Why Does The Minnesota DFL Support Spree Killings?

There’s been very little talk about Paul Ciancia in the mainstream media, compared to most of the major spree shootings.

Perhaps it’s because “only” one person died. Maybe it’s because the shooting spree was ended before it really got started by good guys with guns.

Or maybe it’s because Paul Ciancia’s story ties in nicely with the NRA’s line on mass shootings; it’s not the gun, it’s the mental illness:

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said on Sunday the suspect’s “mental illness” was a chief reason behind the shooting at Los Angeles International Airport.

Of course, there’s been no dispositive diagnosis yet – but if I were a gambler, I’d go long on “crazy” in this case. As I have in every recent mass-shooting incident. And won.

Of course, there’s a problem: mental illness data isn’t getting to the NICS system, the national database that provides the “go/no-go” answers on disqualifications for buying guns.

The data Minnesota reports, in particular, has gaps in it – gaps that were supposed to be fixed over a decade ago. The DFL – which has controlled the process one way or another that entire time – has dragged its feet on improving the system.

Most recently, the Metrocrat Extremists – Representatives Martens, Hausman and Paymar and Senator Latz – blocked the “Good Gun Bill”, which would have fixed the gaps in Minnesota’s data reporting.

Before that? Governor Dayton – who, let’s remind you, ran as a “Second Amendment Friendly” governor (with a pair of .357 Magnums in a gun safe, doncha know) vetoed Tony Cornish’s “Stand Your Ground” bill, which would have likewise fixed the gaps in the data we report.

So why do Democrats support mass murderers?

Posted

November 4, 2013

Crime and Punishment, Democrat Party, Victim Disarmament

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

22 responses to “Why Does The Minnesota DFL Support Spree Killings?”

Dog Gone

November 4, 2013

A better, more honest question would be why do conservatives support letting guns get into the wrong hands.
The NRA has supported letting felons get guns easily after demonstrating they are untrustworthy with them and are violent. It is now a cottage industry in MN, thanks to conservatives and ALEC and NRA money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted%3Dall&_r=0

” Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found.

While previously a small number of felons were able to reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements — part of an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms. “
And the faux outrage over mental illness? Seriously? Again, conservatives were the ones who made it easier for the dangerously crazy, through NRA lobbying, to get guns. The NRA through their lobbyists slipped in provisions making it easier for the dangerously crazy to get gun rights restored, with little or no menta heal evaluation – in the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/us/03guns.html?pagewanted=all
“As a condition of its support for the measure, the National Rifle Association extracted a concession: the inclusion of a mechanism for restoring firearms rights to those who lost them for mental health reasons.”

And similarly, the NRA and ALEC were behind keeping drug convictions in the NICS data base for only one year, regardless of the severity of the drug use or drug trafficking conviction. So you can get out of jail, and even if you had a felony drug conviction – not in the NCIS data base.

Why does it make sense for the NRA to promote selling guns to these people? Because it makes it easier to scare conservatives into buying more guns. This way they can sell to both sides, the bad guys, and the guys who think of themselves as good guys — even when they really aren’t so very good. The conservative paranoid gun buyers.

The only ‘good guys with guns’ were law enforcement in this and in pretty much all the other mass shootings. Progressives / liberals support that.

The only reason Minnesota has had a problem with getting the NICS data base fixed has been obstruction from conservatives.

We don’t know that this LAX shooter is mentally ill; no one has reported him as such, much less any such diagnosis. Unless you count as crazy being a far right wing nut with anti-government beliefs? He does appear to be THAT. We don’t know, for example, that Adam Lanza was actually mentally ill either – he apparently had no trace of any kind of medication in his system per the recent autopsy results released. Lanza’s father has been good enough to leave his son’s brain to the study of science to see if any abnormality that might suggest mental illness was present, but so far that is not evident, only very mild Asperger’s, which is not a dangerous mental illness.

There have, in fact, been plenty of mass shooters who were not mentally ill. Just mean bastards. Usually white guys with gun fetishes. In that regard the navy yard shooter was an ‘outlier’.

So the better question is why do you conservative gun huggers support mass shootings? Because you are far more responsible for them than liberals and progressives.
Powhatan Mingo

November 4, 2013

I thought so . . . young man, isolates himself and starts acting and thinking oddly enough to alarm those that remain near to him. Sounds like young adult onset of schizophrenia. All or mostly white guys, though. I wonder if it is a cultural thing? The underlying illness may be the same, but its expression may be influenced by culture.
Mitch Berg

November 4, 2013

DG,

A better, more honest question would be why do conservatives support letting guns get into the wrong hands.

Wrong!

It’s conservatives and the NRA that have led the saw in EVERY initiative that’s kept guns out of the hands of actual criminals. Sometimes in concert with smart liberals.

The NRA has supported letting felons get guns easily after demonstrating they are untrustworthy with them and are violent.

