I repeat: Any gun owners who claim to be vigilant Second Amendment activists, who nonetheless voted Democrat in this past election, have only themselves to blame.
And yes, I will pile on.
Emboldened by the Dems’ success, the nearly-moribund “Citizens for a Supine “Safer” Minnesota” – which is a tiny cadre of well-off checkbook-activists masquerading as a grassroots group – is taking a shot at trying to regain some of the influence the anti-gun movement has lost in the past decade.
A little bird directed me to the CS“S”M website:
A couple of CSM gun-owning members are starting a hunters/gun
owners group composed of those individuals who are tired of
the NRA’s constant fighting against sensible gun regulations
designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and youth.Do you believe in: a) universal background checks for all gun
sales to make it difficult for prohibited buyers to obtain guns;
b) working against illegal gun trafficking; c) openness in
record-keeping for gun sales, gun crimes and gun deaths and
injuries; and d) requiring gun owners to report stolen guns?If so, please contact the CSM office at csm@endgunviolence.com
We’d love to have you join this newly forming group.
Let me translate into non-disingenuous English for you: “A couple of people who may or may not actually hunt but are ignorant about the Constitution have agreed to play along with our astroturf group’s historically, legally and morally illegitimate crusade to punish the law-abiding gun owner, based on a specious, discredited reading of the Constitution and the Democrats’ tiresome attempts to drive a wedge between Second Amendment activists and ignorant “sportsmen”. If you believe the law-abiding gun owner is at his/her heart a criminal waiting to happen with no real right to privacy, join us in helping to gut your rights!”
The little bird added:
And it’s pretty clear that an astro-turf group is being formed. To stop ’em, we need to gather as much public data on any people they “present” and show their ties to anti-gunners, if any such tie exists.
I’ll be putting in a request to CS“S”M for an interview – but don’t hold your breath. In three years of calling Rebecca Thoman (CS“S”M’s leader and one of its’ precious few members), I have yet to receive a call back, much less an answer to any questions. CS“S”M is, indeed, the most cowardly group in the history of Minnesota politics, hiding behind Wes “Lying Sack of Filth” Skoglund and Jane “Strict Mistress” Ranum‘s skirts and buying its influence the old-fashioned way – one check at a time.
Rebecca Thoman doesn’t have the guts to face serious questioning, because she knows she’s not equipped to respond to it. No gun control activist ever is.
The little bird continued:
“I’m hearing the DFL wants to end firearm law pre-emption, turning any deer hunter driving thru Minneapolis into a criminal.”
That’s been a pet project of the Metro DFL for almost two decades – eliminating the state’s pre-emption law that disallows cities from enacting stricter gun control laws than the state’s. Pawlenty will, of course, veto any such attempt…
…but that’s not the big issue. The fact is, if you’re a gun owner who cares about the Second Amendment and still voted DFL, you need to stop and think; is this the path you want to go down?
Remember – the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting; Congress could ban hunting tomorrow and it wouldn’t affect the Second Amendment in the least. It’s a wedge dreamed up by decades of Democrats; it should be a desperately dumb, ineffective wedge.
Let’s try to keep it that way, shall we?
So mitch, i take it you are against the following?
a) universal background checks for all gun sales to make it difficult for prohibited buyers to obtain guns;
b) working against illegal gun trafficking
c) openness in record-keeping for gun sales, gun crimes and gun deaths and injuries;
d) requiring gun owners to report stolen guns?
And let’s hope this isn’t the same little bird from election night!
a) They don’t work for the “intended” purpose.
b) Statement not in evidence. It’s just that none of these measures really deals with “gun trafficking”.
c) “Openness” – ha. Nice euphemism. C”S”M’s goal is to publicize the names of carry permit holders and, eventually, complete registration. They are pretty quiet about those kinds of things these days, but that IS what they’re after.
d) Not sure about this. If C”S”M is behind it, there’s a whammy in there. Not sure what it is, but it’s there.
Different bird who’s never been wrong on this sort of thing.
Have any of the more obnoxious lefties (jbauer & Doug come to mind) ever written a thoughtful, snark-free, insult-the-host-free post on this blog….EVER?!! You’d think once in a great while there’d be a subject where they could at least say, “Yeah, well, that may be true, but…”. But, no. It’s always smart-ass and flippant. Flash comes to mind as someone who write reasonable responses at times…I could wrack my brain (small tho it is) to think up a one or two more, but for the most part, the posts by the left-leaning “visitors” to this site are wastes of time.
