A Senate Democrat Tradition

Back in the early days of this blog – the early 2000s – I used to refer to then -Senator Wes Skoglund of MInneapolis as “A Lying Sack of Garbage”.    

It was deeply uncivil – but it was accurate.   If it came from his mouth, and it was about guns, gun owners, gun laws, gun crime, the Second Amendment, it’s legal and factual history, it was a lie.  Full stop.

Favorite pullquote from history – in 2003, he opposed Shall Issue carry permit reform because he said, in the Strib, that it’d allow gang members to get carry permits (a claim never fact-checked by any local media).  I’m fairly sure he knew better – but then as now, DFL pols could count on their voters being less than adept at critical thinking.  

It’s been almost pointless to note which Democrat pols have inherited the “Lying Sack of Garbage” mantel – it’s generally easier to point out the ones that tell the truth than the ones that don’t.   

But in this op-ed in the Strib, Senator John Marty strips down to his skivvies and rolls around in a slop pit if lies, slander and dishonor, putting himself on the short list to inherit the title.

It’s about his proposal to ban carry at the capitol – an attempt to roll back legislation from 2015 that allowed Minnesotans with valid carry permits to not be disarmed at the Capitol.   

It’s almost Nancy Nord Bence-level:

The sight of people flaunting assault rifles is becoming commonplace at political rallies of Trump supporters and right-wing causes. During the past year, Michigan, Oregon, Kentucky and Idaho all had incidents where people, armed to the teeth and dressed for combat, walked into their state Capitols to threaten public officials. These incidents made national news because the brazen intimidation was so shocking.

It’s so cute that the party that has no problem with “Anti”-Fa thugs patrolling the outskirts and aftermaths of their “peaceful protests”, that employs “woke” culture to intimidate dissent at schools, in the workplace and in the public square, and sicced the IRS on their opponents as suddenly developed scruples about “intimidation”.

Fifty years ago, it wasn’t this way. In 1967, when the Black Panthers walked into the California state Capitol heavily armed, there was strong bipartisan support for prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms. Then-Gov. Ronald Reagan and even the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which sharply restricted the carrying of guns, not just in the California Capitol, but elsewhere. Reagan said there is “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

When people on the left start quoting Reagan, stand by for a gale of mangled context.

Reagan’s response to the Black Panthers was among the worst of his few mistakes. Marty deserves to be told as much.

Now however, when it is largely white conservatives who are taking guns to Capitols, the NRA and the Republican Party seem to consider it perfectly appropriate for their allies to use guns to intimidate political opponents.

I can’t speak to Senator Marty’s sense of proportion or stability. But given that the people with the gun are all people who are over 21, have all passed training courses and multiple background checks thereby proving that they are better bets, criminologically speaking, per capita, than the House DFL Caucus, one might suggest Marty is crying wolf.

And either doing it ignorantly, or (more likely) presuming his Democrat audience just doesn’t care that much about the facts:

We do not allow people to bring guns into county courthouses, into many big office buildings in the Twin Cities or at Vikings, Wild and Twins games. Thirty-two other states require people to walk through a metal detector before entering their Capitol buildings.

Where to start with that graf?

  • We don’t allow carry in any courthouse, federal, state, county or municipal. Anywhere. The 2003 Minnesota Personal Protection Act let the judicial branch make those decisions itself.
  • The office buildings and sports venues are private property. They have the ability – misguided though it is – to ban firearms. It’s one reason I rarely if ever patronize major league sports.
  • Re the metal detectors – so?

Now, we leave mere ignorance – personal or implied – and get into actual prevarication:

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus urged their members to show up, armed, to those committee meetings. There were about 150 notifications for one such hearing in 2013, almost triple the number in the entire previous year.

A hearing on gun legislation does not pose any greater safety risk than other hearings and there is no greater need for personal protection. Opponents of gun legislation carry guns to those hearings to intimidate.

There are other ways guns are used to intimidate as well. One lobbyist told some legislators whom she was lobbying that she carried a gun at the Capitol because she feared people lobbying on the other side of the issue, calling them dangerous — an insidious way of undermining her opponents. It is not surprising that the opponents reported difficulty getting appointments to make their case with legislators.

The 2005 law that allowed carrying of handguns in public allowed the same people to carry assault rifles and other long guns in public. That has led to the increasingly common sight of heavily armed people at rallies and protests. They are not armed for personal protection. They do so to intimidate and strike fear in others.

Minnesotans can consider and discuss gun legislation as rational adults; hearings should be conducted without armed intimidation. Consequently, I have introduced SF 2048, which would prohibit the carrying of guns at the Capitol and restore the law that blocked people from bringing assault rifles to rallies and protests.

We should take security at the Capitol and at political rallies seriously before there is a tragic attack that kills people. At some point, security experts might determine that metal detectors are needed at the Capitol. Unfortunately, metal detectors create an oppressive climate which makes a place feel more militarized and less safe. Whether or not they are necessary now, we should prepare and plan for the possibility in the future, including quick implementation if a credible threat appears. But for now, it’s time to treat the Capitol like county courthouses and other places that prohibit guns. Public discourse on contentious issues can be done in a rational manner without allowing some to intimidate others. Public safety will benefit as well.

Allowing guns at the Capitol in these divided times is a recipe for disaster.

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus urged their members to show up, armed, to [the 2013 House] committee meetings. There were about 150 notifications for one such hearing in 2013, almost triple the number in the entire previous year.

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus wasn’t founded until 2014. The MNGOC has never urged people to bring guns anywhere, and has always eschewed the idea of open carry at the Capitol.

Marty is either lying, or assuming his audience is too stupid to know better.

My vote is “both”.

Oh, yeah – and that 2015 legislation that allows citizens to carry firearms, legally, with a permit, on the Capitol grounds?

Marty voted for it.

Not An Animal

“Protect” Minnesota has a new executive director.

We’ll come back to that.


Modern American “progressivism”, like all its many forebears in the past 200 years, has been all about rallying people against boogeymen. From “monarchists” in the French Revolution, to “Wreckers” in Stalin’s USSR to the Wobbly’s “Bosses”, up through “the patriarchy” and “the man” and “counterrevolutionaries” in Red China and San Francisco in the sixties and seventies, and if you have a hard time distinguishing between ’em, join the club.

Today, the boogeymen…er, boogiepeople on the left are pretty much all the things that people who are included are told to be “anti”. “Anti-Racism” “Anti-Misogyny” (not just sexism, anymore – it’s the more active, more malevolent noun these days), “Anti-Fascism”, “Anti-Transphobia”, and on and on – all of which sounds like good things to be “anti”…

…and, unsurprisingly, when you dig into the “Root Causes” of all those nouns, all things trace back to “Western Civilization” in all its particulars: the Judeo-Christian value on the individual and their worth, value, rights and responsibilities and potential of each and every person, as a person with a mind, a point of view, and at the end of the day an indivisible soul of personal, societal, political, intellectual and metaphysical worth.

Those aspects of humanity are anathema to progressivism in all its flavors. The focus is on the group – the Marxists “classes”, the Nazi’s irreducible focus on race, the modern academic Left’s obsession with a byzantine network of intersectional identity groups. The individual is nothing but a vote (for now), an appetite, a widget to be moved through the production line of life (like Obamacare’s awful caricature of Progressive humanity, “Julia”). Progressivism is “Materialist”. Souls, individual intellects and thoughts and reams, all are ephemeral; humans are widgets that consume and produce, and whose worth and value (to those in power) is expressed via their membership in the collective.

