“Protect” Minnesota: The Truth Oozes Out

One of the great lessons gun controllers learned in the past decade or so is shut up about the real agenda.   Gull the odd gullible gun owner with soothing-yet-ridiculing platitutdes, like “Nobody’s coming for your guns.  All we want is  a conversation about “gun safety” and “violence”.

But  every once in a while, they screw up and tell the truth.  As “Protect” Minnesota did on Monday, in response to a workplace shooting in Orlando (by a man who does not qualify for a carry permit in either Florida or Minnesota):

No automatic alt text available.

And there you go:  “Protect” MN favors licensing gun owners and universal registration – neither of which affect, or or could possibly affect, crime, but both of which can (and repeatedly have been) used to abrogate citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.  “Regulating” weapons that are almost never used in crime, and account for less than 1% of America’s murders, but are deemed politically incorrect.

That’s it.  Game over.  All the soothing platitudes and “don’t worry be happy” rhetoric of the past two decades is here shown to be mere baked wind.

By the way – none of the measures “P”M lists would have affected today’s shooting.  None.

11 thoughts on ““Protect” Minnesota: The Truth Oozes Out

  1. Regarding their list, it strikes me that the District of Columbia does in fact require private party background checks, license gun shops at the district/state level, impose gun licenses and registration, regulates assault weapons (basic ban if I remember), and the like.

    OK, they must have like zero firearm deaths each year, right?

  2. Pingback: Truth Exposed… | Freedom Is Just Another Word…

  3. I have heard that some folks have taken advantage of the availability of completely legal, 80% complete assemblies to build their own modern sporting rifles and tributes to John Browning’s crowning achievement (1911 .45).

    These completely legal billet forgings allow real Americans to build firearms for their own personal use, without the necessity of marring their surfaces with ugly serial numbers.

    Constitution hating, reprobate leftists hate this kind of freedom, and will stop at nothing to crush it.

    They must be made to endure the crushing they wish to inflict.

  4. Just to pick on one item there, how does gun safety improve by requiring a local dealer license in addition to the Federal dealer license?

    Or is the real message there that no one will be granted to local license? Hmmmm.

  5. Actually, most gun control legislation can be better analyzed by how many unionized public employees it adds. For instance, proposals for automating background checks like the Blind ID System have been stoutly resisted for years. Automating the process would require less people to administer the program. Less people means less money going to the public service unions. Hence the the public service unions support pliable politicians to vote for more public employees to send more money to politicians. Do recall that Barack Obama was trailing Hillary until he met with the SEIU.

  6. Jay Dee has half the picture. The other half is the revenue stream.
    Noticeably the state (and potentially the counties and cities) that would license the dealers could set fees based on types of guns sold, quantity, and any past license infractions, plus the annual requirement that said license be renewed in person. Same for gun owners, the license could be structured something like;
    1) hunter (one shotgun, one rifle) = $50/yr,
    2)home defense (one handgun)= $250.00/yr,
    3)arsenal fee (more than 3 guns of any type) $500-$1,000/yr and finally
    4)ammunition & explosives (> 200 rounds of any type of ammunition) = $150/yr
    5) weapons and ammunition storage inspection fee = $250 every 3 yrs

    the above scenario was described to me by a self described “moderate” Democrat.

    If you think the gun grabbers aren’t thinking of exactly this kind of scenario remember they don’t mind guns for the elites and for important people who need to protect themselves, they just adamantly don’t want the middle class or minorities to have guns.

  7. “I have heard that some folks have taken advantage of the availability of completely legal, 80% complete assemblies to build their own modern sporting rifles and tributes to John Browning’s crowning achievement (1911 .45).”

    I hate to admit it, but I’d considered going down that path. But all of the materials I’d gathered were lost in a tragic boating accident.

  8. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 06.06.17 : The Other McCain

  9. AGS;

    I have heard those same assertions regarding AR-15s, too. Of course, we all know that these claims just too preposterous to be true. Just more rumors and propaganda, disseminated by the gun grabbers to provoke fear.

  10. Jdege, Im sorry to hear of your trouble, but it could have been worse. I heard about a fellow that actually finished a rifle; 5.56mm I think it was, and after spending many extra dollars on gagets of all sorts to fit it out, it was destroyed when his dog ran it over with the family car.

    He’d only been able to test it out once before losing it, forever, poor devil.

  11. “But all of the materials I’d gathered were lost in a tragic boating accident.”

    2012 was a very bad year on Minnesota’s lakes. Lots of property loss.

    Or so I’m told. It’s irrelevant to me, since I would never own a gun.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.