I have a question. Who doesn’t report a gun stolen? And yes, the aim of the crowd Mitch talks about and their fellow-travelers want nothing short of confiscation and that will start with registration which will begin with the “reasonable” sounding crap Mitch has written about. We will not do it. Never.
Fulcrum Says:
November 16th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
So mitch, i take it you are against the following?
a) universal background checks for all gun sales to make it difficult for prohibited buyers to obtain guns;
I can’t speak for Mitch, but I certainly am.
I already passed a background check and training class. The legislature has determined that I am competent to make wise decisions when to employ deadly force, and to openly carry the means to do it. What is the point of subjecting me to another background check when I buy another gun from the local gun dealer?
Or are you thinking this new law would target black market sales? Do you honestly think that the guy parked in the alley, selling pistols out of his trunk, is going to Blackberry the cops to run a background check on me?
News flash, Ful: Criminals are called that because they don’t obey laws, they break laws. Lots of laws. Including gun laws. Passing another law won’t affect law breakers, only law abiders. Since you know that to be true, then it’s permissible to conclude that your motivation is not to do anything serious about lawbreakers having guns; instead, it must be to disarm the law abiding.
Since I don’t think disarming the law abiding is a wise (or Constitutional) idea, I disagree with the proposal. So the short answer is: Yes, I oppose universal background checks.
.
>>and d) requiring gun owners to report stolen guns?
This is about lawyers and insurance companies.
If there isn’t a record of the gun being sold to you then inquiring minds and tort lawyers want to know where and how you got it.
Here’s a scenario:
Miscreant breaks into your house & steals a hand gun.
Miscreant shoots an innocent bystander with your gun during a criminal activity and is caught by the police with the gun.
As part of the plea bargain that drops the gun charge the miscreant tells the Hennepin County Attorney where he stole the gun.
HCA checks the police records, sees that you haven’t reported it stolen (doesn’t matter why) and charges you for failure to report and as an accessory.
You hire a lawyer and $20k later the charges are dropped.
The lawyers aren’t done with you yet – the innocent bystander hires a personal injury lawyer who comes after you because “failure to report” establishes negligence and you are sued for damages and everyone knows the miscreant will never have an attachable estate like you do.
But it gets better – you didn’t tell your insurance company you owned a handgun, and they DID ask ( and you responded vaguely that you had a couple of guns for hunting purposes), so they drop your liability coverage (and you will have a beastly time getting liability coverage again). You are on the hook personally to pay for the lawyer you’ll need and for any judgements against you.
the idea is to force people with guns to keep them in “public lockups” for liability purposes the way they did in england just before they confiscated them all.
OK.
I’m pro second amendment, I will never ever consider “because you don’t need it” as a viable argument for “so you can’t have it.”, I own a gun, I’ve hunted, and I didn’t vote for the DFL candidates for Governer, Senate, the House, Attorney General. (I don’t know that the other state seats are relevant to this question but I didn’t vote for Otto either)
So, that said, the four points that you listed that they’re looking for support on are:
a) universal background checks for all gun sales to make it difficult for prohibited buyers to obtain guns
b) working against illegal gun trafficking
c) openness in record-keeping for gun sales, gun crimes and gun deaths and injuries
d) requiring gun owners to report stolen guns
What’s wrong with these?
a: Those who have been prohibited from buying guns can’t buy guns. Yeah, it slows down the gun buying process a bit but we should be able to make it fairly streamlined and I can’t think of many good reasons that I need a gun at last minute’s notice.
I suppose its possible that a person might suddenly find themselves at risk of assault – recently received death threats or something – maybe we could allow for a temporary waiver by the Police or Sheriff? I’ll admit that I’m skeptical that a person in that situation who didn’t already own a gun would be well suited towards being responsible with one, but I can see it as a valid argument.
Really though, it should be fairly simple to make a background check a process of entering a driver’s license number and making sure nothing shows up. Heck, we could even add some sort of PIN to your state ID records so that you would get to enter your pin to authorize the check. Hm, I like that… Maybe the SoS candidate is relevant…
b: How is illegal gun trafficking not a bad thing?
c: This is just information – most of it crime related. This should be public record. The one thing I’ll disagree with here is that Joe Q. Public should not be able to see who has purchased a gun. That information should only be accessible to law enforcement and only with a warrant.
d: If someone has stolen a gun, that’s something the police should know about isn’t it?