Those widgets have a term. “Bodies”. Not people. Not brains. Not souls.

Bodies.


Anyway – “P”M has a new director. And unlike the dotty, dizzy neverending font of comedy that was Heather Martens, or the serial fabulist The “Reverend” Nancy Nord Bence, the new director presents us with a few surprises.

She’s “a gun owner herself” – which might be seen in several ways. Is “P”M moderating? Are they realizing that the culture war has slipped far enough away from them, especially over this past year, that they have to start speaking to people who need to be convinced?

And she’s apparently incredibly famous, since she apparently just goes by “Rashmi”. I’ve turned “Protect” Minnesota’s website, Facebook feed and other social media upside down, and not been able to find any reference to a last name, which is Seneviratne, by the way.

But even during the reign of the serial fabulist the Reverend Nord Bence, “Protect” MN wasn’t nearly extreme enough in its hatred of guns and (law-abiding) gun owners, enough for some people.

“P”M spawned a breakway group, “Survivors Lead” – basically a woman, Rachel Joseph, with a long history of progressive activism and a story; an aunt who was murdered, according to Ms. Joseph’s story, by a gun.

Quick aside: I don’t minimize anyone’s trauma over having a loved one murdered. But in the many times I’ve heard Ms. Joseph’s story, she’s never once mentioned a perpetrator, someone actually holding and using the gun that killed her aunt; that persons evil motivation, the legal fallout from the murder, whether that person was sentenced or not. It’d be wrong to crack wise – “what, did the gun animate itself?” – but omitting a perpetrator, his/her motives and the like from the conversation is incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Anyway – “Rashmi” and her apparent moderation are not going over well with “Survivors Lead”:

The extreme heckling the not-as-extreme about getting less extreme. That qualifies as “dog bites man”, at the very most.

Rather less so? There followed some more, er, ethnically pointed traffic on one social media feed (from which I’ve long been blocked) or another.

After which “P”M – operating through its usual social media persona, the omniscient third person that used to be Martens and Nord Bence – responded:

On the one hand, watching the agents of Big Left eating each other is one of my favorite spectator sports.

And if the biggest semi-organic anti-gun group in MInnesota (shaddap about Moms Want Action already) is pivoting from pushing Linda Slocum’s gun grab bill to highlighting the inequity of gun control (“Race, class and geography all play into who gets to have a gun and who doesn’t” – which is something every Second Amendment activist has known for 50 years) and speaking in the first “person” to the prudence of victims of violence to arm up, then in culture war terms that’s the sound of the first tank crossing the pontoon bridge at Remagen.

But…”white bodied privilege?”

What the flaming hootie hoo?

I thought for a moment – is this a shot back at the Rachel Dolezals and Elizabeth Warrens of the world, with their flip-flopping identities, by “actual” “people of color”, reinforcing the idea that while you might “identify” with one degree melanin or another, your apparent appearance still wins out in the great privilege lottery (which will, I suspect, get pilloried hard by the Trans crowd, for whom perceived identity is everything? I’ll let the fight that one out).

But no. It’s much less hilarious than that.

It’s “inclusion language” – slang or argot that one class of people use to track who is in, and who is “out” – to be sure. That’s part of it, and people are noticing:

Referring to people as bodies is a reminder, writer Elizabeth Barnes says in an interview, that “racism isn’t just about the ideas that you have in your head.” Barnes is the author of “The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability, The Girl Behind the Wall.” In intellectual discussions, theories about social oppression sound almost disembodied; “we talk about prejudice,” Barnes says, “like it’s just a matter of ideas.” The point is to emphasize the physical violence done to black people through slavery, lynching, and police brutality. In the case of women, the term “bodies” highlights “what happens to women’s bodies in health care contexts, in sexual contexts, in reproductive contexts.”

But behond that?

It’s a nod to the materialism of the left – that the mind, the thoughts, the indivisible soul of the indivisual human being is not merely irrelevant, but inconvenient to the obsession with identity.

Your melanin defines you.

In some ways its a cheap ad hominem – “of course you’d think that, you are (add a reference to your target’s melanin, or lack thereof)”. But pointing logical fallacies out to the foot soldiers of Big Left is a little like arguing salinity with sharks; it’s just part of the water they swim in.

So – gun groups eating each other? Good.

The debate contributing to the ongoing hijacking of the language? Bad.

The whole thing participating, in its own little way, in the further erosion of one of the ideals that’s made Western Civilization the most successful, and humane , civilization in human history?

Worse.

Lie First, Lie Always: Lie, Finally

Has it only been four years that the “Reverend” Nancy Nord Bence took over as the ‘Executive Director” and one of about five actual “members” of “Protect” Minnesota?

Sometimes it seems like so much longer.

Even by Twin Cities “progressive” standards, the “Reverend” Nord Bence blazed a trail of intellectual and moral depravity in which she stood nearly alone.

Am I being hyperbolic?

Oh heavens no:

  • She accused the MN Gun Owners Caucus of inviting “White Supremacists” to speak at their annual rally (and this was before Big Left accused everyone of “white supremacy”)
  • She accused the Caucus of involvement in the firebombing of the Dar Al Farouk mosque.
  • Showed herself to be a casual racist
  • They slandered Caucus political director Rob Doar
  • LIed about the goings-on at the Senate hearings in HIbbing a few weeks ago

…and was basically such a font of fodder that not only did I give her her own permanent tag, but she was granted a nearly-personal category on this blog.

From that first day to today, the “Reverend” Nord Bence has never – not once – made a statement about guns, gun laws, gun owners, gun crime, or anything about the Second Amendment that is simultaneously substantial, original and true. Her constant “false witness” about her law-abiding fellow citizens should be regarded as an abomination by her erstwhile denomination, the ELCA.

I said “should”.

But all good, loathsome-yet-risible things must come to an end. The “Reverend” is picking up and moving along:

Now, if it’s like most posts on the “Protect” MN facebook page, there’d be a better than even chance the post would be wrong, and quickly retracted, even if it weren’t a lie.

But it’s apparently as legit as anything “Protect” MN ever actually writes. The “Reverend” is going to lend her, um, “talents” to getting Democrats elected.

There are only two things we can be sure of:

  • Any campaign she’s involved in, outside safe urban areas (and by “safe”, I mean both for the DFL and for matronly unarmed white women to walk around in), is doomed.
  • “Protect” MN will hire someone even more radical to replace Nord Bence.

Adios, Nancy. You are a liar, and you never packed the gear to stand up to a rational debate, but…

…well, that pretty much covers it. Swirl away down the soilpipe of history, you sad lying hag.

Lie First, Lie Always: We’ve Been Through This, Right?

As we noted earlier this week, Roseau County became Minnesota’s first Second Amendment Sanctuary county.

And you just knew the “Reverend” Nancy Nord Bence wouldn’t take long for an…

…er…

…er, “interesting” take on the situation.

But she pretty much outdid herself on Twitter:

The county commission was “bullied”? Huh. Sounds serious. Was there anything to “Protect” MN’s claim?

