Heather Martens: “Lie First. Lie Always”

The good guys have apparently gotten into Heather Martens’ head.

GOCRA and MNGOPAC figured prominently in Martens’ “Give to the Max” day fundraising plea:

By giving today, you make it possible for the voice of reason to be heard at the Capitol despite the intimidation.

Intimidation?

The stories we could tell.

And will, someday.

But let’s move on to the fun part:

We need your support, because this other group says whatever it wants. I quote [from, I believe, a MNGOPAC fundraising email]:

“Let’s remember what Protect Minnesota advocates for: bans on common hunting rifles and shotguns, licensing of gun owners, mandatory inspections by your county sheriff for ‘safe storage,’ court orders to seize your firearms without a hearing, and on and on!”

It seems that Protect Minnesota is scary to those who think assault weapons are “common hunting rifles and shotguns” and will believe whatever accusations this group invents.

Now, let’s recap: Heather Martens has never, not once in her career, said a single, original, substantive true thing about gun owners, gun crime, or the Second Amendment.

And she doesn’t start with this email. “Assault Weapons” like the AR15, the Mini-14, and SKS are exceptionally common hunting weapons. The de facto licensing and mandatory inspections were parts of the bills that Protect MN supported – indeed, that Martens, a paid lobbyist, read into the record in lieu of Rep. Hausman, in a clubby little violation of House rules. The seizure without hearings was part of the various Domestic Abuse proposals pushed at the state and federal (by Sen. Klobuchar) level, and supported with robotic monotony by Martens and “Protect” MN.

She does swerve toward truth, briefly – but that, inevitably, undercuts her case without her knowing it, bless her simple little heart:

They are a small minority [Which routinely turns out 30 times as much public support as “Protect” MN – Ed] that makes “controversy” to stop any kind of public policy to reduce gun violence — even when the vast majority of Americans support such policies. But something scares me in their email: That they raised $51,000 last year.

Which is, likely, 50 times as much as “Protect” MN raised from the general public last year (they get $300K from the Joyce Foundation and other big institutional donors – read “Liberals with deep pockets”).

The people – real people, Real Minnesotans, Real Americans – support the Second Amendment.

And I’m not sure why that “scares” Heather Martens. It’s the only thing keeping her employed.

Posted

November 13, 2015

Big Gun Control, Lie First, Lie Always

Mitch Berg

Tags:

A-Klo, Heather Martens

Comments

20 responses to “Heather Martens: “Lie First. Lie Always””

Bento Guzman

November 13, 2015

Story in my paper today about the state (Hawaii) police being sued by a wannabe gun owner.
The state used to routinely refuse to issue a permit to own, long gun or hand gun, to foreign nationals here on green cards, e.g. permanent US residents. They got sued over that a few years ago and the feds found the policy unconstitutional.
So they are still denying permits to lawful permanent residents based on the laws of the country where they have citizenship. If a foreign national with a green card wants permission to own a gun, the state police will contact the police in his or her home country and ask them if they would issue them a permit.
They are Right Bastards.
The Head of Prince Charming

November 14, 2015

Mitch,

I’d be interested in a thoughtful, respectful discussion on this point. As you know, I own a firearm. I don’t consider them “evil”, though I think there exists people who elevate their importance and effectiveness in a myriad of circumstances, both on the left and the right.

I know you are educated on the subject, and I know you know the text of the Heller and McDonald decisions well enough to have a literate discussion.

My suggestion as to an interpretation of Heller and McDonald both is that a. the 2nd Amendment was incorporated on the states (by McDonald iirc), b. that the right to own AND bear arms was confirmed as an individual right and that c. reasonable restrictions on ownership, such as the ban on owning automatic weapons (or cannons etc..) were affirmed by the court as constitutional.

Do you agree?

Assuming that is true, as a general premise, do you feel it would be constitutional for a state to ban high capacity magazines, like Connecticut has? I think it is, and I’ve really not heard anyone say it isn’t with anything resembling a convincing argument, so if you feel it is not, convince me, I’m open-minded about it, honestly.

