The Fort Lauderdale airport?
Yep – it was a “gun free zone“:
The Fort Lauderdale airport?
Yep – it was a “gun free zone“:
Behold the spokeswoman for Minnesota’s minority community.
It’s Heather Martens, longtime “executive director” and, for most of the decade, pretty much sole “member” of “Protect” Minnesota, a criminal-safety group famous for its comic ineptitude.
She left “Protect” Minnesota a while ago; word has it that MIchael Bloomberg realized that he’d be throwing even more money away if he was filtering it through her; Minnesota’s Criminal Safety movement is essentially run from New York today (the Reverend Nancy Nord Bence notwithstanding).
Given that she isn’t formally involved in the Criminal Safety movement anymore, I’m not sure why the Strib is giving her free space to recite her chanting points.
But give her space, they did, last Friday. The op-ed was titled “Story on ‘gun rush’ by minorities lacked evidence”. And I’ll had Martens this much; she’s an expert at “lack of evidence”; she makes Jesse Ventura look like Alan Dershowitz.
I was disappointed in the Star Tribune’s article “New fear bolsters gun rush in state” (Jan. 1), which amounted to a grossly misleading advertisement for the gun industry.
If Andrew Rothman ordered a pizza in the woods, and Heather Martens wasn’t there to hear it, would he still be “advertising for the gun industry?”
The subheading, “Worried for their safety, minorities have increased applications since Nov.,” is not supported by any information in the article. The article itself states, “There is no data on the number of Muslim-Americans buying guns, and permit application records don’t reveal demographic information beyond the age, gender and the county of the applicant.”
One suspects Heather would recoil in horror at the notion of registering Muslims for any other reason – but she wouldn’t mind making the rest of us walk around with yellow “gun” shapes sewed to our shirts.
The only evidence of a “rush” on guns by Somalis and other minorities is the word of gun lobbyist Andrew Rothman and the existence of one minority gun group.
There may or may not have been any such rush on guns.
Which may or may not undercut the entire stated point of this op-ed.
You’ve got to hand it to Rothman, however. He scored, with no proof, a front-page story normalizing gun carrying for a market the gun lobby has been unsuccessfully pursuing for years.
And since Ms. Martens is putatively concerned about “evidence”, we’ll await her proof that the surge, if any (heh heh), is in any way related to “gun lobby” marketing efforts, rather than minorities, gays and liberals discovering what Second Amendment supporters of all races (including Dr. Martin Luther King) have always known.
Now for the reality. Gallup’s research shows that American household gun ownership reached a near-historic low of 37 percent in 2014, compared with 57 percent in 1977. According to the General Social Survey, overall household gun ownership has dropped fairly steadily for decades (though a small number of people continue to increase their already large collections, keeping the gun industry profitable).
And, as pointed out in this space, the Gallup Poll was a fairly risible effort – a telephone poll of a “minority” in this country, before the last election, when gun owners were legitimately reticent about talking. Thin evidence? Perhaps – but then, given Gallup’s performance in the last presidential election, not as bad as I might have once admitted.
Speaking of thin evience, it’s the point of the article where Ms. Martens drops a series of unsupported-to-fictional statements in hopes of gulling the gullible – a practice I call “Heathering”.
There are many reasons most Americans, including minorities, aren’t behaving the way the gun lobby wants.
So while neither Martens nor (for sake of argument) Rothman “has any evidence”, Martens states this as a conclusive fact?
First, bringing a gun into the home puts the family at greater risk of injury or death. The Annals of Internal Medicine reported in a 2014 meta-analysis that a gun in the home doubles the risk of homicide and triples the risk of suicide. Unsecured guns also pose a lethal threat to young children.
And without context, that sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it?
Of course, the study doesn’t control for who it is doing the shooting; is the gun “in the house” of a felon? A gang member?
As usual, Martens seems to think that simple hardware corrupts people.
The push to market guns to people of color is particularly ironic in light of the gun industry’s history of championing an extreme white supremacist agenda.
As has been noted in the past, this is a complete fiction. The National Rifle Association armed Martin Luther King’s bodyguards, and allowed them to train at their range in Virginia – one of very very few integrated facilities in the DC area in 1960.
In 1977, extremists took over the formerly moderate National Rifle Association. In the post-civil rights movement era, the NRA found it advantageous to play on white Americans’ fear of people of color, and the organization has now become a platform for racist rhetoric from white supremacists…
OK! Strap yourselves in! She’s going for the big claim here!