Sheesh. It’s the “Reverend” Nancy Nord Bence. We’ve been through this before, right?

A Roseau County Commissioner left a comment on “Protect” MN’s Facebook page:

“Completely made-up”.

What concerns me here is this: leftists pretty much up and down the food chain, from Nancy Pelosi down to “Reverend” Nord Bence, have learned that their constituency just doesn’t do critical thinking. If they say something, they know there’s not going to be anyone catching them after the rally trying to check them on any of it.

BIg Left is building a legion of the invincibly ignorant.

And while it’s not working in Roseau County, the post about Roseau County wasn’t aimed at rural Minnesota. It’s aimed at trying to keep the hordes of people in the third ring suburbs who voted DFL terrified.

Will it work?

The Reverend Nancy Nord Bence: Lying Now, Lying Then, Lying Always

If you only take one message away from this blog, it should be…

Well, it should be “Freedom is good and must be defended without reset, since tyranny never sleeps”. 

But if you take another message from this blog, it’s…

…well, Berg’s Seventh Law. 

But if you get three messages from this blog, number three should be “The Reverend Nancy Nord Bence and “Protect” Minnedsota have never, not once, made a statement about guns, gun rights, gun laws, gun crime, gun crime stats, gun rights groups, or the history, construction or meaning of the 2nd Amendment that is simultaneously substantial, original and true.  

As such, it’s almost pointless to “fact-check: the Lying Reverend:  it’s like looking for damp spots in an aquarium. 

But this particular social media excrescence deserves attention for its special level of depravity:

Take a moment to enjoy the battle between racism and illogic – if one is “never” safer with a gun (statistically untrue, but work with me here), how can some state be “Especially” never?  Infantilizing black people much?  And it’s not the gun that makes black carry permittees unsafe; in this case, it was the panicky cop.  

Worse?  To the “Reverend” Nord Bence, while people with carry permits are hapless delusional morons, if they’re black, they are apparently even less competent.  

But take your leave of that bit of frivolity for a moment, and note the record show that the MInnesota Gun Owners Caucus neither “remained silent” nor “defended” Officer Yanez – the Caucus was on the record and on TV defending our fellow law-abiding citizen before the “Reverend” Nord Bence knew the name of the guy she was stereotyping:

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/11/16/philando-permit/

Castile did not say he had a permit, but he did say he had a gun. In general, that is what firearms instructors teach, according to Rob Doar, a leader of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and a firearms safety instructor…“I recommend that you turn the car off, you turn the lights on in the vehicle, you keep your hands on the wheel,” Doar said. “I do believe that Philando Castile acted as a responsible permit holder.”

If is a given that if the “Reverend” Nord Bence says it, and it’s about anything to do with guns, presume it’s contemptuous bull***t.

The casual racism – while predicable from the lily-white turnout and lily-whiter locations of all “P”M events – s new.

Lie First, Lie Always: An Open Letter To The Reverend Nancy Nord Bence

To:   The Reverend Nancy Nord Bence
From:  Mitch Berg, Irascible Peasant
Re:  Think.  Think Really Really Hard

Rev.  Nord Bence,

Over the weekend, you posted this on “Protect” MN’s Facebook page:

Over the years, I’ve pointed out – with absolute accuracy – that you have never made a single statement about guns, gun owners, gun history, gun laws, the 2nd Amendment or gun crime that was simultaneously substantial, original and true.  

Here’s the good news:   your claims above are substantial, and, er, “original”.  But they are howlers. 

Run Awaaaaaaay:   First – you say “police in Minnesota can already use the Stand Your Ground defense”. 

Well, yeah.  That’s right.  The police don’t have a “duty to retreat” when doing their jobs.   Unlike civilians, they are supposed to run toward trouble.   

They don’t have “Stand your Ground”.   They have “Qualified Immunity” – not only no obligation to try to retreat, but a mulligan for mistakes made in generally good faith in the line of duty. 

Question for you, “Reverend” Nord Bence:  Would you prefer that police also be required to run away from criminals?  

Just curious. 

Shoot Off Your Unqualified Mouth First, As Questions Later:  Next comes the notion that self-defense reform would give citizens “the same right to shoot first and ask questions later” that cops “have”. 

Nope.  It merely means that citizens don’t have to convince a county attorney that they tried hard enough to run away from a threat (that was otherwise a reasonable threat of death or grave injury), provided you were anyplace you had a legal reason to be. 

That’s it.  

It’s not a license to kill. 

And I suspect you know that – and are lying anyway, to logroll the gullible dolts who take you seriously.   

Either that or you are a deeply, deeply stupid person.  

My money says “both”. 

That is all.  

 

Lie First, Lie Always: Nancy Nord Bence’s Unbroken Streak!

It’s not quite a “Berg’s Law”, since it only pertains to a few groups, most particularly “Protect” Minnesota – the voice of the gun control movement in Minnesota – but it’s getting close.

Let be say this as clearly and unequivocally as I can:

“Protect” Minnesota has never made a single statement about guns, gun violence, gun laws, the 2nd Amendment, or law-abiding gun owners that is simultaneously substantial, original and true [1].  

Not one. 

Doesn’t matter if it was Heather Martens, or Nancy Nord Bence, or any of their constantly-rotating stream of lobbyists, lieutenants and creepy hangers-on; it’s still true.

Not one single statement that is simultaneously substantial, original and true. 

Case in point:  their “coverage” of the episode a few weeks ago where a (WHITE!  MIDDLE AGED!) Eden Prairie man got into a scuffle with a bunch of reportedly Somali teens at a gas station.

This was their first response to the story, going back a bit.

Now, I’ve been watching the story as well.  We don’t know much about the story, but we know a few things:

First – the man had no Minnesota carry permit.   Thank goodness.

Second – while the laws about displaying and threatening the use of lethal force are even more vague in Minnesota than the ones about the use of lethal force, it is under some circumstances legal to “brandish” a firearm to make a potential threat go away.    The law – a mixture of vague statute and very specific case law – is muddled and specific; while the juridprudence on the subject might not be designed to be a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to prosecutors, and from people to defense attorneys – but if they had set out to design such a system, it wouldn’t look a lot different.

Third – for purposes of my point, the actual behavior of the “Somali teens” doesn’t matter; they may have been utterly blameless (although groups of teenagers, especially with adolescent boys showing out for the girls, are pretty much always small, demented mobs no matter their ethnicity; given that the news reports mention nothing about their behavior, I’m doing to assume there’s something to hide).  So with that said – the video from Channel 4 seems to show that the man tried to retreat as the group of “teenagers” harried him.

Which means it’s not a “Stand Your Ground” case.

The guy may or may not have reasonably feared for his life and safety, thus possibly justifying brandishing a firearm – that, it seems, will be decided at trial.

Someone needs to tell the howler monkey – likely the gaffe-prone, not-especially-fact-obsessed Nord Bence:

As usual when “P” M makes a statement?   No.  This case wouldn’t be any different at all.

Why?

As we’ve pointed out countless times on this blog, there are four criteria you need to meet under current Minnesota law to use lethal force in self-defense; you have to reasonably  fear immediate death or great bodily harm, you can’t be the aggressor, you can only use the force needed to end the threat, and you have a duty to make a reasonable effort to retreat.

“Stand your ground” merely removes that last clause when you are anyplace you have a legal right to be.  Including McDonalds.

