (or Jake’s guest, “Liberty Minnesota”, a libertarian group that seems to spend a lot of time riffing on Republicans and, occasionally, obliquely, DFLers) enough to extend themselves on their behalf when it comes to voting on policy?
Or, failing that, do they legitimately fear what the Jack and Jake Brigade is going to do to them at the polls in November?
As someone who was doing the Tea Party before the cool kids were involved, I’d love to see the Tea Party legitimately do all three.
Can anyone honestly say they do?
Because until they do, they’re no better than the Libertarian Party; a bunch of people sitting around a room vigorously agreeing with each other.
Bonus Question: To pick a constitutional liberty out of the ether for an example; how do you think “Constitutional Carry” – changing Minnesota to a “no permit” state, like Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona or Kansas – is going to happen:
- Via a judicious combination of carrots and sticks, both during sessions and on the campaign trail, to get the Legislature to pass it, or
- People sitting around in rooms bellowing about how awful it is that it hasn’t been passed yet?
As I was digging around through the Campaign Finance Board’s lobbying reports yesterday, I happened upon this little bon mot among “Everytown for ‘Gun Safety'” “Minnesota’s” various disclosures:
First – to the surprise of absolutely nobody who hasn’t been marinading their head in “progressive” kool-aid – “Everytown for Gun ‘Safety'” “Minnesota” is (see the upper red rectangle) based in New York City; it is about as Minnesotan as open displays of emotion and capable professional sports (I say this so as not to jinx the Twins with unseemly optimism).
And in the lower rectangle?
They’re gone. Done. Hanging up their scolding sticks and sending their monogrammed checkbooks back to New York and jabbering away into the sunset.
This, after outspending the pro-human rights, Real Americans who support our civil liberties by a lopsided margin.
I’m sure they’ll be back for 2016, of course – if not as “Everytown”, as something else; maybe “No More Dead Children Inc” or something equally measured and rational.
But for now? It’s like the Germans racing back across the Rhine in the summer of 1944.
And that’s a good thing – if you’re on the right side.
Pooing Where They Eat: The funny part – if you’re a Real Minnesotan – is that when Bloomberg rolled into town with his armored car full of cash, he basically told the local pro-gun-confiscation group, “Protect” MN, and “Moms Want Action”, to sit down and shut up and let the competent folks do the thinking.
And so while in the past election and session Everytown disclosed a metric poop-ton of spending, as we pointed out yesterday, “Protect” MN spent not one dime on lobbying.
Again, have no fear; Bloomie will be back. So will the blow-dried slickee boys who tried to browbeat the legislators during this past session and election.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
The South Carolina church shooter killed people for their race. He owns a Glock. Which is made in Austria. So was Hitler. Who also killed people for their race.
It all makes sense, now. Stop the Senseless Slaughter! Immigration Reform Now! Ban Austrians, All Their Works!
What the heck, it makes as much sense as the other people seizing this tragedy to flog their pet agendas.
It’s time the President got tough on Rhodesia. I’m sure he’ll put Joe Biden on the job.
For well over a decade, “Protect MN” – it’s changed its name several times since it started way back when – has been the dotty, not-too-bright face of the gun control movement in Minnesota.
While the wave of Michael Bloomberg money in 2013 moved the center of gravity over to “Everytown for Gun Safety” and its “local” affiliate, Heather Martens has remained an inescapable farce in Minnesota politics.
Force. I meant force. Honest. I’ll catch it in post-production. Sorry.
But a correspondent who follows these things found this bon mot during some recreational reading of state Campaign Finance Board filings.
First things first: Like every human being with a living soul, I abhor the violence that took place yesterday in Charleston, South Carolina.
While one can expect the Obama Justice Department’s to politicize this episode for all it’s worth (more later), in this case the hate crime investigation seems entirely warranted; the alleged shooter, who seems at first glance to be a fairly demented young man, gives off a lot of the surface signs of being motivated by some form of racial hatred or another, rather than mere insanity.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
My neighbor just renewed her Permit to Vote. She’s good to go for another five years.
You didn’t know about that? Oh yes, it turns out that voting is not a Right protected by the Constitution, it’s a Privilege given by the government to those who qualify. Applicants must be over 21 years of age, reside in this country legally, take a class at personal expense, demonstrate proper technique before a certified evaluator, show photo ID and submit an application with payment of fees to the County, authorize release of medical data and criminal history . . . it’s fairly involved, requires planning ahead and costs a bit of money. But the permit is necessary to ensure the integrity of the election process which is the foundation of American government, so it’s a common sense voter-control requirement.
Wait, did I say Vote? I meant Carry. Sorry, my bad.
This could lead to all sort of “Vote Safety” legislation
Fresch Fisch, from Saint Paul, emails:
Currently happening, June 11 to 16. Alexandria MN. 5600 students high school Trap students participating in the MN High School Clay Target Championships! Six full days, six divisions, 900+ students per day.
You say, just what does the largest shooting competition in the world look like? A drone’s eye view!
I was there Sunday and it was totally awesome.
Not only is it the fastest growing high school sport in Minnesota and America, but it gives the world’s Bloombots acid reflux.
And that alone is an unalloyed good.
When I first got involved in politics, and political punditry, 30 years ago the gun control movement was pretty much at its apex.
The media glibly reported that “85% of Americans favored gun control” (although naturally they never broke out what form of gun control those 85% favored).
Accurate and honestly reported or not, the surveys had a point; a plurality, if not a majority, of Americans were uncomfortable around guns.
I’m not exactly sure what the answer to this poll question would’ve been in 1985 – but the verdict today is unmistakable:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% of Likely U.S. Voters would feel safer living in a neighborhood where nobody was allowed to own a gun over one where they could have a gun for their own protection. Sixty-eight percent (68%) would feel safer in a neighborhood where guns are allowed, while 10% are not sure.
The national survey of 977 Likely Voters was conducted on June 8-9, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
This poll is not grounds for complacency, much less overconfidence.
But it does show how powerful at least one facet of conservative ideology can be, when a group of motivated grassroots people search their minds to it, and devotes the time and patience it takes to make the changes stick.
A woman in Detroit shows why magazine limits lead to dead innocent civilians:
DETROIT, MICHIGAN — Around 3am Tuesday morning, 5 men entered a Detroit home, however they became quickly aware that they picked the wrong house.
The 34-year-old woman inside the home is a concealed carry permit holder, and she wasted no time firing on the suspects. The suspects ended up exchanging shots with the woman, and she suffered a gunshot wound to her leg.
Of course, being a news media story, it is entirely focused on irrelevancies – she was in her house, so her carry permit was irrelevant.
The real point is this; sometimes thugs are the obliging enough to come to you in ones and twos.