Here comes the “Evidence” she was talking about! Here’s where she’s going to deliver on her claims!
Wait for it…wait for it…
….like board member Ted Nugent.
An over the hill rocker and loose rhetorical cannon who’s said some deeply stupid things.
Feel free to pony up the evidence, Heather. You’re verging on defamation, here.
Still – her claim about Nugent – devoid of fact as it is – is about as close as she’ll get to a fact in the rest of her wrticle.
In 2003, when [shall-issue carry] was being debated here in Minnesota, proponents dismissed all predictions of political intimidation with guns. But such intimidation is now commonplace. Men (it is almost entirely men) now openly carry loaded weapons to legislative hearings about guns at the State Capitol and to other government meetings and political events.
Intimidation? With guns?
Why, that’s illegal!
Surely there were complaints filed, police called, a paper trail created?
No. There was not. What happened was a group of people, following the law to the letter, did something they were legally entitled to do. The Capitol Police say, openly, that the carriers were among the most diligently law-abiding people in the building.
There was no “intimidation”.
Ms. Martens – feeling “intimidated” by law-abiding people doing things that are perfectly legal is your prerogative. Whining about it puts you on par with people who don’t like being in rooms with black people.
A gun-toting group took over a national wildlife refuge in Oregon, with no legal consequences.
Ms. Martens is apparently as ignorant about the Fifth Amendment as she is of the Second; there were legal consequences. There were arrests, arraignments, a trial…
…and an acquittal. That, Ms. Martens, is a legal consquence.
Following a shooting last year in Minneapolis at a demonstration led by people of color, one man whom a prosecutor identified as a “white supremacist” is soon to be tried on charges of shooting and wounding peaceful demonstrators.
Well, wait, Ms. Martens – there’s going to be a trial. At issue was whether the protesters were peaceful, or in fact a legitimate threat of death or great bodily harm, potentially leading to a self-defense claim. Until then, the suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
Now, this blog has made great sport of pointing out, debunking, and roundly mocking Ms. Martens’ endless parade of lies – all the while scampering away from any engagement from those who know better.
And it’s all been good clean political fun, as these things go, so far.
But next, Martens slides over the edge, from being a befuddled ninny to complete moral depravity.
Gun carry laws don’t go far enough for those who want to return to the “good old days” when it was easier for white men to kill black men with impunity.
We carry guns because we want to kill black people?
Wow. And Martens thought Rothman made a claim with no evidence.
It seems I’ve been giving Martens too much credit all these years; where I used to think she was just a gabbling ninny, it seems she’s really something much, much less innocent.
That’s why the gun lobby invented “Stand Your Ground” or “Shoot First” laws, which allow a person to shoot and kill, in public, anyone they deem threatening — and people of color are well aware who that means.
Well, no – that’s not how “stand your ground” works.
But “people of color” are aware of what the law means; they use “Stand Your Ground” in self-defense cases twice as much per capita as white shooters.
In Heather Martens’ weird little world, where black people are nothing but hapless victims, I’m sure that comes as a shock.
So let’s recap: in a column where Heather Martens accuses Andrew Rothman of presenting no evidence to support his claim, she presents…at best no evidence to support any claim, and at worst, evidence that debunks her and, finally, marks her as a fairly toxic little person.
Dear Minnesota Minorities: you might want to specifically terminate Ms. Martens as your official spokesperson.
Nine guns were purchased last year for every 100 Americans:
The numbers do not include many guns sold to or given to friends and family.
Sales hit record levels for some 19 months in a row as the number of terrorist attacks around the world and here at home increased, driving purchases by those seeking protection. The increase paralleled increases in those seeking a license to carry a concealed weapon.
The battle over gun control is a fundamentally class-based one – and the proles won.
Complacency is misplaced.
Gun-control melodrama Miss Sloane has bombed at the box office.
Well, no. That understates it. Howard the Duck and Ishtar bombed. Miss Sloane was dropped from a single B-29, and like that iconic single bomb, has a decent shot at helping to bring a war to an end.
After lavish television advertising – Miss Sloane had a bigger TV budget than the inescapable Rogue One – and fawning reviews from liberal critics and media, the movie earned $3.2 million dollars. Which, divided by the number of screens and a $10 ticket price, meant an average of around ten people attending each showing.