Wrong again, and further proof that all you actually do is recite the first chanting point you come up with on Google.

The NRA supports allowing felons to petition to get their rights restored after a period of time – usually a decade – of keeping their noses absolutely clean.

Felons who keep clean records for a decade are usually good bets against recidivism.

Your disingenuity is astounding, DG – you want felons to vote while they’re still in prison, but all their other rights? Ptui.

It is now a cottage industry in MN, thanks to conservatives and ALEC and NRA money

BULLSHIT CALL! – OK, DG. Show us – with actual sources – where it’s a “cottage industry”.

Do it now. Before you leave another comment on my blog.

I try to stay civil, DG – but what you’re writing is utterly untrue.
Mitch Berg

November 4, 2013

And for the love of God, please learn how to close your tags. Criminy.
Mitch Berg

November 4, 2013

Also, DG, I asked you a question the other day. Please answer that, along with the one I asked you above.

Thanks.

(PS: I never thought I’d say this – but you HAVE turned into a “fact checker”, of sorts. I find that assuming facts are the exact oppposite of whatever you assert never shows me the wrong way.
Mitch Berg

November 4, 2013

Usually white guys with gun fetishes

Again with your curious little racist ad-hominem.

You just don’t do logic or fact, do you?
Bill C

November 4, 2013

It sounds like DG wants felons to PERMANENTLY lose their rights to keep and bear arms, no? I wonder if she feels the same way about them permanently losing their rights to vote (more people killed with the stroke of a pen than with the barrel of a gun, et al)

Of course not, since a majority of felons vote democrat. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/2934730.aspx
Bill C

November 4, 2013

Your disingenuity is astounding, DG – you want felons to vote while they’re still in prison, but all their other rights? Ptui.

See my above post. She wants felons to vote, and she is a screeching meemie about MN’s supposed voter fraud being absolutely science fiction because she knows those two items ILLEGALLY WIN DEMOCRATS THEIR ELECTIONS.

Her jackboots run as high up her thighs as the most unrepentant Nazi that ever walked this earth.

It is INDISPUTABLE FACT that more felons voted in the Coleman/Franken election than not only the eventual fraudulent margin of victory for Franken, but the whole swing of votes from Coleman’s 725 initial lead to the 312 vote tally that the judicial overlords handed to Franken (and thus, Obamacare, and Obama) on a silver platter.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163

(if nothing else, I can say this about DG’s posts: Using overt hyperbole IS a lot of fun.)
Dog Gone

November 4, 2013

Are your Mitch-keteers really that ignorant of Minnesota politics?

Let’s go back to 1990, the year that Rudy Perpich lost to Arne Carlson, who was sworn into office in 1991. He was the Republican Governor of Minnesota from 1991 to 1999.

Then we had 4 years of Jesse Ventura, an independent. Followed by T-Paw from 2003 to 2011. Not really a fair claim that the Democrats ‘were in control’. We’ve had Dayton in office from 2011 to present, and during his first two years, the lege was controlled, both house and senate, by Republicans.

Now if you’d like me to go back and present to you how many years one of the houses of the lege was ALSO controlled by Republicans, I’d be happy to do so, for the past 20 years. It has NOT been all Democrats all 20 years, or even the last 10.

But most of all, if you’d like me to go back to the origination of the NICS data base, and show you what party was keeping it from being funded and kept current with the FBI data base, I’d be more than happy to demonstrate to you that originated with overwhelmingly Republican votes, starting with the Congressional alteration to the original legislation, courtesy of NRA lobbyists, to make it VOLUNTARY instead of mandatory, so that states could do precisely what Minnesota did – not fund it, not comply with it.

Yes, the legislation that Tony Cornish cut and pasted from the NRA drafted ALEC bill — you really should put it side by side with the original model legislation and the subsequent cookie cutter legislation in other states — finally offered to stop being assholes about the NICS data base. But it was overall a piece of crap legislation, and Dayton did the right thing in not believing this was a good offer made in good faith by Cornish and the MN GOP.

So the question is — are you really a believer in your own false, emotional propaganda, or are you deliberately misrepresenting it, knowing full well that you are being deliberately factually inaccurate?
jimf

November 4, 2013

“Arne Carlson who was Republican Governor from 1991 to 1999.” Carlson was never a “Republican” except in name only.
mnbubba

November 4, 2013

“So the question is — are you really a believer in your own false, emotional propaganda, or are you deliberately misrepresenting it, knowing full well that you are being deliberately factually inaccurate?”

– and your point would be… what, exactly?
Powhatan Mingo

November 4, 2013

The best measure of whether or not felons have improperly had their gun rights restored is not blathering about ALEC and the NRA, or ‘following the money’, it is measuring how many of these felons with restored gun rights have gone on to commit violent crimes with guns and comparing that number to non-felon gun owners. Jeez.
Joe

November 4, 2013

Be careful how quickly you rise to the bait of “mental illness” as a disqualifier. Rightfully, those with serious and pervasive mental illness (SPMI), mental retardation (term used correctly), and other cognitive impaitments should be disqualified.