So, I’ve got an issue with one aspect of one point and see that a “special condition” might need to be made for a second. In general though, I don’t see the problem with these.
I believe a person should be able to own whatever gun(s) they want. They are, of course, responsible for those guns. They should be able to carry a gun – concealed or otherwise. They are, of course, responsible for the use of those guns.
When a gun gets misused and is recovered by the police, I think it is reasonable to make it relatively straightforward for the police to track down records of that gun.
In general, it sounds like these rules are aimed towards reducing illegal acquisition of guns and tracking down guns that have been illegaly used. I don’t know that I see anything there that precludes me from owning whatever gun or guns I wish.
Btw, is it possible to add “subscribe to this thread via email” or the equivalent to WordPress? If not, do you have a 5 minute tutorial (or, you know, reasonably short) to signing up for using RSS to get updates on threads sent to me? RSS is one of those things I’ve never really gotten around to figuring out.
kel: Yikes. I don’t know if any of the rest of you in Minnesota heard about the big “drug bust” up here in Warroad a few weeks back, but there were some innocent people caught in that operation when it came to firearms. An undercover informant set up a storefront operation (junk…real junk. I never went in there because it was old crap that I have enough of myself). He really did buy and sell and prominent in his ads in the paper was “We buy Guns”. He also bought “other” things: meth, pot, etc. Cameras were set up in a back room and it was all recorded and watched by law enforcement. All very well and good, EXCEPT…We were sitting at our desks at work on the day the big bust went down (as they say!) and they hauled a guy out of a big meeting, in handcuffs, the whole bit. People were flabbergasted and couldn’t imagine he was part of any drug thing. Well, come to find out, he had brought a gun into this junk shop that he had bought at a yard sale earlier in the summer. It didn’t work and he traded it for a guitar. Next thing you know, he’s being arrested in front of a whole office full of people with the accompanying humiliation and shock. He was one of many that were (kinda) lead to sell a gun and then got in trouble for doing so. Most of the firearms charges will be fought with private attorneys (the drug charges brought that day are pretty solid-50 people in all were arrested). Now, no one knows what exactly the law IS when it comes to lawful citizens trading or selling guns. It’s a mess.
You’d give anything to change the debate to something other than Iraq and Healthcare and the dwindling fortunes of the middle-class.
And just who the hell do you think you are to tell Mitch what he can and can’t talk about on his own blog??
Start your own blog if you only want to piss and moan about the failings of republicans.
Colleen said: Now, no one knows what exactly the law IS when it comes to lawful citizens trading or selling guns. It’s a mess.
My Reply:
Yeah, until all my elected officials can tell me every law and ordinance I’m supposed to be following, I consider them all invalid.
Ignorance is no excuse only matters if the average person has a prayer of actually knowing what they’re “supposed” to know.
Until then, I’m an anarchist and will be governed soley by my own ethics and my awareness of what’ll actually make my life more difficult (eg: I won’t be selling marijuana brownies outside city hall even if I think it might do us a great deal of good. Stoned lawmakers are unmotivated lawmakers.).
Up the rebels!
Fukcrum said:
“a) universal background checks for all gun sales to make it difficult for prohibited buyers to obtain guns”
Two words: Black Market.
Dang! I’m glad I don’t own a handgun. But then, I don’t live in St.Paul with all those nasty criminal types. If they come out here to my nice suburban estate I’ll just have to train the cannon on their miscreant asses.
Doug, I don’t think Mitch wants or needs you to be concerned about his ego-it’s telling that even though you have agreed with some of the things he says, you choose to go the Junior High route and try and be “funny/smart-ass” or antagonistic instead. If you ask me that’s leftist national politics in a nutshell.
Dougie,
New regime. We get to say “ass” without the $ or “5” signs now.
Good call on the Metovtch ego, though.
You’re a great American Mitch!
Colleen said,
“If you ask me that’s leftist national politics in a nutshell.”
I disagree. That’s politics in general – Left and right but I do think that has been the left’s way of commenting on national politics. Although you obviously don’t see things our way, we have been sitting and watching Republicans and more specifically, the Bush administration in stunned disbelief for the last 6 years.