And it wasn’t for lack of trying to get people to show up. Out of the 200 highest-grossing movies of 2016, only ten exceeded the $15.9 million television advertising budget of Miss Sloane, and seven of those did so by very small amounts. Miss Sloane spent more than the Star Wars spinoff Rogue One, Star Trek, Pete’s Dragon, Arrival, Doctor Strange, and Hacksaw Ridge. It had twice the advertising budget of such hits as Sully, The Girl on the Train, and The Secret Life of Pets. For every dollar spent on advertising, Miss Sloane brought in just 21 cents in ticket sales. By this measure, it came in dead last out of the 200 top-grossing movies in 2016. No one else was even close. Coming in second-to-last was Collateral Beauty, which made 53 cents per advertising dollar. The average movie made almost $2 for each dollar spent on advertising.
Of course, the movie’s core conceit – that gun grabbers are a bunch of plucky, underfunded underdogs, duking it out with a “gun lobby” that is floating in money – is a preposterous fiction. Michael Bloomberg and other anti-gun plutocrats fund the “safe criminal” movement lavishly.
For example, here in Minnesota during the 2016 campaign, groups affiliated with the safe criminal lobby spent well over a million dollars – easily ten times as much as the Human Rights movement did – and employed at least four full-time paid staffers. Not a single person in Minnesota is paid to lobby the legislature or organize the community; the movement is entirely volunteers, working on their own time out of pure devotion to the Bill of Rights. In other states – Nevada, Washington, Maine – the spending ratio was closer to 30 to 1.
I suspect most Americans can tell the movie doesn’t pass the stink test; Sloane’s premise reeks like a full pea-soup diaper on a dog day in the bayou.
And its failure is of a piece with the collapse, over the past fifteen years, of nearly every single Hollywood anti-war movie.
When I saw the trailer – during one of my ever-so-brief episodes of watching broadcast TV – I heard the trailer in the background. I think it was the normally-excellent Sam Waterson, playing one of the “gun lobby” bad guys. I think I envisioned a character wearing a black cape and top hat, twisting a painstakingly-maintained handlebar mustache as he tied Ms. Chastain…er, Sloane to the tracks. I actually laughed out loud.
But hey, Hollywood; keep ’em coming.
SCENE: Mitch BERG is leaving Alary’s after a Bears game, when he runs into MyLyssa SILBERMAN, reporter for National Public Radio’s Saint Paul bureau. Dressed in a hemp power skirt, her brunette-but-slightly-prematurely-gray hair cut into the style known as “ELCA Hair”, she is on her way from her Lowertown condo to the MPR building.
SILBERMAN: (In her “NPR” voice – a nasal brogue that bespeaks an Ivy League education, and sounds like it may have ironic clarinet music in the background) Mr. Berg.
BERG: Oh, hello, MyLyssa.
SILBERMAN: So you’re still a Second Amendment activist?
BERG: I am.
SILBERMAN: And you oppose closing the “Gun Show Loophole” with mandatory registration?
SILBERMAN: Why? It’s clearly commonsense.
BERG: I’m going to refute you with an NPR story. Yesterday, NPR reported that the Obama Administration has done away with a 9/11-era program that allowed the creation of a registry of people from several countries linked to terrorist activities. (BERG draws iPhone from pocket, shuffles through to find a recording). I believe this the report, from NPR’s Tom Gjelten:
GJELTEN: Among those who would speak out – the American Civil Liberties Union. Hina Shamsi is the national security director there.
HINA SHAMSI: We would absolutely oppose this program. And as we have said, if this form of discriminatory registry is put in place, we stand ready to sue and to challenge it.
(BERG stops the recording)
SILBERMAN: Right. So?
BERG: Listen to this next bit. I’ll crank up the volume for a few parts”
GJELTEN: A new registry could bring out law-abiding Muslims. But human rights lawyer Banafsheh Akhlaghi says it would probably not reveal the would-be terrorists the government should be worried about.
AKHLAGHI: They aren’t going to voluntarily come into a federal building, give you their fingerprints, give you their name and their identity and allow you to take photographs of them. The good guys do that.
(BERG stops the recording again)
BERG: So terrorists aren’t going to come in and register themselves…
SILBERMAN: Right. That’s absurd.
BERG: Exactly. But criminals – people who commit violence with guns? They will come in and, in effect, register with a background check when they buy guns?
SILBERMAN: You are clearly “fake news”.
2015; gun ownership is the province of bitter, gun cleaning Jesus freaks
2015; gun ownership is the province of bitter, gun clinging Jesus freaks
2016: it’s something liberals, suddenly, do.
SCENE: Mitch BERG is shopping for a generator at Menard’s. As he pores over the spec sheet, Moonbeam BIRKENSTOCK steps around the corner.