It doesn’t remove the other three criteria!

Was he in immediate life-threatening danger?    Was he the aggressor?  That’ll be decided at trial.

But – let me find the “Bold” button for emphasis:

He retreated!     He backed away from the “teens”!   Was it a “reasonable” effort to do so?  We’ll see what the jury decides.

But “Stand Your Ground” was not, and would never be, an issue in this case.

And if you get your information from “Protect” Minnesota, about this or any other case, you are not only less informed, but you’re participating in making our society dumber on this issue.

Continue reading

Lie First, Lie Always: Nancy Nord Bence Goes Full-Bore Ghoul (CORRECTION: It Was Erin Maye Quade)

I went to a League of Women Voters’ panel forum on “Gun Violence” in Burnsville last night.

It was actually a fairly even-handed forum; the LWV volunteer who did the initial setup of the topic, “Emily” (didn’t catch the last name) gave an incredibly even-handed presentation on the facts of the “gun debate” – most of which made Reverend Nord Bence visibly hot under the collar, as an even-handed factual appraisal makes her look completely detached from reality.

The forum included Rev.  Nord Bence and soon-to-be former legislator and no-doubt soon-to-be non-profit exec Erin Maye Quade, against Bryan Strawser of the MN Gun Owners Caucus and Rep. Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa, one of the stronger pro RKBA voters in the legislature.

It went about as expected:   Nord Bence’s record of never having made a statement about guns, gun owners, gun laws, gun facts or gun history that is simultaneously original, substantial and true remains undisturbed.

And she showed the sense of entitlement during the forum, repeatedly interrupting Strawser and Drazkowski, so often and flagrantly that she LWV organizers had to chide her (to a round of audience applause).

But at one point, Bence’s Maye Quade’s bully-girl fabulism collided with her inner ghoul:   when Rep. Drazkowski noted that the best response to a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun,, Bence Maye Quade responded by telling a story about a man who’d responded to a violent attack, and gotten shot for his troubles.

I had to go find  that story    Here it is.    And as usual, it shows that Bence and Maye Quade, like all gun control activists, is lying, wouldn’t know context if it bit them, and are a ghouls to boot.

When police arrived after reports of a shooting over the weekend at a bar outside Chicago, witnesses say Jemel Roberson, a 26-year-old security guard who worked there, had already subdued the alleged assailant, pinning him to the ground.

Adam Harris, who was at Manny’s Blue Bar in Robbins at the time of the incident on Sunday, told WGN-TV that Roberson was holding “somebody on the ground with his knee in his back, with his gun in his back” when officers from neighboring Midlothian got there early Sunday.

Midlothian Police Chief Daniel Delaney said that’s when one of his officers “encountered a subject with a gun” and shot him, according to a statement given to the media.

But the “subject” was Roberson, not the suspect in the bar shooting.

It’s every carry permittee’s worst nightmare – being mistaken for the bad guy when a cop,  arriving at an incident they’ve only heard about on the radio,  under life-or-death stress, decides any gun is a threat and shoots you.

Which happens.

And is vanishingly rare.

And appears not to have even been the issue in this incident – the gun wasn’t Roberson’s so he wasn’t the good guy with the gun; he was the good guy who seized the gun from the actual perp.

For Bence Maye Quade to use this episode to try to impugn the “Good Guy With A Gun” idea is loathsome.  Clearly “shame” is a lot to ask after a career as a serial liar.

I guess we should expect no better for this used car saleswoman in Lutheran minister’s robes.

CORRECTION:  I was wrong.  It was Erin Maye Quade.  Doesn’t change the point.

Lie First, Lie Always: Why Is Erin Maye Quade Lying?

Last week, after the collapse of the DFL effort (for now) to ram through a couple of gun control bills (including Rep. Linda Slocum’s gun grab bill, HF 3022), the names of several DFL legislators quietly disappeared from the “jackets” – the cover sheets that accompany the bills and list the signatures of Representatives who are “co-authoring” the bills.

We’ll come back to that.

Honesty Is For Non-Patricians!:   We’ve encountered Erin Maye Quade before.  Before she was an ultra-left DFLer from Apple Valley, she worked for “The Uptake”, the far-left media outlet.  There, she got busted years ago for giggling about her ability to edit video footage to make people appear to say things they hadn’t .

She squeaked into office – where she’s become a fixture in the DFL’s shrill Gang of Four – along with Peggy Flanagan, Jamie Becker-Finn and Ilhan Omar.    She’s also married to a “Moms Want Action” paid organizer – so her anti-gun credentials would appear to be solid.

Maybe too solid.

Last week, her name disappeared as a co-author of Slocum’s gun grab bill.    When quizzed about it, she responded that her inclusion was a clerical error by House staff.

The DFL Memory Hole:   Rob Doar of the MN Gun Owners Caucus went down to the Capitol to resolve the mystery.  Was it clerical error?

He shot a video.  And unlike the younger Maye, there was no editing involved to get the truth out:

Here’s the signature (reversed from the video):

So many questions, here:

  1. Why is Erin Maye Quade lying to her constituents?
  2. Why is she distancing herself – and badly – from Rep. Slocum’s gun grab bill?
  3. Will the people of Apple Valley put up with this kind of duplicity?

Stay tuned for more.

Lie First, Lie Always: Lori Sturdevant, Bloomberg Parrot

In my sixteen years of writing this blog, punching bags have come and, mostly, gone.  Nick Coleman?  The MInnesota Monitor?  Mercury Rising?  Ken Weiner?  I’m still here.  They’re all gone.

But Lori Sturdevant?  She just keeps on ticking.

Maybe “ticking” isn’t the right word.  She keeps on scolding Minnesotans Republicans  for not acting like “Republicans” did (so says the myth Sturdevant pushes) in the sixties and seventies, where the MNGOP was basically Democrats in better suits, and in many cases ran to the left of the DFL.  This was, of course, at a time when Amerca, and Minnesota, had no competition; a time when the entire world was the US’, and Minnesota’s, market.    A time when business could thrive and pay confiscatory taxes and support hiring kids with high school diplomas to bolt headlight bezels onto Fords at the Highland Park plant for upper-middle-class wages with no worry about being uncompetitive – because there was no competition.

This is the world Lori Sturdevant pines for.

The “Good” Republican:   Dario Anselmo is the GOP rep from Edina.  As befits a Republican in a district that’s turning blue – clogged with refugees from Minneapolis’ accelerating failure, but who brought their brick-headed DFL politics with them – Anselmo is “purple”.  I get it – I get along with Rep. Anselmo OK, although I disagree with a bunch of his positions.

Including his very luke-coolness on 2nd Amendment issues.  Sturdevant points out that Anselmo is the son of Barbara Lund, a Duluth heiress who was murdered by her estranged husband in the early nineties.  His aunt it Joan Peterson, an erratic an impervious woman who has been one of the Minnesota gun grab movement’s leaders for a couple decades, now.

Anyway – Anselmo is a “moderate” Republican, which means “the example Sturrdevant wants the entire GOP to follow.   Now, I like Rep. Anselmo, and will hope he gets re-elected (he may actually be in line with Buckley’s Law, the most conservative candidate who can win in his district full of soccer moms and petty functionaries.