Because we were powerless to do do anything about it, the only way to deal with what we saw happening was to be cynical and try to laugh.
And Kermit, you’re an ass.
Damn, that felt liberating…!
As for Fulcrum’s points:
a) That’s pretty funny. Let’s look at how hard it is for criminals to get guns in Britain where there’s nearly a complete ban, eh? Oh, you mean that the price of guns has *dropped* since the ban went into effect? No, something like this will certainly work here, right? Just like banning drugs did, right? After all, criminals are just sooo good at following the law. I still love the clueless liberal that was the Swedish Justice Ministry spokesman, a Anders Perklev, who had the stunning observation that “The problem is that illegal firearms are most often found among criminals.” Classic!
b) With the current BATF? You mean the agency that’s so screwed up that it makes Homeland Security look good because it’s staffed chiefly with political hacks kept over from each failed presidency? Clinton loaded it up with low level staffers turned civil servants right before he left, just as Bush will do. I’ll believe you can do something when you propose serious Civil Service reforms. But it’s an admirable goal. Now, why don’t you feel so law-and-order on immigration?
c) Let’s see, libs like privacy when it comes to killing/removing tissue from minors without telling their parents, but they don’t believe in privacy when transferring lawful implements between consenting adults? Strange set of values you guys have. Have you never heard of privacy? The desire not be a target for theft? And how private are gun crimes, deaths, and injuries? Last I checked those were pretty public. Or are you telling us that AKlo was covering stuff up there before she got sent up to the big leagues?
d) Failure to report a gun as stolen a crime? I’ve got guns that I only pull out every other year or so for cleaning, but haven’t been shot in over a decade. You have any clue how long it would take before I noticed something like that missing? And the ammo that would give tort lawyers and the troubles it would cause. Oh wait, I forgot, you libs *like* those idiots.
Btw, is it possible to add “subscribe to this thread via email” or the equivalent to WordPress?
Don’t believe I have that (WordPress people – any ideas?)
If not, do you have a 5 minute tutorial (or, you know, reasonably short) to signing up for using RSS to get updates on threads sent to me? RSS is one of those things I’ve never really gotten around to figuring out.
Sorry – I never really figured it out, either. The only time I’ve used RSS was in a feed reader (like Sharpreader). A feed reader lets you subscribe to and configure as many RSS feeds as you want, and puts ’em all in a convenient reader.
Holler if you have any questions; I might be able to answer a few!
Doug said:
“Mitch has a big enough ego and doesn’t need me hanging telling him how super fantastically awesome he is. That’s what Paul is for.”
Point out the thread where I’ve made such a statement, Doug.
Dishonest, disingenous, condescending…
Paul, talk about condescending, just about every post that responded to me went to that level, but in summation:
1.) universal background checks for all gun sales to make it difficult for prohibited buyers to obtain guns; – The majority of responses stated that it isn’t effective and people can buy guns on the black market. Do you guys think the same about our current marijuana laws which generally aren’t effective and there is an active black market?
2.) working against illegal gun trafficking – noted that it was just a statement of opinion, but i would like to hope we would all would agree with it.
3.) openness in record-keeping for gun sales, gun crimes and gun deaths and injuries; – most talked about privacy issues which i agree with
4.) requiring gun owners to report stolen guns? – The responses were:
Mitch: Not sure about it…
Kel: all about insurance companies and lawyers
Phraedrus: seemed to agree with it
Nerdbert: says he may not know when his gun is missing
So i ask again for clarification, what is wrong with having to require gun owners to report when a gun is stolen?
Re: Marijuana laws – I actually agree. Most drug laws, especially against marijuana, are utterly ineffective. The war on drugs has actually been a bigger mistake than gun control (indeed, the worst aspects of gun control are offshots of the “war on drugs”.
It is always a good idea to report stolen property that could be a danger to others in the hands of irresponsible people, whether it’s a tank of acetelyne, a gun, a copy of Bill Clinton’s autobio, or whatever. I object to making legal, law-abiding gun owners subject to restrictions greater than that of the general public on principle.
I’m still a bit confused on question “a”.
If I understand correctly, the reason I’m seeing against making it harder for criminals to buy guns is that it won’t work because they’ll get them from the black market.