BIRKENSTOCK: Merg! The “christian” college, “Liberty University”, is building a gun violence range for its students.
BERG: It’s a gun range. And so what?
BIRKENSTOCK: It’s weird.
BERG: Hardly. It’s a conservative institution. Many of its students are shooters. The campus 2nd Amendment group is large and active, and shootings sports are popular among students. It’s not unreasonable to assume that a shooting-sports-friendly campus is going to be a draw for students who are, like most Liberty students, to the right of center.
BIRKENSTOCK: But guns on campus! Isn’t that just kind of weird? Shouldn’t school be a place of non-violence?
BERG: Non-violence? You mean like “gun-free” Virginia Tech?
BERG: Where a gunman killed 32 students and faculty?
BIRKENSTOCK: Don’t confuse me with irrelevant details.
BERG: Er, right. So – why should Liberty not provide that facility, if it’s an obvious marketing spiff for them?
BIRKENSTOCK: There should be no guns at places of higher learning.
BERG: Question for you, Moonbeam: should colleges teach abstinence only sex education?
BIRKENSTOCK: Good heavens, no. That never works!
BERG: Because people naturally gravitate toward things they enjoy?
BERG: So abstinence only education can not work when it comes to sex, but is the only acceptable solution when it comes to guns?
BIRKENSTOCK: Why do you hate women and minorities?
In New York City police precinct released this tweet over the weekend
From the top, The “arsenal” includes:
We get it – it’s dangerous being a cop. Weapons in the hands of ne’er-do-wells are a bad thing.
But this sort of thing bespeaks one of two things:
You know what’s got my vote.
Dimes will get you dollars it fooled the average New Yorker and/or “gun sense” ninny.
Not that you’d know if have a life, but Minnesota’s little coterie of gun-grabber groups had a “March” yesterday.
Of course, they didn’t march where the actual violence was. They “marched” about the tony, safe fields of Boom Island, nestled into the upscale neighborhood across the river from Downtown Minneapolis; close to the killing fields of North Minneapolis as the crow flies, but still a million miles away.
The ELCA Hair was safely covered with hand-knit artisanal wool caps. The orange Dreamsicle t-shirts were covered by more North Face on the “Marchers” than on the actual north face of any mountain in the area.
There was much misplaced bravado, at least on social media (“SEE YOU AT THE CAPITOL” indeed – but not for long, since not a single one of your bills will make it to the floor of the GOP controlled legislature, absent some hue and cry to do so – and the last election pretty well refudiated the notion that there is any such hue and cry).
But there was one other “Marcher” that drew this blog’s interest:
It’s a Minneapolis police lieutenant (I won’t name him), wearing a Dreamsicle cap.
Leftenant: you’re wearing a cap from a group that wants to deny a God-given liberty to law-abiding American citizens, along with your uniform and badge.
Does this give us some idea of the treatment law-abiding gun owners can expect in your area of responsibility?
I can’t imagine that this is legal, even under Janae Harteau’s special-interest-friendly set of policies.
If you’re a law-abiding citizen in Minneapolis who exercises your Second Amendment rights, be careful.
But you knew that.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Dear Facebook Friend:
When someone with a knife hurts a bunch of people in St. Cloud, you tell me knives are no problem.
When someone with a car hurts a bunch of people in Ohio, you tell me cars are no problem.
When someone with a gun hurts a single person in Chicago, you say we must lock up all the guns in the nation.
I’m not seeing the rationale. Is the real problem the tool used to do the hurting, or the people doing the hurting?
Are you certain we’re locking up the right thing?
I think it’s mostly the liberal imperative to “do something”.
Although it’s pronounced more like “dooooooooo something” for full effect.
North Carolina congressman starts the ball rolling on carry permit reciproity:
Rep. Richard Hudson, R-North Carolina, says he is preparing legislation that would allow those with concealed carry permits in their state to cross state lines.
According to the Daily Caller, Hudson’s legislation would allow people with a state-issued concealed carry license to carry a handgun to any other state that allows concealed carry if the person is not banned from possessing or transporting a firearm by federal law.
For your less logically gifted liberal friends, what this means is this: people who have proven that they have clean criminal records, and often training in self-defense law will have their carry permits recognized by other states, just like drivers licenses. These are people whose crime rate is two orders of magnitude less than then general public; the record over thfis past twenty years, in every single state, shows that carry permittees are vastly, vastly safer per capita, than the general public.