Further still, do you feel that in other than the very rare case, something other than a shotgun or a revolver (or let’s agree on a .45 automatic) is required for self-defense? I’ve seen very few (none really) reports of a civilian defending themselves with a weapon where they needed LOTS of rounds. Very nearly every story I’ve seen says 2-3 rounds, tops were needed, more may have been fired, but really just a few were needed. And equally rarely are there more than 2 assailants, so again, not much argument or justification for having a high capacity weapon – a .12 gauge seems to do the job very well, but since they can’t be carried all over, a compact pistol, like the type concealed-carry advocates most commonly carry ALSO seems sufficient for the constitutionally guaranteed right to self-defense.

And that it seems is the rub of the argument. On one side are folks like yourself, who argue it MIGHT be necessary to carry a weapon with high capacity for the rare situation it is ever employed, and on the other side are people like me who argue that the rare circumstance doesn’t offset the harm caused by these kinds of weapons being widely available. We can argue about the cause of availability and the availability to criminals, but I’d really rather just try to address the root question first. I feel that some form of M16 (semi-auto) with high capacity capability is strictly shooting for killing lots of people fast, it’s not principally a defense weapon, it’s an offensive weapon, an assault weapon, modeled after the German original, for the use in assaulting buildings/strongholds, etc.. It’s less accurate at distance than a longer barreled peer, and uses a bullet which is decidedly less lethal an most .30 cal equivalents (esp. at shorter ranges where most hunting shots are taken).

The point is, your right to bear and to defend yourself, and your right to hunt, can be met by firearms that are capacity restricted. You may not prefer it, but I think it’s constitutional and promotes a safer environment, but I’m open to being persuaded otherwise.

Frankly, I’d be fine with folks owning higher capacity firearms IF they were required to keep them at a gun range/club etc.. or something like it. If they want something for self-defense, keep something ELSE at home, a .12 gauge is better anyway. I realize not everyone can afford multiple weapons, but as I said, a .12 gauge is better anyway. So, there you have it, over to you.

As an aside and one other comment, while I know of people who hunt with an AR-15 (or equivalent) I also know it’s uncommon, as the round tends to be less immediately lethal than many others, esp things like an 8mm, .270 or .308. So sure, it’s done, but not by anything like a high percentage of hunters. So your comment that it’s very common I think deserves some interpretation. Are we talking raw numbers, well what’s “very common” in raw numbers? Are we talking as a percentage, I’d guess the percentage of deer hunters using a semi-auto .223/5.56mm is well less than 5%, but again, I’m open to being corrected.
The Head of Prince Charming

November 14, 2015

One correction, in reading further, apparently part of the problem of .556 is that past 70 yards, it does not fragment. My bad. Either way, it’s not the topic or the point and most articles I’ve seen say it’s not a great choice. It works, just not as well as other common rounds.
kel

November 14, 2015

peev said I feel that some form of M16 (semi-auto) with high capacity capability is strictly shooting for killing lots of people fast,

Obviously you’ve never hunted coyotes although I’m sure you have plenty of them hanging around down there by the Minnesota River. The 5.56 AR-15 platform is the most common I’ve seen and used for coyote hunting in rural farming communities where the 30 round magazine is a must because coyotes are a) fast, b) travel in packs. Coyotes are just one example – the AR-15 is used for a lot of varmint control situations. So No, it is NOT“strictly shooting for killing lots of people fast” except perhaps in your overheated imagination – stop believing Hollywood and participate in the real world.
kel

November 14, 2015

btw peev, the .556 would be a custom cartridge for a custom rifle that would be most directly analogous to the AR-50( .50 BMG ) and would be accurate out past 2000 yrds and depending upon the bullet composition it can do a lot of things at that range. The Nato 5.56 is considered accurate to 500 yrds (300 yrds for head shots) and fragmentation isn’t a necessity – when I’m shooting coyotes I’m perfectly happy with a nice solid mushroom shape.
The Head of Prince Charming

November 14, 2015

Kel, I agree a smaller caliber rifle is fine for hunting coyotes. Not really a widely practiced “sport”. I consider them vermin, though, so I wish you luck.