Reconstructive History:   But never let it be said Lori Sturdevant lets facts get in the way of her narrative – that the DFL is the same moderate party she grew up shilling for, and the GOP should strive for the same.

Anselmo says he likely would not be backing the universal background checks bill but for his family’s experience. He also sees gun violence from the perspective of a downtown Minneapolis property owner.

Which sounds good…

…until you remember that neither of Dave Pinto’s bills would have prevented Barbara Lund’s murder; the Gun Violence Protective Order bill would have done nothing; there were no domestic violence charges against Russell Lund.  From a PiPress article at the time:

Kim Lund would not say whether her father had ever flashed a violent temper or physically abused Barbara Lund. She said the slayings stunned her family.

“The problem is we don’t know what happened,’” she said. “We have to wait for the criminal justice system to do its role.”

And ‘Universal Background Checks” would have prevented neither the Lund murder nor the crime that vexes Anselmo around his Warehouse district bar, the “Fine Line”.   Criminals don’t take background checks now, and they won’t when they’re “Universal”.  .

Lori The Parrot:  The rest of the column is proof that the only things Lori Sturdevant knows about the issue, she was told over drinks at Murray’s by her friends in the Gun Grab “movement”, and seeks only to serve their ends:

The gun issue, too, seems to be swelling into something bigger than the perennial partisan wedge it has been for decades. Gun violence is so pervasive — especially when one counts suicides as well as homicides — that many Minnesotans now see it in personal terms.

Gun violence is down 50% in 20 years.  Gun violence is schools is down 75% in that same time.

In 2016, more than 38,000 Americans died gun-related deaths.

2/3 of which were suicides, not one of which would have been prevented by any of the DFL’s bills.

What’s more, a new generation is rising and — even in rural places — claiming a campaign to stem gun violence as its own.

Well, that’s the word the media is trying to get out – go counter the fact that the “new generation” may be more pro 2nd Amendment than mine. Which is saying something.

The Phantom Right:   Sturdevant trips into my new favorite topic:

They’re recasting the argument in personal and moral terms, asking whether someone else’s right to own a semiautomatic weapon should outweigh their right to go to school without being shot and killed.

They’re asserting a right to safety.

That may not be in the Bill of Rights. But woe be unto any democratic government that fails to secure it.

Which is a fraction of the woe that betides a “democratic government” that gets  this simple fact wrong:

There is no “right to safety”, 

No more than there is a “right not to get hit by lightning” or “right not to have a fire break out in your kitchen”, or “right not to get t-boned by a drunk driver” or “right not to get robbed”.   There is no right to t-bone people, and there’s certainly no right to rob people.    It’d be absurd as claiming that lightning or fire had a “right” to strike you.  And yet there is no “right” to be free of any of these things.

There is only a responsibility to protect  your family, your property, your community and your self from nature – natural and human.  And that includes a responsibility to protect the students that society has ordered be gathered in your care, or else.

Of course, Lori Sturdevant represents – shills and parrots for, really – a party and movement that has sought only to erode the notion of responsibility on every front, not just safety, for much longer than Sturdevant’s been in public life.

Lie First, Lie Always: They Can’t Even Write Their Own Lies

Minnesota Gun Owners  Caucus has initiated a new feature – “Anti-Leaks”.   As the GOC describes it, the feature will show leaked communications between gun-grabber groups, documenting the depth and depravity of the conspiracy against your Second Amendment rights.

Yesterday’s installment was a funny one; former Maplewood police chief Paul Schnell – who has been the cop for hire on many of “Protect” Minnesota’s dog and pony shows – got an email from a PR firm working for Gabby Giffords’ organization:

They are, in effect, putting words in the chief’s mouth:

No, I didn’t expect better.

Lie First, Lie Always: Dadaist Goalposts

This is part 7 of a seven-series tearing apart an article , Busted!  7 Myths About Concealed Carry, Debunked.linked by  linked by specacularly ill-informed DFL House candidate Sara Freeman – who deleted a couple of honest, civil and pointed comments from a post on her campaign’s Facebook page in which she linked to an article from a group called “Resist the Gun Lobby”, entitled (deep breath):

The writers of this article either don’t know any better than to change subjects in mid-paragraph, or assume their audience is too dim to know or care.

MYTH 6: Concealed carry reciprocity doesn’t make it any easier to buy a gun.
You can find this myth in action in an oped published in The Hill, by U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson who stated: “For one, nationwide concealed carry doesn’t make it any easier to buy a gun.”

The purported “bust?”

Gun traffickers frequently cross state lines to obtain guns from states with the weakest laws. Concealed carry reciprocity would make it easier for them to do that. It would tie the hands of law enforcement officers who encounter armed, out-of-state residents, who may be trafficking guns.

It would “tie the hands” of law-enforcement, provided law enforcement assumes anyone from out of state with a gun is a trafficker.

But to investigate gun trafficking –  a felony, by the way – they have to actually find, not people legally carrying guns, but – this may seem tautological, but trust me, it’s lost on the author and their audience – t illegally trafficking them.    Which is a felony, often – as when “selling to felon”) a federal one.

In other words, police will have to do their jobs.

Just as they do now.

Not Your Cops!  Our Cops!:  “Resist the Gun Lobby”‘s final “myth”:

MYTH 7: Law enforcement officers support concealed carry reciprocity.
In this op-ed by John Lott, published by Fox News, Lott writes, “Police officers have very difficult jobs and put their lives on the line every day. What can we do to help make sure that they can come home to their families? One way is to let law-abiding citizens carry guns.”

And the “Bust”:

Major law enforcement groups, including Major Cities Chiefs Association, Police Foundation, and Police Executive Research Forum, oppose concealed carry legislation.

And I bet the SEIU and MoveOn.Org oppose it as well.

Same basic thing; metro police chiefs serve at the pleasure of universally liberal city governments, so they will bark anti-gun bromides on command.  The PERF is even more ludicrous; it’s a left-funded pressure group, of no more independet merit than the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Kinda important, donchathink?

Conclusions:  Every gun control group lies, all the time.  The people who uncritically believe them are idiots who, in a just world, would be barred from voting, with lethal force if necessary.

 

  Resist the Gun Lobby:

https://resistthegunlobby.org/busted-7-myths-about-concealed-carry-debunked-5a3f94b89230

Lie First, Lie Always: This Is How Sausage Gets Made

This is part 6 of a seven-series tearing apart an article , Busted!  7 Myths About Concealed Carry, Debunked.linked by  linked by specacularly ill-informed DFL House candidate Sara Freeman – who deleted a couple of honest, civil and pointed comments from a post on her campaign’s Facebook page in which she linked to an article from a group called “Resist the Gun Lobby”, entitled (deep breath):

Next, they try their hand at clairvoyance – with predictably dismal results:

MYTH 5: Concealed carry reciprocity would NOT override existing state and local gun laws governing where people can carry.
You can see this myth in action in this GunsAmerica article that claims: “It’s important to note that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 does not tell the states that they have to adopt a certain concealed-carry issuing standard. In other words, the states retain the authority to determine the regulations and process for one to carry in public.”

And the “bust?”

The House version of concealed carry reciprocity would override a host of state and local laws that currently prohibit permit holders from carrying guns in places like bars, daycare centers, places of worship, athletic events, and near polling places. These laws allow private property Anowners to prohibit guns on their property, and enable law enforcement to anticipate where they are most and least likely to encounter armed individuals.

