The Strib “Hot Dish” notes that Rep. Alice “The Phantom” Hausman is taking some flak over her “bump and run” act last week; as we noted last week, Hausman introduced several gun grab bills, but didn’t stick around to hear the testimony:
Hausman excused herself Wednesday morning after introducing the assault weapons bill, saying she had another appointment, and did not attend Thursday’s session focusing on her bill to ban larger ammunition magazines.
Hausman said she had other commitments as a committee chair and was told her bills would not be voted on. Rather, Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul, chairman of the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee, said ideas contained in many of the bills would be included in a larger, gun-violence measure that will be assembled and voted on later this month.
Now, this brings up one surprise and two issues.
The surprise: Rachel Stassen-Berger is flirting with reporting something that might conceivably not advance the DFL’s interest. I thought I saw a flying pig along 394 this morning. Kudos, Rachel!
The first issue: while Second Amendment supporters were piqued at Hausman for fleeing any questioning of her gun grab bills, the big problem was that she turned that job over to a registered lobbyist. If a Republican – any Republican – did this on any issue, the assembled media elite, the Schecks and Cronans and Stassen-Bergers that prowl the Capitol, would be asking some very probing questions.
The other issue? I’ll add emphasis:
That meant that Hausman, who is not on the public safety committee, was “not a decision-maker,” she said, and was presenting bills that were put together by Protect Minnesota. She said she meant no disrespect to the testifiers.
Remember last year, when Alida Messinger’s “Alliance For A Better Minnesota” paid for a chanting campaign against the “American Legislative Exchange Committee” (ALEC) for submitting model legislation for legislators’ consideration? Why, you’d have thought democracy itself was at risk.
But there it is in plain black and white; the DFL majority is cribbing legislation from an extremist gun-grabber group that has among the worst records for truthfulness and veracity anywhere in politics – only the Ku Klux Klan and the “Joe Isuzu PAC” do worse – and, apparently (judging by the petulance and illiteracy of the DFL’s responses to the testimony against their gun grabs) without having read them themselves.
After realizing how effective ALEC is, they’re just taking it to the next level. If proposing model legislation is good, letting the lobby present it themselves is better.
Alida’s flying monkeys were blowing smoke until they were ready for their own ALEC roll out.
(+10 bonus points for the KKK tie-in, Mitch!)
I haven’t fact checked every claim made by Protect Minnesota, but I’ve checked quite a few of them, and they were accurate.
Specifically what do you claim they are lying about, misrepresenting, or are in error factually?
Just curious, because I’d like to fact check your assumptions.
Having a point of view you don’t like or agree with is not the same as lying or being wrong.
DG,
I’m not going to play blindman’s bluff with you. I’ve been “fact-checking” PM and CSM – actually fact-checking, as opposed to “checking for congruence with lefty chanting points”, which is what you do – for over a decade now.
So why don’t you take the initiative here, and tell me where you think I’ve got PM wrong. Be specific. Then I’ll show you were you’re wrong.
I’ll give you a hand; here’s my entire collection of writing about PM and Heather Martens.
While you’re at it – Stand your Ground? Crap Legislation? Remember that? See to it, please. Thanks.
Dog Gone paraphrased:
“I’d like to waste your time, so could you write about stuff you’ve already written, even though I still probably won’t understand it? I can’t use the Internet well enough to find what you’ve written, but trust me: I can totally fact check stuff.”
More homework? DogWhereIsPenalCountyGone will get right back to you after she runs FactCheckTM on 0bumbler’s SOTU address.
Simple question – be specific.
What ‘lies’ do Protect Minnesota tell?
And I stand by the claim that the Shoot First law in Minnesota was a piece of crap.
They lead to a change from a decreasing number of homicides to an increase:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577311873214574462.html
and from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, writing about a Texas A&M study:
http://fcir.org/2013/01/04/in-states-with-stand-your-ground-laws-homicide-on-the-rise/
Researchers who’ve studied the effect of the laws have found that states with a stand your ground law have more homicides than states without such laws.
“These laws lower the cost of using lethal force,” says Mark Hoekstra, an economist with Texas A&M University who examined stand your ground laws. “Our study finds that, as a result, you get more of it.” …
Hoekstra recently decided to analyze national crime statistics to see what happens in states that pass stand your ground laws. He found the laws are having a measurable effect on the homicide rate.
“Our study finds that, that homicides go up by 7 to 9 percent in states that pass the laws, relative to states that didn’t pass the laws over the same time period,” he says.
As to whether the laws reduce crime — by creating a deterrence for criminals — he says, “we find no evidence of any deterrence effect over that same time period.”
Hoekstra obtained this result by comparing the homicide rate in states before and after they passed the laws. He also compared states with the laws to states without the laws.
DG,
I’m sorry, but you have less aptitude as a fact-checker than you do as a music critic.
I tackled Hoekstra a few months ago. One key point that jumps out at you: he didn’t factor in self-defense shootings; they’re lumped in with unjustified homicides. As Hoekstra himself notes!
So – in this case, you’ve clearly googled something that fit your premise without really understanding it.
As to the FCIR piece: I’ll go over it, but I’m going to bet it makes the same error, without being as honest as Hoekstra. Again, that’s a guess – but I’m rarely wrong about these sorts of things.
In neither case did you address the actual question: why was Cornish’s Minnesota bill, passed by a bipartisan assortment of legislators from both chambers, “crap”. I asked that; it took you seven months to google a couple of studies?
I already told you, DG; I’ve written a TON about Heather Martens’ dubious relationship with the truth over the past decade. Here’s a simple guideline; if Heather Martens says it, and it’s about guns, and it’s not a hard number cribbed from the DOJ, it’s a lie. Period. Every fucking syllable.
Here’s one piece I wrote about two years ago that contains fifteen lies in a row, all very specific. Feel free to defend her.
You’ll lose.
DG, Any and virtually all of your comments have become nothing less than nauseating to read. I’m joining the ever growing group that won’t read a single word of anything you write. So to you I say for the last time………..PFFT!!!
Pingback: With Apologies To David Letterman (Back When He Was Funny) | Shot in the Dark