Either way, your point is tangential to the discussion. I asked Mitch to make a reasonable argument why such restrictions aren’t constitutional. That’s the primary point.

As an aside to yours, the longest sniper shots have been almost exclusively completed with .50 cal. The longest recorded, though, was with .338, using a highly specialized round out of a highly specialized rifle. .556 might go out to 2000 yards, but most people feel pretty conclusive that both it and .308 simply lose too much energy to be accurate past 1500 meters, which is still a helluva long way.

As far as my point about an M16, rather than .556, actually, nothing you said dissuades that. You can hunt coyotes with .556, but you don’t need 30 rounds to do it, not even close, or you’re a terrible shot who ought not to be hunting (not you personally, I mean the person hunting). So, sorry, you’ve not convinced me. People I respect, military veterans I respect, not just me, have said the same thing, assault rifles have one primary purpose, shooting people fast. They CAN be used to hunt, but there are far better options. Even so, Kel, I’m actually not opposed to the idea of a semi-auto rifle (like the M1), I’d just say it should be round limited. If you can’t do what you need to do in 7 rounds, well, the odds are pretty darned long you won’t do it in 30, that is, unless you’re intent on killing a lot of people, THEN 30 rounds (or 20) helps a lot, but then I’m not interested in saving that option for you. It’s not a right as far as I can see in the SCOTUS rulings and I don’t think the benefits outweigh the costs. If you can give me a bunch of substantive examples, I’d be open to being convinced otherwise, but I’ve done my research too, those examples are pretty darned rare. Misuse of high capacity weapons is not rare.
The Head of Prince Charming

November 14, 2015

Incidentally Kel, I do appreciate the civility of the reply, notwithstanding that you couldn’t otherwise refrain from name-calling at the start.
kel

November 14, 2015

several things;
1st a .556 caliber bullet is in fact greater in diameter than the .50 bullet in in a .50 BMG

2nd, there is no .556 caliber weapon being produced by any gun manufacturer world wide – any gun in existence that could fire that custom cartridge is a custom made one-off

3rd you’ve obviously never hunted coyotes so your suppositions about what is or is not effective is hot air and absolutely without merit

4th, assault weapons are by definition field selectable from semiautomatic to fully automatic fire (and prohibitively difficult for a civilian to buy so no reason to discuss it) – since armies do routinely engage in warfare it is appropriate that you would want a weapon that could kill people fast and that soldier would evaluate a weapon primarily on that basis – kill people fast is just what the 30-06 was designed to do when it was put into production – today the 30-06 is an extremely popular weapon for hunting larger game animals – thus your argument collapses upon itself.

5th any auto body shop has all the equipment necessary to manufacture large capacity magazines so limiting magazine capacity is a black marketers dream – much as it was after the 1994 ban when police officers nationwide discovered they could supplement their income by selling high capacity magazines only they had legal access to

In short discussing the collectivization of gun rights you propose is a failed notion largely due to your paucity of accurate knowledge about guns.
The Head of Prince Charming

November 14, 2015

Kel, typo on my part, I mean 5.56mm.

Second, too bad you failed the “remain civil” test, just when the conversation was getting interesting

Third, I’m afraid that if my lack of “hunting coyotes” means I’m not “pro-gun” enough for you. .ah well, that means so are a lot of folks

Fourth, I’m a 12 year army vet, I’ve fired more kinds of firearms than most of your friends.. so please, don’t lecture me, I’m quite versed, and if because I’m versed it means your last comment is “hot air” I guess that’s on you. It’s pretty likely I’ve fired more .223/5.56mm ammo in my life than you as well, just sayin’.

Last, you’ve not dissuaded the point in the least. You made a comment that 5.56mm was a good coyote round, ok, I agree, but that didn’t and doesn’t mean you need a 30 round mag or 20, to hunt with. 10 rounds is plenty, 7 is too. and that’s the point.