And that “anticipation” – how well is that working for “law-enforcement” and crime victims?

  • In Florida and many other states, a concealed handgun license doesn’t authorize the license holder to carry a concealed handgun into a bar.

Which was why Omar Matteen had to use a potato peeler to kill 53 at the Pulse nightclub.

  • Administrative regulations in Indiana prohibit the carrying of guns in certain casinos and childcare centers.

Regulations the same as the one that protected the kids at Columbine, Red Lake and the Newgate school, didn’t they?

  • Louisiana prohibits the carrying of concealed handguns in churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship, unless special requirements are met.

Which is why nobody was killed by guns in Sutherland Springs (a “gun free zone” under Texas law).

Again – they know they’re speaking to an audience that doesn’t pay attention; to paraphrase Drew Carey, the facts don’t matter.

Part seven is approaching inexorably!

 

Lie First, Lie Always: We Disagree, But We Won’t Tell You Why

This is part 5 of a seven-series tearing apart an article , Busted!  7 Myths About Concealed Carry, Debunked.linked by  linked by specacularly ill-informed DFL House candidate Sara Freeman – who deleted a couple of honest, civil and pointed comments from a post on her campaign’s Facebook page in which she linked to an article from a group called “Resist the Gun Lobby”, entitled (deep breath):

It should come as no surprise that on many of these points, the article doesn’t even try to answer the “Myth” they’re claiming to “bust”:

MYTH 4: Concealed carry permit holders who are lawfully able to carry in their state are often considered “accidental criminals” just because they are traveling to another state with a concealed firearm.

In an article for USA Carry, Ben Findlay wrote, “You probably recall the law-abiding Pennsylvania woman with a valid concealed carry license there who was arrested after driving into New Jersey. She was pulled over for a minor traffic violation and happened to casually mention her .38 caliber revolver concealed in her purse and proudly showed her Pennsylvania permit. She was arrested and faced felony charges and a prison term because she was unaware that it was illegal to carry her handgun in New Jersey, while legal in Pennsylvania. 

The case they’re referrring to is that of Shaneen Allen, a black woman who was arrested in Jersey, not for breaking a meaningful law, but for telling the Jersey State Police she was legally carrying her firearm.  New Jersey, being neo-fascist on guns, takes a passive aggressive approach when it comes to disarming negroes.  Does it work?  Compare crime in Philadelphia and Camden and get back to me.

Does it work?  Philadelphia’s murder rate is an ugly 17.7/100,000 (about double Minneapolis’ rate, and about four times the national average).  Camden’s is double that, and is one of the most dangerous cities in America.

And the so-called “bust”:

Currently, each state decides whether it will recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states. Through reciprocity agreements, states ensure that permit holders from one state can travel to another state with a loaded, concealed firearm without endangering public safety.

Well, no.  More usually – as in Minnesota’s case – reciprocity agreements allow states controlled by crminal-safety advocates to passive-aggressively curtail the rights of visitors.

Part six up next!

 

Lie First, Lie Always: Billions Of Murders, Tens Of Billions Of Acts Of Domestic Violence!

This is part 4 of a seven-series tearing apart an article , Busted!  7 Myths About Concealed Carry, Debunked.linked by  linked by specacularly ill-informed DFL House candidate Sara Freeman – who deleted a couple of honest, civil and pointed comments from a post on her campaign’s Facebook page in which she linked to an article from a group called “Resist the Gun Lobby”, entitled (deep breath):

The next myth proves, yet again, that the writers think their readers are dumber than they think their targets are:

MYTH 3: Laws that make it easier for people to carry concealed guns will reduce crime. Every year, millions of gun owners and concealed carry permit holders use firearms defensively, thwarting crime and attackers.

And the provenance of the article’s claim about the, er, claim?

In this piece from Breitbart, Second Amendment columnist Awr Hawkins writes, “It is interesting to note that the murder rate dropped by 14 percent while concealed carry permits surged. And “the overall violent crime rate” dropped by 21 percent. This is not what the left tells us will happen if concealed carry expands.”

Awr Hawkins?
Who?
In Breitbart?
Not exactly where anyone goes for the latest facts on the subject.
But the so-called “bust?”

There is no credible statistical evidence that shows that weak concealed carry laws reduce crime.

Again, strawman.
There is plenty of evidence that upholding the citizen’s right to self-defense does, in fact, lower crime rates. John Lott, for starters, who after 20 years stands unrefuted. The rules interfering with that right may or may not be relevant, but crime drops.

Part five is on the way!

Lie First, Lie Always: Billions Of Murders, Tens Of Billions Of Acts Of Domestic Violence!

This is part 3 of a seven-series tearing apart an article , Busted!  7 Myths About Concealed Carry, Debunked.linked by  linked by specacularly ill-informed DFL House candidate Sara Freeman – who deleted a couple of honest, civil and pointed comments from a post on her campaign’s Facebook page in which she linked to an article from a group called “Resist the Gun Lobby”, entitled (deep breath):

Billions Of Murders, Tens Of Billions Of Acts Of Domestic Violence!:   The next myth proves, yet again, that the writers think their readers are dumber than they think their targets are:

MYTH 3: Laws that make it easier for people to carry concealed guns will reduce crime. Every year, millions of gun owners and concealed carry permit holders use firearms defensively, thwarting crime and attackers.

And the provenance of the article’s claim about the, er, claim?

In this piece from Breitbart, Second Amendment columnist Awr Hawkins writes, “It is interesting to note that the murder rate dropped by 14 percent while concealed carry permits surged. And “the overall violent crime rate” dropped by 21 percent. This is not what the left tells us will happen if concealed carry expands.”

Awr Hawkins?

Who?

In Breitbart?

Not exactly where anyone goes for the latest facts on the subject.

But the so-called “bust?”

There is no credible statistical evidence that shows that weak concealed carry laws reduce crime.

Again, strawman.

There is plenty of evidence that upholding the citizen’s right to self-defense does, in fact, lower crime rates.  John Lott, for starters, who after 20 years stands unrefuted.  The rules interfering with that right may or may not be relevant, but crime drops.

 

Part 4 coming up.

Lie First, Lie Always: A Good Guy With A Gun Vs. A Dumb Person With A Computer

This is part 2 of a seven-series tearing apart an article , Busted!  7 Myths About Concealed Carry, Debunked.linked by  linked by specacularly ill-informed DFL House candidate Sara Freeman – who deleted a couple of honest, civil and pointed comments from a post on her campaign’s Facebook page in which she linked to an article from a group called “Resist the Gun Lobby”, entitled (deep breath):

Up next, they try to prove that 2+2=Blue:

MYTH 2: People with concealed carry permits are law-abiding and highly trained.

We noticed this myth get picked up in an editorial published by the Richmond-Times Dispatch, in which the editorial board writes, “As a group, persons with permits to carry concealed firearms are far less likely to commit a crime than the general public.”

And it’s true; people with carry permits are a couple of orders of magnitude safer than the general public, which we showed even using stats cherrypicked by a gun grabber “Think Tank”:  the comparison is even starker today, as the number of legal carriers has skyrocketed and the crime rate has plummeted.

But wait – that’s not the point they want to attack!