Of course, the Dems will filibuster it in the Senate, if it comes up to a vote there.
Let them. Record every worfd for 2018. Non-urban Demcoxrats will go extinct.
My theory: the Democrats, and left-leaning groups in general, are turning their focus to making big, broad, platitudinous statements designed to sound good to people who don’t really think about issues all that hard.
Last week was a case in point; the Strib was pimping a piece purporting to show the costs of “gun violence”, as well as some proposed “solutions”.
The piece – an “analytical report” by Americans for Responsible Solutions, which is the Gabby Giffords checkbook advocacy group – claims to run down the costs of “gun violence”.
And it starts off with a local example:
One recent tragedy at a small law firm in the Cathedral Hill area of St. Paul illustrates this all too well. On April 7, 2016, a disgruntled former client, Ryan David Petersen, entered the offices of North Star Criminal Defense, located on the second floor of the historic Dacotah Building, intending to kill either Dan Adkins, one of the firm’s managing partners, or Chase Passauer, the firm’s office manager. Petersen arrived at the office before Dan did and directed his focus on Chase—shooting him eight times with a .40 caliber handgun. The 23-year-old died in his office chair.3 Chase, a recent graduate of the University of Minnesota, had wanted to become a lawyer to help others before his life was cut short by…
Let’s stop right there.
Who killed Chase Passauer? Was Ryan Peterson:
We’ll come back to that.
Wait! You Ignored Change Under Bus Seats!: The report goes into some depth on the costs of single incidents of “gun violence” – noting that the medical costs of even a single episode of “gun violence” are astronomical; the average cost of a fatal shooting is over $40K; of non-fatal shootings, over $60,000.
Well, yeah – the cost of healthcare is pretty high for everyone. It’s been in all the papers.
It also notes that the cost of investigating the crimes, trying to cases, and incarcerating offenders is way, way up there:
According to estimates by PIRE, the average cost of a police investigation and related criminal justice expenses for a fatal shooting is $439,217.13 Criminal justice expenses include salaries and benefits for public officials such as judges, prosecutors, and public defenders, as well as the cost of incarceration, which in a federal facility averages more than $30,000 per year for each inmate.14 Minnesota taxpayers spend approximately $45,688 per year incarcerating each inmate in state prisons
Yep. Lawyers, judges and prisons don’t come cheap.
So the alternative is…what?
Does harassing the law-abiding gun owner in any way address this? Other than creating more felons?
The report also goes through costs to employers – like Mr. Passauer’s – as well as, incredibly, lost wages. Not only those of the victim…:
According to data derived from the PIRE cost of injury model, the average value of lost work for a single fatal shooting is $1,742,722, while for a nonfatal shooting requiring hospitalization, the figure is $81,559.
When a gunshot victim…
…but also the perp:
…or incarcerated perpetrator is an income earner for his or her family—especially the primary breadwinner—the impact of lost wages on the family can be severe.
Ah. Clearly the answer is to not send murderers to jail.
Well, no. That’s not what the report suggests.
Where Have We Seen This?: The report does suggest “solutions”.
The Economic Cost of Gun Violence in Minnesota identifies three sets of solutions, each addressing a specific risk factor: universal background checks for gun sales, neighborhood revitalization programs, and hospital-based violence intervention strategies. The investment required to implement these lifesaving solutions is minuscule compared to the yearly cost of gun violence in our state.
“Hospital based violence intervention strategies” – trying to talk victims and perpetrators out of lives of violence – might be less stupid. As the report rather un-PC-ly notes:
“Interpersonal shootings disproportionately involve young men of color living in underserved neighborhoods, so any effective violence intervention strategy must focus attention on this at-risk population.
…where “underserved neighborhoods” is PC code for “crime-ridden cesspool in a city ruined by decades of Democrat rule”, dealing with those actually involved in the vast majority of criminal shootings might actually make sense.
On the other hand, we’ve been trying “neighborhood revitalization” for decades. It turns out that prosperity – organic, market prosperity, not government subsidy – and law and order, and lots of both, is the only real neighborhood revitalization program that works – and that doesn’t happen in inner cities run by Democrats.
Of course, that could happen.
But as to “universal background checks?”
I’d love to ask the people who wrote this report: “So tell me how the people who are committing the vast majority of the crime today – who overwhelmingly use guns that are stolen, purchased by straw buyers, or, in the world of gangs, often shared among gang members in multiple crimes – who aren’t currently getting background checks, are supposed to start getting them?
Which takes us back to Chase Passauer.
