Because outside the Twin Cities,every once in a while, the editorial cartoons slip up and tell the truth about Democrats;.
The Rochester Post-Bulletin printed this editorial cartoon about Rochester Representative Kim Norton yesterday:
Not bad. Not bad at all.
Of course, there’s always room for improvement. During a session in which representative Norton has wasted taxpayer time jabbering about exploding bullets” and numbers from surveys that wouldn’t rule in elementary school music teacher, I think I could come up with something pretty good, here, too…
Yeah, that works too.
Mitch, I believe you’re on to something here.
Picture an permanent ad in the right column of the blog for custom made non-GMO tinfoil hats.
$29.95 +S&H&T (Visa, MC and Government POs accepted), product rushed overnight to the basement of their choice.
With the expected wear and tear of an active election season you could encourage them to buy for the whole family, maybe on a subscription basis (one new hat every two weeks).
You could specialize in 18th century Tricorn style hats. Guaranteed to protect even the most progressive souls from unwanted and genetically harmful EMF.
Oh, remember, nothing’s more important than a good night’s sleep so you could throw in a tinfoil nightcap on all first time orders.
For those special needs clients you could offer custom made body suits.
And yet permitless carry continues to fail. Why? Because unregulated firearms is not a good idea, or a popular one. So while you don’t like her, this woman is not crazy, just ambitious in protecting the citizens of MN.
If the right continues to implode, how long before the MN GOP loses what gains they made in the last election cycle, and the lege goes back into the control of the MN DFL?
Seems to me it is your own readers who are fond of the tinfoil hats – or was that your intended market? If it isn’t it should be. Maybe you could add in a tinfoil KKK hood to go with it, for all the bigots on the right?
I see where Trump’s campaign has given press credentials to white supremacists and where as his father’s proxy, his son did an interview on white supremacist radio, while at the same time refusing to give press credentials to far more legitimate Latino media. That should go well with the bigot right wing blogosphere and your friends in talk radio who can’t fact check their way out of a wet paper bag, falling for hoaxes, like the one about Muslim campers shooting people while yelling scary Muslim things that were never uttered — you know, like real tin foil hat folks like to report.
By all means, you need to rethink your tin foil hat marketing plan. But perhaps it shouldn’t surprise me that you don’t have a real market for your hats; right wingers like supply side economics while failing to recognize the importance of demand, generally in macro-economics, as demonstrated by the failure of the right to address aggregate demand deficits, or specifically for an individual product like this.
so can we sign you up for a subscription DG?
whats your hat size? 3? 4?
Maybe the tin-foil hats could be gluten free too?
DG the last US Senator who was an open member of the KKK only died 6 years ago and he was a lionized darling of Progressives like yourself.
you’re right Loren, Gluten Free, Vegan Approved, and No Animal Testing!
DG,
Who’s talking about permitless carry?
What in the hell are you talking about?
Dog Gone said:
“Because unregulated firearms is not a good idea, or a popular one”
A deflection into crazy lady land?
Sounds like ignorant hyperbole, but I get the feeling she believes it, no matter the distance from reality.
For that matter, since when has permitless carry failed? I seem to remember that a number of states are trying it and have not reported significant problems. If that’s a failure, we need more of that kind of failure.
I think dg plugged her tinfoil hat into a 120vac outlet.
“I think dg plugged her tinfoil hat into a 120vac outlet.”
Damn, now we’ve got to put a warning on the hat!
When has permitless carry ever been a big deal?
Good god that’s a lot of typing for nothing.
The ONE thing that has to be done is figure out how to keep the dangerously mentally ill away from guns without blowing up the constitution. We have the resources to do this and they never propose ANYTHING.
And yet permitless carry continues to fail.
Say what?! DG, I lived in the only state that had permitless carry at the time. It worked out well, despite being a “progressive” dreamland. And it’s one of the reasons that our “Democratic Socialist” candidate for president dares not promise more gun regulations lest he lose the next election.
It worked out so well there now 10 states with some degree of permitless carry (some unrestricted like Vermont, sometimes restricted to residents only, sometimes outside the city, etc). And in fact, it’s worked so well that studies show there’s significantly less violent crime and murder in states with permitless carry.
I know, you don’t like facts. They’re your worst enemy since they hurt your feelings so often. But they are still facts.
One nice feature of Rep. Norton’s proposal is it changes the criminal liability of the seller. Under 609.66, Subd. 1f, if you sell a pistol to a prohibited person and it was reasonably foreseeable he would possess or use it for a felony crime of violence, you’re guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Under the proposed law, if you sell to a prohibited person and they actually use it in a felony crime of violence, you’re guilty of a felony. No foreseeability defense.
http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/leg/LS89/HF2415.0.pdf
Guilty until proven innocent. Didn’t they teach you that in law school, JD?
“No foreseeability defense.”
It is already a gross misdemeanor or a felony under Norton’s proposed statute to transfer a firearm person-to-person, depending on the type of firearm transferred. So why is the language regarding transferring to a bad actor retained at all? If I’ve already committed a felony by transferring a pistol directly to someone, is the intent to make me a double felon if the recipient uses the pistol in the commission of a crime? Or is the intent to make it a felony for me to transfer a pistol to someone who commits a crime even if I’ve otherwise transferred legally via a FFL?
I notice that the new section mandating transfers through a dealer continues to refer to the original owner as the “transferor”, and the ultimate recipient as the “transferee”. The dealer is just a “dealer” throughout.
akremer, I skimmed the text and didn’t see any time limits(I might have missed it).
Without the forseeability defense I could be held perpetually liable for any subsequent misuse of the gun. so potentially I could have sold the gun to someone 2 years ago, they could be arrested and convicted of a violent assault this spring and 3 years from now get out of st cloud and use the gun at that point to rob someone and I would be held liable. It looks like a backdoor to retroactivity, but like I said I could be reading it wrong.
I didn’t read carefully enough. Under the proposed law it is a gross misdemeanor to transfer a pistol or “assault rifle” to another individual without a FFL intermediary. If that person is also a prohibited person (or if I have reason suspect he is a prohibited person) AND uses it to commit a crime, it enhances my original offence from a gross misdemeanor to a felony. Not a separate crime.
Pingback: Late Night With In The MailboxSam Kinison Memorial Edition : The Other McCain