“Dangerously crazy” is hardly an objective standard. Ask any ex-spouse if it applies to their ex. The despondant young man who isolates, acts odd, and seems to be wasting away could be in the beginning stages of schizophrenia. Or got dumped by the prom queen … or wants to be the prom queen. Once we look for “dangerously crazy” symptoms we’ll find them, whether the person has SPMI, is eccentric, or just says things we don’t like. Glance through the new DSM IV. If you don’t see yourself somewhere in there, you are quite lucky.

I, too, question, and await proof, of Adam Lanza’s mental illness. Anecdotes don’t count. I don’t doubt that he was, I just question the predictability of his acts. Unfortunately, SPMI is not always apparent. Many in positions of power want to use anecdotal information from anyone; law enforcement, neighbors, ex-spouses, and anyone else, as justification to deny gun possession. Be very careful with how loosely you allow evidence to be admitted …
Joe

November 4, 2013

DSM V. Sorry, old habit.
Joe Doakes

November 4, 2013

Maybe Dog Gone has a point. In the past, we believed a person who has been convicted of a crime and has served his time has paid his debt to society. If he can convince a judge to restore his civil rights – own a gun and vote – then he got them back.

Maybe Dog Gone is right. Maybe some classes of felons are too dangerous to be allowed to have civil rights, ever. Take away their right to vote, to hunt, to hold public office. Sure, it would contradict all the studies that say restoring civil rights helps re-integrate former criminals back into society. And yes, it would disproportionately impact minorities. But we could try it for a while to see if crime went down.
Joe Doakes

November 4, 2013

As to mental illness, Dog Gone blames Republicans for making it hard to take away guns from people but she must know the ACLU and mental health professionals are solidly against it, too. The burden of proof for determining that a person should lose civil rights by reason of mental illness is very high. Pointing the finger doesn’t solve the problem, especially if you’re not pointing at the right people.
Joe Doakes

November 4, 2013

In the end, Dog Gone’s points would be more interesting if they were central to the discussion rather than peripheral to it. The LAX shooter wasn’t a criminal who had his rights restored, nor adjudicated mentally ill but given his guns back. Nor was the Newtown shooter, the Aurora theatre shooter, Gabby Giffords shooter, the kids at Columbine or the Virginia Tech shooter.

Dog Gone is like the abortion supporters who debate exceptions for rape and incest when there aren’t a dozen legitimate cases per year compared to the tens of thousands of abortions for convenience they blithely let slide.

Similarly, Dog Gone howls about the two restored felons who re-offended but ignores the hundreds of shooters who have never been in the system.

Obsessing about irrelevancies is pretty much the definition of “lunatic fringe.” Thanks for the demonstration, Dog Gone.
Powhatan Mingo

November 5, 2013

You are right, Joe Doakes! laws that prevent felons from owning guns disproportionately affect minorities, specifically Blacks and Latinos! God Bless the NRA, coming in on the side of tolerance and facing down the naked bigotry of the American Left.
Kind of brings a tear to my eye.
Troy

November 5, 2013

Dog Gone said:

“But it was overall a piece of crap legislation”

Yeah, still nothing to back that up, despite all the blather. That’s pretty useless, Dog Gone. 🙁
Mitch Berg

November 5, 2013

DG,

You listed a bunch of governors, as if that answers the question.

In 2003, the MPPA charged the legislature with improving mental health reporting. The DFL controlled at least one chamber, and stonewalled on all bills that would have enacted the improvements; Pawlenty, with other fish to fry, didn’t press the issue (a lapse that left the 2nd Amendment movement on the fence about Pawlenty, btw).

The DFL controlled the legislature in 2009-2010. They obviously did nothing.

The GOP controlled things in 2011-2012; the Cornish bill, which passed with a bipartisan majority, would have filled the gap. Our idiot governor vetoed it.

A bipartisan bill sponsored by Deb Hilstrom and co-authored by over 30 reps from both parties, again, would have solved the problem – but again, the Metrocrat majority killed it.

As usual, DG, I have the facts. You have twaddle, misdirection, and your curiously obsessive ad-homina.

Sorry to say, DG – but you belong at MPP.
Loren

November 5, 2013

Once again, the Chihuahua, proves the axiom, and removes all doubt!
Mitch Berg

November 5, 2013

And, DG, what Troy said. You clearly know not a thing about the legislation, other than what you’ve been told.

You have, for nearly a year now, dodged numerous direct questions on the subject, in numerous threads.

You don’t know the facts. You don’t even knows the lies all that well.

You’re wasting everyone’s time – yours and, less forgiveably, mine.