A Minor Technicality: In re the murder of Mr. Passauer, the report notes that Ryan Peterson was, in fact…
a convicted felon who was legally prohibited from possessing a gun.
Who would not have taken a background check.
Whether his neighborhood was revitalized, and whether a social worker talked with him at a hospital, or not.
Levi Strauss and company has opted to make their stores criminal-safe.
Moms Want Action is all tingly about it – which, of course, means royalties for stock photo vendors!~
To be honest, I haven’t bought Levis in years; for the same money, Duluth jeans are much much better, and given their clientele, they’re way too smart to post their stores.
But if you’re so inclined, drop Levi Strauss a line. Their Facebook page is a good place to send a message.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
The authorities insist there is no evidence the Ohio State attacker had a membership card from ISIS. Another member of Local 473 of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolf Muslim Terrorists.
Seriously, how many “lone wolves” does it take to make a pack? Can’t anybody in the media admit there’s a pattern to this violence?
Not just a pattern – a motivator.
ISIS is specifically targeting people in the west who are susceptible to being teased into becoming martyrs to do exactly this sort of thing, via their online and media outreach. Their website and (very slick) magazine show would-be martyrs how to carry out mass shootings (likely including San Bernardino, Orlando and, quite possibly, Saint Cloud), vehicle attacks (like Nice, France and of course OSU), IEDs (like the Boston Marathon), and, well, stabblings.
So yes – it’s an asynchronous pack.
And we know that the only response to a pack is a bigger, better, and still more civilized pack. Which at least some people in Ohio get.
To: Mother Jones Magazine
From: Mitch Berg, Deplorable Peasant
Ordinarily, I eschew schadenfreud.
However, please be advised that I will gargle with your tears.
That is all.
This past three weeks has been fascinating; I’ve watched a whole lot of people I’d considered fairly rational, sensible people completely losing their grip on reality. I could talk – “joke”, sure, what the heck – about how people on the political left frequently seem groaningly ignorant about history, but that’s a separate subject for another time.
I’ve seen some of them writing or sharing *precisely* the sort of end-of-the-world apocalyptic gloom and doom that they were mocking *some* Republicans for writing eight years ago – advice about surviving the end of civilization, the fall of civil society, barbarians at the gates, pretty much the whole “Walking Dead” bit.
The part that has me the most interested, though, is the dark, furtive references some of them are making to “resisting”…whatever it is they’re worried about. Some are even taking measures they’d considered downright unholy – indeed, measures that a month ago most of them were working to foreclose.
And while I detest schadenfreud, I just have to ask those liberals; are you finally starting to understand (however irrationally and mistakenly) why some of us bitter, gun-clinging deplorables fought to hard to protect the *originalist* interpretation of the Second Amendment?
Maybe just a little?
Moms Want Action – the pro-criminal group funded entirely by liberal plutocrat Michael Bloomberg – posted this over the weekend:
Oh, that’s so cute. A group of smug, privileged, Whole-Foods-shopping, MPR-listening, Subaru driving insta-activists say “it’s on”.
No, ma’am (including that “mom” with the beard in the back row on the left). You’re wrong.
It was “on” on election night, when the plutocrat who owns your organization, Michael Bloomberg, spent nearly a million dollars in Minnesota. To capture two seats (and lose several more ).
And even that’s not completely right. It’s been “on” for thirty years. Millions of Real Americans – men, women, black and white, urban and rural – started giving your boogeyman, the “gun lobby”, some actual teeth.
So go ahead. Prance around at your “rallies” in the safe parts of downtown, and in Eagan in your Dreamsicle t-shirts. Parrot the same lies the good guys have been shredding for decades just a few more times. Get bored and walk away again.
We’ll still be here.
And it’ll still be “on”.
A good guy with a gun shoots two robbers at a pizzeria in Levittown, Pennsylvania:
The shooting happened late Tuesday night at Porfirio’s Pizza and Pasta, located in a shopping plaza in Levittown, about 25 miles northeast of Philadelphia.
The customer took out a gun and shot both men after they allegedly pistol-whipped him, Middletown Police Chief Joe Bartorilla told reporters.
The police are still investigating. But I’m pretty sure we all know where this ends up.
Ramsey County attorney John Choi released the findings of the investigation of the Philando Castile shooting. Ramco charged Saint Anthony Park police officer Jeronimo Yanez with second-degree manslaughter in the death of the Saint Paul school employee last summer.
There are better commentators on the legalities and the sociology of this incident than me.