While many states require concealed carry permit applicants to demonstrate that they have received firearm safety training, the gun lobby has worked aggressively in state capitols to weaken or eliminate training requirements for permit holders.

I’ve observed in this space many times (many enough to label an entire series “Lie First, Lie Always” – gun grabbers believe they can say any bilge they want.

There is no link whatsoever between “uniform training” and safety.  None!

The entire “bust” is a deflection aimed at people not smart enough to know  better.

 

Part 3 up next.

Lie First, Lie Always: Slopping The Gun-Grabber Trough With Intellectual Sileage

Last week, we called out a piece of moral and intellectual cowardice by DFL House candidate Sara Freeman – who deleted a couple of honest, civil and pointed comments from a post on her campaign’s Facebook page in which she linked to an article from a group called “Resist the Gun Lobby”, entitled (deep breath):  Busted!  7 Myths About Concealed Carry, Debunked.

Now, any article that starts with the word “Busted” can be safely assumed to be, well, baked wind.  But every once in a while, it’s good to go through and prove it, if only to show the deepening intellectual depravity of the anti-civil rights movement.

So I read it.

And was I right?

What do you think?

This is the first of a seven part series, covering each of the “Myths” in the article to which Freeman was ill-informed enough to ink.

Faithless And Uncreditable:  First, RTGL goes after the “Faith and Credit” aspects of the proposal:

MYTH 1: Concealed carry reciprocity will make it easy for people to travel with their permits nationwide, similar to how driver’s licenses work.
This myth can be spotted in an op-ed published in the San Diego Union Tribune, in which the author stated: “The concept of reciprocity makes a lot of sense and has worked well in other areas. For example, even though each state controls the issuance of driver’s licenses, all states honor driver’s licenses from each of the other states.”

And the so-called “Bust”?:

Unlike concealed carry permits, driver’s licenses are standard, verifiable documents that meet almost the same criteria in every state. In fact, in order to be recognized by federal agencies, driver’s licenses must meet federal criteria established by the REAL ID Act that contain physical security features including a photo of its holder and uniform data such as identity, date of birth, principal residence address, etc.

A look at the headlines about REAL ID will tell you RTGL’s confidence is a little misplaced.  But they missed the big point:

Concealed carry permits, on the other hand, do not contain uniform information or standard security features…In order to verify the authenticity and validity of a permit, law enforcement would have to contact the issuing agency in the permit holder’s state because no national database — and sometimes no statewide database — containing concealed carry permit information exists.

What the do contain, universally, is the fact that the bearer has passed a background check; that, alone, makes them several orders of magnitude safer than the average citizen.

And that – not a bunch of anal-retentive bureaucratic noodling – is supposed to be the point.

 

Part II coming up soon.

Lie First, Lie Always: Folding, Spindling And Mutilating Statistics

When gun-grabbers can’t win arguments on the facts – and it takes a really, really dumb 2nd Amendment activist to lose an argument on the facts, since every last one favors us – they go for the emotion.

And to back up the emotion, they’ve got fake facts.

Which is not to say the facts themselves are fake; it’s just that they are tortured into a form that leaves a false conclusion.

To wit, this graph from lefty propaganda organ “The Trace”, showing “gun violence” rates in a particularly violent neighborhood of Saint Louis:

More violent than Honduras?  The most violent country in the world?

Well, yeah.  The neighborhood in question is what’s technically known as a “Crime-Ridden Hellhole”.  Gangs, every variety of urban blight, decades of use by the city’s welfare system as a “warehouse for the poor”.

And it’s got a population of about 6,000.  . So a murder rate of 290/100,000 in a population means that there were (doing math in head) 14-15 murders in the area.   (Note;  Saint Louis is a violent place).

The intended effect on the ignorant and gun control activists (pardon the redundancy) is to have them go “Wow – part of Saint Louis, more dangerous than Honduras?  Time to ban guns!”

Of course, it’s dishonest.  North Minneapolis – at 30,000, five times the size of Grand Ville – had 30 murders in 2015, which boils down to a murder rate of 100/100,000 – higher than Honduras, six times higher than Chicago.

And if you look at the intersection of Prior and University in Saint Paul in 2015, the murder that took place out in the street one Saturday night, in a n area of four square blocks with a population of maybe 50 people, gave the area a murder rate of 2,000/100,000.

What really matters is this:   can people live, work and raise kids productively in an area?     And by that measure, places like San Antonio and Boise and Cheyenne and Salt Lake City, where the ratio of guns to people is over 1:1 and the crime rate is almost too low to bother measuring, stack up pretty well.

The answer – in Democrat-dominated hellholes like the Grand Ville and the North Side – is “What, are you kidding me?”

Lie First, Lie Always: Slander

We’ve been pointing out for years – correctly – that “Protect” Minnesota has never, not once, made a single statement that is simultaneously original, substantial and true.

But today, the’ve slid over the line into slander.

“We hope that groups like Minnesota Gun Rights, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance can provide good information to the FBI to find and arrest the people responsible” for the Dar Al Farook firebombing?

Even by Nancy Nord Bence’s, er, casual standards of honesty and integrity, this is – pardon the middle-English – chickenshit.

And in a jiust world, it’d be actionable.  Let’s review from a couple years ago; Defmation – Libel and Slander – are when Party A says something about Party B that:

  • Is untrue
  • Can damage Party B’s livelihood and reputation in the community
  • If Party B is a public figure (and the three groups that Nord Bence slandered certainly are),  it can be shown that Party A acted with a malicious disregard for fact.

“P”M’s claim that any Minnesota 2nd Amendment group knows who bombed Dar Al Farook is certainly untrue.  Accusations of abetting terrorism are certainly damaging to a community non-profit group.  And given Nancy Nord Bence and her associates’ long record of scabrous attacks on GOCRA and MNGOC, malice isn’t a huge stretch.

If the gun groups want to sue, I’ll set up a kickstarter to raise funds.

PS to lawyers in the audience:  Yep.  I know.  Negligence is a defense against the “Malicious Intent” element.  It says something that “P”M’s big defense in this case is “We’re too stupid and morally bankrupt to know any better”.  God bless America.

Lie First, Lie Always: They Think You’re Stupid

Further evidence of the statement “”Protect” Minnesota has never – not once – made a statement that was simultaneously substantial, original and true” came to us yesterday in the form of a press release from their “Research Director”, the onimatopaiec Richard Gigler.

Gigler is reading the same numbers I related to you a couple weeks ago, showing that crime has dropped sharply across Minnesota in the last year.

But the takeaway from any given type of evidence depends on a lot of things; in this case, whether one is inept at statistics, or one represents a group that pathologically lies about gun owners and knows their audience isn’t smart enough to know they’re being lied to.

In this case, as “evidence” that “more guns don’t mean more safety”, Gigler notes that the percentage of homicides committed by guns “…rose by 1%”   Of course, they didn’t; they rose by two thirds of a percent, and even that is a statistical anomaly caused by the drop in overall homicides, not a hike in gun homicides (which, as we noted, dropped 23% in the past year!).

But the lie-via-incompetence is worse than that – because the number of homicides dropped, and the percentage of homicides involving a gun “rose” as a fluke of statistical background noise…

…as the number of guns in law-abiding civilians hands rose sharply, and the number of carry permittees hit record numbers.

Meaning that the percentage of guns used in crimes dropped.

