Letter To Nick Coleman, “Executive Editor” Of The Uptake

I sent the following to Nick Coleman – the “Executive Editor” of Twin Cities’ videoleftyblog The Uptake, which appears to have jettisoned all pretense of being anything but, well, a videoleftyblog – after reading his email to the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance last night:

Mr. Coleman,

I caught your note to Andrew Rothman on Facebook.

As a rigidly law-abiding gun owner, I have a special interest in policing my own.

So if you would please: from whom are you getting this “growing sense” at the Capitol?

Any actual legislators you could name? Did they have complaints about any specific behavior, from any particular attendees?

If they felt intimidated, was there a reason they didn’t notify Capitol Security – who said, Mr. Rothman noted, that the crowd was better-behaved than most?

Finally, Mr. Coleman – as you have publicly acknowledged being a carry permit holder, how do people “find it possible” do do anything around you, knowing that you may be armed? It’s a serious question.

Thanks in advance.

Mitch Berg

Uppity Peasant

I’m not exactly expecting an answer.  The one time Nick answered a question of mine, it was…

…well, memorable.

6 thoughts on “Letter To Nick Coleman, “Executive Editor” Of The Uptake

  1. It occurs to me that Eric Black had better step up his game. There’s a new lunatic “journalist” on the market; and this one “knows stuff”.

  2. I understand perfectly why those at the legislature felt the gun carriers were intimidating; it is because some of them were.
    An example, one of the people attending and speaking at the hearing had been harassed on twitter and on their blog prior to attending and then had someone they recognized by name tweeting the during the hearing that they were seated somewhere behind them and they were armed, and that they knew what that person looked like, while that person couldn’t recognize them.

    That was not the only instance of that kind of communication. Some of it took place in the legislature, some of it occurred prior.

    It was construed as a kind of stalking, with the intention being to rattle those attending on the gun control side, including those who were speaking so as to make them more nervous and uncomfortable.

    A lot of those who have written or spoken or otherwise been active have had that kind of harassment from people who have (or claim to have) guns. Some of these communications are more overtly hostile than others.

    A week ago I had someone express a desire to shoot me, the second time that person had commented on my blog in an overtly hostile manner. It was accompanied by an email sent to the blog email, not my private email with the message “I know where you live”. It is our blog policy to report threats to law enforcement for documentation in case the problems escalate, and as a result, I’ve gotten to know local law enforcement better than I would have otherwise.

    This time I was directed to also contact the FBI, because it was a case of a threat across state lines. So I did. I tend to blow these things off, so I was uncomfortable making a report to the FBI; but if this guy turned out to be another Jimmy Lee Dykes, and I didn’t report it, and something happened, not ot me but to someone else it would be a pretty heavy thing on my conscience. The FBI duty officer with whom I spoke indicated this person would probably get a visit either from the local LEOs or the FBI, depending on what else turned up. One of the things that turned up was that this person had past ties to MN, to Stearns County.

    The same source which supplied me the location of the person making the threat showed me that person had left my blog to go to commongunsense., ‘Japete’s’ blog, as she is colloquially known.

    So, while I am confident Mitch that you are always responsible and a gentleman, armed or not, there are some very good
    that people are NOT comfortable around armed pro-gunners. They range from those who carry that are not permitted to do so – which was true of someone we both know, who lied about being a State Trooper, to those who are careless, making the news with incidents like this one in the news: http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/headlines/bend-woman-accidentally-shoots-husband-at-mcdonald-s/article_6c6c4d12-585b-5cc1-882e-d658bf7ec9ef.html
    or these: http://www.startribune.com/local/172482271.html
    http://www.startribune.com/local/north/167378575.html?refer=y
    or these failures in proper safety by carry permittees, who are supposed to be safe and legal with firearms but aren’t:
    http://m.startribune.com/?id=182243551
    http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_22188218/st-paul-man-gets-probation-after-son-2
    So, I think your outrage is a bit over the top, and the expression of concern by those attending the hearings in support of gun control were reasonable and justified. Many of those who were there have had bad experiences with either permittees or with other legal gun owners who committed gun violence but were largely otherwise law abiding, not the people you think of as obvious criminals.

  3. I frequent gun ranges and run into scores of people who are not only permit holders but handle firearms right next to me! Oddly enough, not once was I intimidated, nor I am sure anyone else around me. Maybe, just maybe, if DemonCRATs knew that a f***ing gun looks like and how it functions in law-abiding citizen hands, they would be less intimidated. You know, fear of the unknown. But hey, you have not compulsion nor curiosity to drag your Mongrel head out of DFL sewer to take notice. But we do have to give you a pass – what with all that homework…

  4. DG,

    who are supposed to be safe and legal with firearms but aren’t:

    You can throw out anecdotes until you’re blue in the face, but the absolute fact is that carry permittees are nearly three orders of magnitude less likely to commit any sort of violent crime than the general public.

    And that is using the Violence Policy Center’s statistics.

    In ten years, there has been ONE non-justifiable homicide committed by a carry permit holder – a woman who shot her boyfriend in a domestic disturbance. It was in her home, so the permit didn’t even apply – but we’ll count it. And that’s IT.

    In those same ten years, there’ve been hundreds of murders in Minnesota. The firearm murder rate in MN is 3/100,000.

    One murder in ten years = roughly .002 murders per 100,000 per year.

    Your nonstop slander of the law-abiding gun owner is wearing thin – and has NO factual basis.

    As usual.

  5. And even with Penigma’s Chihuahua’s anecdote, the unnamed person, who may be one of Penigma’s highly qualified neighbors, was, in fact, safe. No harm was incurred upon the person by the also unnamed permit holder.

    Where’s the homework Penigma’s Chihuahua?

  6. “That was not the only instance of that kind of communication. Some of it took place in the legislature, some of it occurred prior.”

    The internet is eternal. If a crime was committed, no one can hide behind an anonymous twitter name. Did your “source” report the “twitter stalking” to the capitol security? If not, why not?

    “They range from those who carry that are not permitted to do so – which was true of someone we both know, who lied about being a State Trooper”

    Name names. Don’t pussyfoot around. If he lied about being a trooper, that is a crime and his name should be public anyway. I would think that with all your animosity towards the general gun carrying population, you’d LOVE to take one of them down a notch. Here’s your opportunity.

Leave a Reply