But there’s one angle that might be of some concern to those of you who exercise your second amendment rights. Castile was a carry permittee – meaning he had a clean criminal record (which also enabled him to get a job in a public school).
When you go through carry permit class, you’re taught that getting stopped by the police while carrying is one of the more dangerous times for a permittee. The rules are vague, and cops are (as we saw in the incident) often badly trained on the law and how to respond to carriers. But there are two generally-accepted trains of thought for the civilian carrier:
According to the evidence released yesterday, Castile went with #2:
Officer Yanez is, of course, innocent until proven guilty.
But – assuming the timeline above is accurate (and that will no doubt be a major subject at trial), it appears officer Yanez had a very intense reaction to…
To the fact that Castile was a black male who, according to some stories circulating last summer, allegedly resembled a suspect in a robbery?
If that were true, Officer Yanez apparently didn’t follow felony stop procedures; he approached it as a stop over a broken tail light. Which might, to the casual observer, make it appear like he wasn’t concerned Castile was the suspect.
Which leaves what? The carry permit status and the gun.
It’s possible Officer Yanez reacted with panic to learning that Castile had a permit and was armed, and over the course of seven seconds, went from asking a question to shooting Castile seven times at point blank range.
We don’t know. We may or may not find out at trial.
But I suspect, at least in part, that the hysteria about carry permittees and their guns spread by the anti-gun groups in this state had a role. Groups like “Protect” Minnesota and “Moms Want Action” have been painstakingly training people, mostly in and near the urban core, to be terrified of firearms in the hands of civilians.
And if that’s true, then there’s blood – the real kind – on the hands of the Reverend Nancy Nord Bence and the rest of the pack of liars she leads.
I’ve said for some time now that there have been two reasons I could get behind Trump; his SCOTUS picks, and his stance on healthcare.
And now there’s a third:
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump — who said he has a concealed carry permit — called for the expansion of gun rights Friday, including making those permits applicable nationwide. In a position paper published on his website Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a “total failure.”
“Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own,” Trump wrote.
And he brings some fairly ineluctible logic to the argument:
The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver’s license, Trump said. “If we can do that for driving — which is a privilege, not a right — then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege,” Trump said.
It may be political red meat to keep his base whipped up.
Trump’s election has thrown a good chunk of the American left for an unexpected loop.
Not least of the loopers is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), famous for “ELCA Hair” and unctuous, smug politics slathered on a fairly neutered reading of the Bible.
And over at their “Engage” blog – the ELCA’s gun-grab propaganda organ, which blindly opposes the Second Amendment and bows down to Michael Bloomberg – they are more depressed than most these days. They posted about the current lay of the land:
The recent election spells difficult days ahead for gun violence prevention (GVP). Trump’s victory, coupled with his blind support of the Second Amendment and bowing to the NRA, spell high odds against any GVP laws being passed.
I’d like to ask someone from “Engage” what exactly they mean by “Blind Support” – but I suspect none of them actually knows.
But I’d very much like to invite a representative from “Engage” onto my show, on any weekend of their choosing. Because I’m dying to find out – among other things.
Similarly, with the Republicans now in control of the Minnesota House and Senate, similar negative progress is probably the norm. Elections matter.
They can take some solace in the fact that they actually haven’t mattered that much for a little over a decade. Even when the DFL controlled both chambers two short years ago, there was a functional pro-Second Amendment majority in the Legislature. You guys have been in a deep hole since about 2002, and it just got a lot deeper.
As it should be.
Now what? We can take heart in Luke 21:5-19. It is the end time of Jesus’ earthly ministry. He has entered Jerusalem. The final countdown has begun. He told his disciples the Temple would be destroyed, they would be persecuted by the state and religious leaders, some of them would be executed, and they would be rejected by friends and family. Yet, these realities would give them the opportunity to give testimony to the truth, and by their persistent endurance in telling the truth in the face of negative odds, they would save their souls.
Right. It’s a great verse – one that’s resonated with a lot of us Second Amendment advocates, especially here in urban areas, for a long time.
The right to defend ourselves, our homes, our families and our society from aggression is granted to us by God Almighty himself.
That right – enabling us to bear the responsibility of defending our earthly freedoms while we’re in this world – is one of few that separates us from subjects of a king or dictator. Without that right and ability, our “rights” merely exist until government – or someone bigger and stronger than us – decides to take them away.
History is full of innocent, unarmed people who were wiped off the map by bigger, stronger people; sometimes the victims shared our faith; sometimes the killers did, too.