So the response is to allow criminals to buy guns from the legit market? That really doesn’t sit well with me.
I can see the parallels with marijuana but the difference I see is this: If someone buys marijuana, they have marijuana. The only reason they’re a criminal is because we said they can’t have marijauna. This is stupid, they shouldn’t be a criminal
If a person who has been prohibited from owning guns buys a gun, they are a criminal (again). The reason they are a criminal is because they did something bad enough that they were told they couldn’t own guns and they broke that ruling. This makes more sense to me. Otherwise why take away a criminal’s right to own guns?
But, hows this for an idea? (I really think I have a start on the answer here.)
Because they have some inherent dangers, cigarettes and alcohol are regulated items and can’t be sold directly to minors (I don’t really get why an adult can’t drink, but that’s a different topic).
People can sell these items and they aren’t require to check for ID. However, if they sell alcohol to a minor, they are liable for it. If someone else buys alcohol or tobacco and gives/sells it to a minor, they are liable to it. If a parent chooses to, I beleive that’s their choice, but I’m not sure.
How about if we did the same with guns? If you sell a gun to a person who has been entered into “the system” as not being permitted to buy a gun, you’re liable. Then let each individual who chooses to sell guns decide how much risk they want to take.
We’d probably get a lot of “carding”, but it wouldn’t be dictated.
It would require a degree of effort on the states part that these records be entered and maintained in a state system so that gun shop owners have something to check against. If the state system didn’t have accurate information, the gun shop owner is absolved of responsibility. I presume these records would be checked by DL# or state Id and I really do like the idea of each citizen having a pin code or something to unlock their records rather than letting anybody be able to look at them w/o a warrant.
As for records (c and d), I don’t know how they do it in Minnesota but when I bought my first handgun, they told me to keep a record of who I sold it to (a photocopy of the ID or something) OR require they register the gun when they purchase it. The reason was, if a crime was ever committed with my gun they’d check the record of the gun and trace it back to the RF gun shop who would give them my name. When they came to me, if I could show them a bill of sale and the info on who I sold it to they’d go on and leave me alone. If I couldn’t, I’d be likely to be tangled up into whatever legal issue had arisen.
For me, this means that if I ever get rid of a gun that I own, it will be reported to the state or it will be destroyed. I don’t want to deal with having to prove I don’t have it if my records get lost. But in general, this seemed pretty reasonable to me.
Anyway, I think it makes sense to make it as easy as possible to track down the history of guns used in crimes as well as to increase the difficulty and legal cupability for anyone illegally acquiring or supplying guns. I believe this needs to be done in such a way that it does not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. Of course, this won’t be possible if the only people talking about it are on polar opposite sides with no thought of comprimise. I do think the NRA can get rather excessive – to the point where it sometimes seems like they’d like to see guns on the shelves of walgreens to be purchased in the same manner as a candy bar or a cook pot.
I suppose technically, I’d be perfect for this CSM interview but I do not wish to help anyone whose primary goal seems to be to repeal the right to carry a firearm. If there goal were to limit criminal’s access to guns and increase the ease of tracking down gun histories without violating personal privacy rights, I’d be all for it.
Btw, does anyone want to bring me up to date on the number of shootings (and illegal threatenings to shoot) committed by people with conceal carry permits since the law was passed? If I’m not mistaken, that question’s a nice slow ball. Even rather ball shaped.
Btw, Fulcrum, you’ll probably not want to count my opinion with the conservatives. I might see myself as rather conservative in some ways, but most of the folks around here see me as a left-winger. And if the Bush administration is “right”, I’m a long long way across the spectrum from that. Its just that my left is as much “up” or “down” than just “left”.
> It is always a good idea to report stolen property that could be a danger to
> others in the hands of irresponsible people, whether it’s a tank of acetelyne, a
> gun, a copy of Bill Clinton’s autobio, or whatever. I object to making legal,
> law-abiding gun owners subject to restrictions greater than that of the general
> public on principle.
Two lines of question on this, perhaps somewhat contradictory:
1) Don’t we have some requirement to report crimes, especially if those crimes involve creating a danger? This is an honest question: For instance, if you saw a person steal the copper from a gas line into a house and did not report it, I know I’d consider you parially responsible if something bad happens to the people in the house, but I don’t know if that’s legal responsibility or just ethical. I don’t make a lot of distinction when deciding my actions although I do believe that there should be a serious distinction when making laws.