Incidentally, if you’re going to be that pedantic, we likely can’t have a real conversation. It’s not something new in conversations with many conservatives I’m met, you focus on tiny points rather than discuss the larger context OR you engage in usually misplaced and faultily justified ad hominem. If you’re going to leap to clueless assumptions about some fictional .556 caliber weapon when it was so obviously a typo, and then draw a faulty conclusion from that, well, again, I guess that’s where your civility marker got left back at home. It’s too bad too, because honestly, I’d have been happy to have a real conversation. Seriously.

Care to try again, or do you simply chose to be pointlessly insulting?
justplainangry

November 15, 2015

clueless assumptions about some fictional .556 caliber weapon
vs.
.556 might go out to 2000 yards and You can hunt coyotes with .556 and of course THIS my point about an M16, rather than .556 That “rather” thing is a smoking gun that points to your utter ignorance.

And why in your world is hunting limited to deer which are normally brought down with one shot because there normally is a TON of time to prepare to take aim? kel mentions coyote, and in Texas, hunting pigs is all the rage. Completely different types of hunt and AR with large capacity mags is absolutely the perfect platform for this type of hunt.

No, Peev, this is all about power and control and nothing about civil conversation. Your own words betray you and showcase your single-minded, twisted, illogical, incapable of listening and learning point of view.
justplainangry

November 15, 2015

pesky tag
The Head of Prince Charming

November 15, 2015

Justplain,

Apparently that’s going to be the reaction from conservatives. I misplace a decimal and it means I’m “making it all up” and don’t know anything. Yeah, ok. I’m sure that by my comments of a “smaller caliber” rifle what I was really meaning was a 56 caliber rifle…

Or.. it’s that it was a simple typo, I mean after all, it’s pretty likely that after 12 years of service I’ve fired far more 5.56/.223 than most conservatives and know more about the weapon than most, so I’m sure it’s not that you don’t want to have any discourse. Next time you caterwaul about how liberals “hate” while you just think “they’re wrong”, please look back at your conduct here.

Anyway, Justplain, since that clearly wasn’t the point, the point was that a high capacity weapon capable of rapid fire simply isn’t necessary for defense or for hunting except in circumstances so rare as to not offset the harm they otherwise present to society that it is both reasonable and constitutional to limit the capability of such weapons. Now, I understand based on your desire to simply dismiss for any reason you can find anyone (moderate or Democrat) who comments (to wit your reply), but please try to take that point in. I’m actually seeking to have the discussion with Mitch since he is the one who proclaims his knowledge of weapons and 2nd Amendment realities (not said as a pejorative, just an observation), and I think I have a reasonable knowledge too and would be glad to have a frank, candid, blunt, but respectful discussion of what limits he feels are legal vs. what I think are. That’s the purpose of this blog ostensibly, It’s not SUPPOSED to be willful misinterpretation of typographical errors (though I’ve certainly seen it done here and elsewhere). That sort of thing, the willful misinterpretation is what gives blogs and bloggers a bad name.

So, if you want to be less than angry all the time, how about speaking your mind coherently on this point? Maybe you’d find you have more in common with people on the other side of the aisle than you think, and maybe that’d help you to be a bit less angry (your epithet).
The Head of Prince Charming

November 15, 2015

And Justplain, while I suppose there are people who shoot wild pigs with some form of .223 semi-auto, I think they probably can be hunted plenty well enough with a lever action rifle, or even a .223 semi-auto with a 7 or 10 round clip.

Now, you may ask, why limit the size of the magazine? Because it has become clear that in several cases mass shootings were stopped when the shooter had to reload or otherwise had issues loading, switched to a lower capability weapon and was therefore less effective. There aren’t very many mass shootings, certainly, but there also are almost no recorded events of someone using 20-30 rounds to defend themselves or of needing to defend themselves from “a whole gang” (let’s call that 4 or more) of people, where they shot 4 people and needed to keep going. It’s just not a real scenario (or at least not common enough to warrant the risk).