Citing Luke indicates you put yourselves in the position of the disciples.
You are not.
You are in the position of Herod’s Jews, the ones that collaborated with the Romans in oppressing other Jews. You are the oppressors, working hand in hand with those who would render us, not citizens, but mere subjects.
And while I’m a subject of God’s kingdom, on this earth, I’m a citizen. Not a subject. And if you want to take that away from me by civil means, last Tuesday’s loss isn’t the last you’re going to face.
By consistently telling the truth in the name of Jesus, we will gain our souls! We will be faithful disciples. God’s grace is sufficient for the task!
I’m not going to speak for God. Neither should you. On this issue, you are not qualified.
I’d be more than happy to debate this – although clearly you don’t have enough faith in God’s grace to face me in a civil discussion.
Well, “Protect Minnesota” certainly seems happy – they broke out the “happy” stock photos yesterday!
So Protect Minnesota is happy about something that happened in California? Why is that?
Because they’ve got nothing to celebrate in Minnesota.
Anti-gun Pro-criminal groups – “Protect” Minnesota and Moms Want Action, which are really nothing but puppets of Everytown, the group controlled and owned by New York plutocrat Michael Bloomberg – spent $800,000 in Minnesota this past cycle, most of it in the past month or so. They heavily targeted several seats: Roz Peterson in Burnsville, Sarah Anderson in Plymouth, and several seats in the purple-ish southwestern suburbs.
And they certainly had some effect…on Democrats, before the election. Rep. Walz, from Southern Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District, who has always made pro-gun noises commensurate with his largely rural district, felt comfortable (or arrogant?) enough circulate a photo of him with a couple of Bloomberg’s Dreamsicles the week before the election:
And at the end of the evening, all of that blood money got them…what?
They spent some of their money on Dave Hann – who was largely toppled by the changing demographics in his bluish-purple district and the mountain of indepedent cash. Their loss – and only tangentially related to the Bloomberg spending.
And one House seat – again, Bloomberg’s cash was only part of the flood of Democrat money that poured into the state…
…and only speed bumps on the way to the GOP flipping the Senate and extending its control of the House.
The Future: It’s not all god news.
“Protect” Minnesota and the Action Moms did, finally, learn something from the good guys. They did in fact spend some time and energy cultivating and training volunteers, and getting into political action. The years when we could count on Heather Martens’ incompetence and indolence to insulate Real Americans from reality are over.
We Real American joke – rightly – about the gun grabbers needing to pay for their volunteers…
…while thousands of us turn out on our own time and dime to make the magic happen. And it is a legitimate point of pride for the good guys.
But stop and think.
The pro-criminal groups have the money to spend, and they’re spending it like drunk Kardashians.
$800,000 to help, maybe, flip two seats in the legislature? Well over ten times what all pro-freedom groups spent, combined? That’s pocket lint to Michael Bloomberg. It’s background noise to the well-heeled liberals who support the pro-criminal groups.
And while the volunteers may well be the Subaru-driving, Saint Olaf-attending, Whole Foods shopping, ELCA-haired caricatures that I gleefully point out to you, even a caricature out doing productive work on the street moves the needle.
So we pro-freedom people have a lot to celebrate today. The SCOTUS has a fighting chance of breaking with the good guys for the next generation; the Legislature will no doubt put a “Stand Your Ground” measure on the Governor’s desk, and by my count, the GOP and outstate Democrats are painfully close to being able to override Governor Flint-Smith’s veto. We won one against a flood of out-of-state money.
But this is going to get harder, not easier.
Oil up those wallets and keep those walking shoes ready.
We don’t know much about the man who shot two people at a dollar store on the mean streets of Burnsville yesterday.
And by “we”, I mean everyone but Erin Maye Quade, who promptly tweeted that the shooting proved the need for background checks.
Before any details were known.
Not only before the investigation had started, much less turned up any information, but before an arrest had been made.
She wants to represent you in the Minnesota House.
If you live in HD57A, please bring some friends to the poll and vote for Ali Jimenez-Hopper.
UPDATE: Early, unofficial report: the shooter is a registered sex offender who is legally barred from having guns.
Yep. That background check sure woulda done the trick.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emailed about this story:
One, prohibition doesn’t work. Not even in prison. People will get what they want, somehow. Gun controllers, take note.
Two, dead men tell no tales and they also buy no cocaine. There’s always a trade-off, in every policy choice.
Today’s debate: “Divulge details about HIllary, or stay alive?”