Betty’s Idea Of “Dialog”

.Yesterday in this space, we watched Betty McCollum at a town hall in Oakdale repeatedly declaim that she wanted to see a “dialog” between Real Americans and the gun-grabbers.

I had all sorts of suggestions – but I wondered; what does “dialog” mean to Representative McCollum?

I got a copy of the letter she’s been sending her supporters:

Sadly over the past several years, far too many innocent American children, women and men have been the victims of gun violence. The sobering statistics about gun violence speak volumes. According to the U.S. Census, of the 129,741 murders that were reported between 2000 and 2008, nearly two-thirds of the victims were killed by a firearm. Every year nearly 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun according to the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence. Every day, 270 people in America – 47 of them children and teens – are injured or slain due to gun violence.

If this is what she’s bringing to the “dialog”, I’m afraid she’s not trying all that hard to “communicate”:

Why show eight years of murder stats in one place? To avoid showing that the gun murder rate is sharply down .
Where did most of those shootings come from? A criminal was involved – as the shooter, the target or both – in the vast majority of them.
The Brady Factory uses stats that cuts off “Children and Teens” at age 19. Plenty of 18-19 year olds are not only not “children”, they are criminals and gang-bangers, and doing plenty of shooting and getting shot at.

I may not be an elected representative, but where I come from “dialog” is best when it isn’t “one side spewing BS and the other side constantly correcting them”.

Oh, yeah – here’s more “dialog”:

Nonetheless voices like the NRA will do everything to protect guns rather than the lives of our children and law enforcement officers. I have consistently opposed the NRA and their extremist agenda and will continue to do so. As a result of this work I have received an ‘F’ rating from the NRA.

Keep up the “dialog”, Rep. McCollum. Your seat is safe – for now – so you can do it

But let’s extend the “dialog” to some outstate DFLers.

Tim Walz and Collin Peterson: do you agree with Rep. McCollum?

How about you, Patti Fritz and David Bly and Zac Dorholt and David Bly and all you other outstate DFLers? How’s Rep. McCollum’s idea of “dialog” sound to you? Kinda…extreme? Is this what you plan on taking to your constituents next year?

Posted

January 28, 2013

MN Congressional, Victim Disarmament

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

4 responses to “Betty’s Idea Of “Dialog””

bosshoss429

January 29, 2013

Based on the facts on how mind of the majority of elected libturds work, I fear that those outstate Dems will give lip service to support of the Second Amendment, just to get reelected. Once they are, they have a few years to renege, hoping public opinion will ultimately get them a pass. Of course, that is a flawed strategy, but when has that ever stopped a hard core left winger?

On another note, Media Matters resident paranoid, hypocritical leader David Brock, violated DC gun laws, while receiving money from Soros and others to push the gun control meme. Funny, the D.C. police knew about it, yet took no action. If I’m a lawyer defending anyone for possession of a firearm in D.C. I would be salivating over crony law enforcement.
justplainangry

January 29, 2013

From a person who was at the Oakdale meeting: there were a few plants who were allowed to speak – ie made orc statements, not asked questions, – at the beginning of the meeting; when time came to answer real questions, Blind Betty did not give a single straight answer, always went off on a tangent; there were only a few real questions asked because time expired.
Seflores

January 29, 2013

Why is it anytime someone – from my teen’s when it was a girlfriends father, to now in my professional life with a boss to my personal life with my spouse – tells me they want to have a “conversation” or a “talk” or a “dialogue” with me, what they really mean is they want to have a monologue or a ‘talk’ where they talk and I listen or a conversation where my part is simply to agree with whatever they say?
Well via Instapundit, I am given a lesson in how to respond to this type of “dialog”.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/28/vermont-gun-range-bans-police-officers-from-facility-over-proposed-ban-on-semi-automatic-rifles/
Read the whole thing as Mitch might say but I love this quote from the Chief:
“Responding to the gun range ban, the Burlington Police Department said in a statement: “It is unfortunate that this important and much-needed community dialogue regarding gun control currently under way in the City of Burlington and across the nation has resulted in this action.”
“Much needed community dialogue” – thanks, Chief, you can’t make this stuff up. Do these people really lack this much self-awareness?
PS: Over/Under on how many days before the range has use permit or zoning issues?
Bill C

January 29, 2013

Seflores: You give them too much credit when you ask if there is a possibility they don’t realize what they are saying. I’ve become jaded enough that I don’t give them that consideration anymore. I fully believe every word that is gracious, or compromising, or conciliatory or middle of the road, that comes out of the mouth of anyone on the left (chiefs of police included since they are 50% politicians) is a coldly calculated lie, intent on misleading or mollifying their opponents and those of the low-information category.

“Important and much needed community dialog”=God dammit, that fucking NRA is preventing me from disarming this city. Any leftist politician or police chief that says otherwise is lying out their ass.