2) Is this not more a “responsibility” than a “restriction”? Don’t you think its fair to ask those who exercise the more “grown up” of our rights to also show more responsibility? Is it really that different from exercising the right to own land and gaining the responsibility to pay whatever property taxes might be in place?
Paul said,
“Point out the thread where I’ve made such a statement, Doug.”
Paul, your first response to me suggested that I was sitting at the computer with my hands stuck down my pants. Your posts became increasingly more insulting and condescending all the while accusing me of the very behavior you were guilty of.
Now you act all righteous and defensive?
Grow a set and lighten up a little bit Helen.
“If I understand correctly, the reason I’m seeing against making it harder for criminals to buy guns is that it won’t work because they’ll get them from the black market.”
No, the basic statement is that there are limits for effective control beyond which the rights of non-criminals are trampled for no good reason. Given the current legislation, what is the incremental gain in reduced availability of firearms vs. the incremental cost to the country in law enforcement paperwork and loss of freedoms? Most of the RKBA supporters here disagree that the incremental changes would do anything than feed the bureaucrats and make lefties feel good.
An analogy: we could reduce speeding by putting a GPS unit in everyone’s car hooked up to governmental monitoring. Would you support that? Think carefully, because the liberals in Oregon are perilously close to implementing that with their proposed GPS unit for charging gas tax (it seems they don’t like hybrids getting off “cheap” [but aren’t liberals trying to encourage hybrids? I’m so confused!]). If you agree to such a system, then inherently the government has complete monitoring over all your transportation. And there are those who say that the Democrats are for privacy!
“If you sell a gun to a person who has been entered into “the system” as not being permitted to buy a gun, you’re liable. Then let each individual who chooses to sell guns decide how much risk they want to take”
You haven’t tried to purchase a gun in the last 15 years have you? There’s this “instant check” thing that FFLs have to deal with. Private transfers aren’t covered by the requirement (and the associated costs), and private sales for the direct purpose of resale are covered under “strawman” statutes.
As to “registering” guns, most states don’t do that. And given the number of them, it’s practically impossible for it to be done, especially for older firearms. Keeping a record of your sales is a good idea in general, though, and most folks do.
Fulcrum: “So i ask again for clarification, what is wrong with having to require gun owners to report when a gun is stolen?”
You mean besides the fact that it’s yet another intrusion into personal privacy? Suppose your son walks in and takes your shotgun to go hunting, you come home and report it stolen because you didn’t see the note that he’d snagged to to grab a buck, and then the cops get involved and, if they’re in the Metro, go crazy with charges because it’s an “evil gun.”
Besides, I really think it should be YOU justifying the intrusion into the privacy and rights of gun owners, not the other way around. WHY is it necessary to report a gun stolen? What crime preventive purpose does it serve? How many criminals would be taken off the street just because a gun had been reported as stolen? Will such a program risk invading the privacy of gun owners (since right now they aren’t registered) unnecessarily? Will the inevitable cost of such a program be justified, or will the cops do what they do with 90% of burglary cases, which is nothing?
Now, personally, I’d report a stolen gun. But I don’t like the idea that I HAVE to do it simply to make some leftist feel better about himself.
Doug said
“Damn, that felt liberating…!”
Mental Milk of Magnesia will have that effect Doug.
I’m happy for you.
Doug said:
“Paul, your first response to me suggested that I was sitting at the computer with my hands stuck down my pants. Your posts became increasingly more insulting and condescending all the while accusing me of the very behavior you were guilty of.”
Ooo, I pissed Doug off. The truth must hurt.
Wrong again, bucko.
You implied that I engage in sycophantic behaviour regarding Mitch by stating “Mitch has a big enough ego and doesn’t need me hanging telling him how super fantastically awesome he is. That’s what Paul is for.”
I asked you to show us where I’ve made any such statements. Instead you whined about how you were treated, not even bothering to answer the question. Since you obviously can’t answer, I’ll answer it for you; there aren’t any. None in three years of commenting.
What’s more, this isn’t the first time I’ve ripped you for being dishonest, disingenous and condescending in your comments; I’ve taken you to task several times over the last six months for various inaccuracies and elitist commentary by posting the facts. Or don’t you remember the 93-6 Senate vote comment?