Again.

Why do you suppose it is that “Protect” Minnesota can’t tell the truth?

Lie First, Lie Always: What Doesn’t Happen At Dreamsicle Day, Stays At Dreamsicle Day

The other, I noted the hilarious-yet-grim irony of Betsy Hodges, mayor (for now) of Minneapolis, whiich is by far the most violent city in Minnesota, lecturing the state on “gun safety” and “violence”.

Betsy Hodges, at Dreamsicle Day last weekend.

In recent years, as crime in the state at large has plummetted (and the number of law-abiding citizens with carry permits has skyrocketed), crime in Minneapolis is getting worse.

Nonetheless, the gun control movement (once thier serial lies are revealed) carries on trying to convince the undecided that

  1. there’s a yuge problem with violence outside the urban core, and
  2. there’s a groundswell of popular support for addressing it by stripping the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

We address the former quite frequently on this blog.  The latter point takes a little more patience, but it’s out there.

Last year, I pointed out the laughably sparse turnout at “Protect” MN and Moms Want Action events in Eagan and on the mean streets by the Stone Arch Bridge by the Guthrie.

And this year?

Look at the photo of Mayor Hodges, above, standing in front of the banner wearing a dress made from a tablecloth salvaged from an old “Chi-Chis” restaurant.  Interesting angle, no?

Here’s the view from behind Her Honor, toward the, ahem, crowd.

25 people, not counting the cop.  And four of them are affiliated with “Protect” MN and Moms Want Action.  And the “rally” is in North Minneapolis, sort of – but the crowd, almost to a person, has that “south Minneapolis” look about them; the ELCA hair,

 

Lie First, Lie Always: The City Pages – Making It Up As They Go Along

The City Pages, 1997:   Solid (if solidly-left-of-center) reporting, a keen eye on local events (at least in Uptown, Downtown and Dinkytown), and some investigative reporting that shamed the local dailies.

The City Pages, 2017:  Creeping on Facebook pages, calling it “news”.

Mike Mullen – who we’ve encountered before – found a Facebook post which he opted to not only turn into a story, but one that is misleading to the point of fiction.  Here’s the headline:

It’s in regard to a rally on June 10 by “ACT for America”, an anti-immigration group.

Go ahead.  Read the text of Mullen’s little excrescence.  Find any reference to the NRA being involved?

Only an unlinked blurb of dubious provenance about AFA referring to itself as “the NRA of National Security”.

I’m loathe to quote from the piece – it’s dumb enough to be on Minnesota Progressive Project, which is a terminal condition.    But this piece caught my wary eye:

These cowboys won’t be alone at the Capitol. Liberal protest groups like the local Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) call ACT a “racist hate group,”

Well, there’s a shock.

If a conservative orders a pizza in the woods, and “SDS” (“Antifa”, the SPLC, Media Matters, Alonda Cano, Tina Liebling or Ken Martin, etc, etc, etc)  aren’t there to hear it, is it still “hate speech)?

 

Lie First, Lie Always: Gun Grabber “Science”

SCENE: Mitch BERG is trying out a guitar at a local music shop. As he begins to fingerpick the intro to “1957 Vincent Black Lightning”, Avery LIBRELLE enters the store, sees BERG, and walks up behind him.

LIBRELLE:Merg!

BERG:  Er, hey, Avery.  What’s up?

LIBRELLE:  We know you crazy gun nuts don’t care how many children die for your so called “right to keep and bear arms” -= but why do you oppose funding for basic public health research? What are you afraid of?

BERG:  Afraid?  Nothing.    Absolutely certain of what the criminal-safetyi movement means by “science?”  Now you’re on to something.

LIBRELLE:  Why?  Afraid of science?

BERG:  Hardly.  More like “Pretty certain nothing resembling “science” will take place

Here’s a great example; this message went out yesterday:

LIBRELLE:  So?

BERG:  So?  A survey using a self-selected  group of particpants, recruited by an anti-gun group?  Real “public health”, or even sociological or demographic –  research uses random subjects from a representative population – not people cherry-picked by a constituent that’s looking for a specific result.  And a control group?  Forget about it.

That’s not “science”.  It’s not even demography.  It’s public relations and politics.   If you call it “science”, you’re misrepresenting yourself and, yes, science itself.

Oh yeah – and in the fine print of the message, it says the “researchers” will likely quote you unless the results of the “study” are under a confidentiality agreement.

This isn’t science. This barely qualifies as group slander.  Anyone putting this, or its results, out there as “science” should be charged, at least rhetorically, with malpractice.

LIBRELLE:  Check your privelege, racist.

BERG:  Naturally.

LIBRELLE:  And you need…

(BERG cranks the guitar to 11 and starts playing the intro to “Anarchy in the UK”)

(And SCENE)

Lie First, Lie Always: The Media Are The Gun Grabbers’ Stenographers

Q: How can you tell a gun grabber is lying?

A: They are attempting to communicate via any way, shape or form.  Verbally or non-verbally.  In any language.

John Lott on how the media – knowingly or not – inflates the gun grabbers’ numbers.  And as national carry permit reciprocity gains speed in Congress, it’s going to get worse.

And it touches on something readers of this blog knew almost a decade ago; the pro-criominal-safety lobby’s pet “think” tank is a room full of lying sacks:

The Violence Policy Center (VPC), the source of these claims, asserts that in the 10 years from May 2007 to April 2017, U.S. concealed handgun permit holders were responsible for 969 nonself-defense gun deaths (with any type of weapon, not just handguns).

We’ve dealt with the VPC and their “statistics” on this blog before, and found them to be pure garbage.  Nohitng’s changed since then:

Looking at the VPC numbers for 2016, they claim that 26 permit holders supposedly committed 29 homicides. With over 15 million permit holders nationwide last year, those deaths amount to 0.2 homicides per 100,000 permit holders.

However, there is an arrest and investigation virtually anytime a permit holder uses a handgun in a public place. Almost all of the 2016 cases are listed as pending, and most of the defendants will be acquitted on account of self-defense.

So as I noted in my 2009 piece on the swine at the VPC, they treated all ambiguous cases as cut and dried murder.  And it gets worse:

The tally of 969 deaths is the result of triple and even quadruple counting. Michigan — by far the worst state according to VPC numbers — supposedly suffered 78 homicides and 390 suicides. Supposedly, Michigan was the site of over 40 percent of all deaths attributed to permit holders.

The main problem is that pending cases are counted in the same way as convictions. The Michigan State Police report the number of pending cases and convictions each year.

But since most cases never result in a conviction and many cases can be listed as pending for two or three calendar years, this results in massive over counting.

An additional 30 cases are added in, as a result of news stories. Apparently, no effort was made to check if these cases were already accounted for in the state police reports.

A case that ends in acquittal will, therefore, be counted four times if it is covered in a news story and is pending for three years. Over the past 10 years, 17 Michigan permit holders were convicted of homicide, not 78.

That comes to 1.7 cases per year, out of 560,000 permit holders in June 2016.

Which gives permittees a homicide rate about one quarter that of the state of Minnesota, and about 1/120th the rate for Michiganders as a whole.

That’s over two orders of magnitude safer than the general public.

And yet what do  you suppose the media reports, with airtight incuriosity?

The VPC’s only “violence policy” is their policy of genocide toward the truth.