If you’d care to say otherwise, show evidence otherwise, I’m all ears. Saying you need a 30 round magazine to shoot pigs, well, I think you’re going to lose that argument in front of SCOTUS (and we’ll find out since the Connecticut law has banned them in CT and California has as well. I have to assume that you all are pretty certain such bans aren’t constitutional since Mitch is inveighing against any sort of similar laws here. My point is to you (to Mitch), ok, so explain WHY it’s not constitutional Explain why a state may not make a reasonable limit because to my mind, and to the minds of many, you have no sufficiently meaningful or relevant practical need. Your self defense can be easily accomplished with other weapons, and I’ll grant you hunting hogs might be slightly easier with a larger capacity weapon, it doesn’t mean it’s necessary, so, sorry, but it sure seems like it’s a reasonable limit. I think SCOTUS will agree, even THIS SCOTUS. Frankly, I think a SCOTUS that didn’t have 6 of 9 members appointed by Republicans would not have incorporated the 2nd Amendment because the phrasing is pretty clear, but they did and so that’s the law of the land and it’s the constitutional standard now.
The Head of Prince Charming

November 15, 2015

BTW, Kel, the Texas government’s website’s article on hunting feral hogs recommends a weapon of .243 caliber or higher to prevent needless wounding.

“Because the feral hog has such a tough hide the best rifle calibers to use should be a .243 or greater to prevent wounding and loss of the animal.’

https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/nuisance/feral_hogs/

So, you may LIKE to use a Five Five Six loaded weapon – incidentally, that’s how it’s referred to or was when I was in the Army, we didn’t say Five POINT Five Six, so maybe you can understand the typo, but maybe not, pretty sure this isn’t the first time righties have flung poo about me making a typo but heaven forbid I point out theirs), Well, anyway, if you’re using 5.56 (and more likely you’re using .223) but either way, you’re using a caliber the State thinks is suboptimal as it’s too light. So, the job can be done better by a different weapon, at least in the opinion of person at the State of Texas who wrote the article (and who was clearly an avid hunter of feral hogs him/herself).
justplainangry

November 15, 2015

Holy shit, batman! Talk about verbal diarrhea! And not a substantive word! Lets go back to lever action and not use AR’s. When you start chiseling your screeds on a stone tablet, you idiotic illogical tool.
justplainangry

November 15, 2015

And you DO know, from your 12 years in the army, lest we forget and you keep repeating in every paragraph, that AR is a platform and can be chambered in many calibers? Like .300 blackout for example? Or 7.62? What did they teach you in the army, definitely not brevity nor logic nor comprehension.
The Head of Prince Charming

November 15, 2015

Justplain,

Apparently getting beat on one subject means you need to shift to another. AR isn’t a round, friend, AR is nomenclature. I think I comprehended and responded to your off-base points pretty well. You went far afield on a presumption that a typo meant I didn’t know the subject, I did, and showed it. I pointed out you were willfully going off point rather than speak to it. Game, set, match. Apparently staying on point isn’t something they taught you. That’s shame, because quite obviously ad hominem is your only recourse. It’s fine by me JustPlain, because it continues to show the rest of the readers who the “angry”, screed-filled one is, and who is not. Other than pointing out your penchant for over-reaction to typos and failure to stay on point, I’ve really not demeaned you at all, but yet you are relentless in doing so in your reply.
justplainangry

November 15, 2015

Once you take your head out of your ass, Peev, please educate yourself what an AR is. You said you were in the Army? Or was that your neighbour? Your assertion that I said anywhere that AR is a round as in AR isn’t a round, friend, AR is nomenclature is sooo moronic in light of what I actually said, it is just as incomprehensible as you are. Please be free to quote me where I did say that. Point was that ARs are a viable hunting weapons, No? Game, set, match? You were not even playing on the same ball field, you are so far left in that feverish swamp that passes for your brain. I don’t know why I even bothered to have a conversation with you. And, judging by your character, you will never be my friend.
justplainangry

November 15, 2015

Me thinks I just experienced another +/- moment with Peev who does not know what an AR actually is. Deja Vu.
#GunDense | Shot in the Dark

November 16, 2015

[…] who know what they’re talking about (99% of whom are pro-Second-Amendment), but rather to Lie First, Lie Last, Lie Always to keep the uninformed in […]