You also indulged yourself in fantasizing about “sopoena power” and “a better plan in Iraq” in several comments that suggested such thoughts provided pure ectstasy for you; I simply took your line to its logical conclusion. I noticed that you were the only one that objected; no one else, including the blog’s author, disagreed. This suggests (if not demonstates) that my assessment was and still is accurate.
The same goes for the tone and accuracies of your postings. I’m far from the only one who has pointed out your dishonesty, disingenousness and condescension dripping from nearly every comment. You also have a habit of posting deliberately provocative comments, then either changing the subject or claiming not to say what you said when someone slams you for posting them. I have simply made up my mind to call you on it each time.
I told you before: stop making an ass out of yourself in your comments, and I’ll stop calling you on it. Unfortunately for you, I don’t think you can stop.
Now how about addressing the subject of this thread: the Second Amendment and Citizens For a Safer Minnesota? Just think: since the Dems have Congress, you don’t need to recycle your suggestive, provocative, snark-ass comment about using your Second Amendment rights to overthrow the U.S. Government or hunt conservatives.
Paul said,
“Ooo, I pissed Doug off.”
Oh yes Paul. I’m so pissed off that I can barely finish my bowl of Mint Chocolate Chip.
“You implied that I engage in sycophantic behaviour…”
I’m sorry Paul. I didn’t mean to imply that. I meant to imply that you hid behind Mitch’s skirt. My bad.
“Instead you whined about how you were treated”
Wrong. See, that was called a “set up” so I could tell you to grow a set and to call you Helen.
“What’s more, this isn’t the first time I’ve ripped you for being dishonest”
and this isn’t the first time I’ve ripped one from laughing so hard at your frustrated angry responses.
“I’ve taken you to task several times over the last six months for various inaccuracies and elitist commentary by posting the facts”
Your “facts” Paul amounted to a regurgitation of Republican talking points and what I believe to be nothing more that a paraphrased recitation of a Rush Limbaugh bit.
“Or don’t you remember the 93-6 Senate vote comment?”
If you’re refering to the vote to withdraw troops, you’ll recall that the Democrats were trying to force extending the debate on the Senate floor but instead, what the Republican leadership did was forced the vote. Call us crazy but 1 days worth of debate about the debacle in Iraq seems a bit insufficient. By the way, as we now know, the majority of Democratic members in the Senate did not have the full story about what was happening in Iraq because much of the information was restricted to specific committees who’s members were not able to share it with their colleagues.
“You also indulged yourself in fantasizing about “sopoena power” and “a better plan in Iraq” in several comments that suggested such thoughts provided pure ectstasy for you”
This from the guys who likes to imagine me with my hand down my pants. You need a date. Here, try this. http://www.tedhaggard.com
“I’m far from the only one who has pointed out your dishonesty, disingenousness and condescension dripping from nearly every comment.”
Gosh! What are the chances of that? I’m one of three liberal posters in a room full of conservatives. Oh… And mysteriously, I’m the only one who has pointed out your sarchastic, condescending posts directed at me? Wierd huh? It’s almost as if there are folks who are partisan in here…
“You also have a habit of posting deliberately provocative comments, then either changing the subject or claiming not to say what you said when someone slams you for posting them. ”
I have a habit of posting what I think. In one instance, I posted that I was an elections observer and when I was challenged I clarified that I was a volunteer working at a polling location as an observer, not an official elections observer. Considering that I had described in detail the functions I was performning as a volunteer in my initial post, it’s pretty obvious I wasn’t trying to make false claims. I used the wrong terminology for what I was doing. That doesn’t stop you and some others here from continuously accusing me of claiming to be something I wasn’t.
“I have simply made up my mind to call you on it each time.”
and I’ve simply made up my mind to never say “simply” to another man. It just sounds so gay.
“I told you before: stop making an ass out of yourself in your comments, and I’ll stop calling you on it. Unfortunately for you, I don’t think you can stop.”
Ok… I’ll bet you I can stop…
…
…
…
Putz.
You win.
“Now how about addressing the subject of this thread”
Isn’t it nerdberts turn to be hallway monitor? Take off the badge and give it to Nerdbert and please return to study hall.
For the record, I don’t believe gun control will eliminate gun crime any more than lowering the alcohol limit to .08 will eliminate drunk driving. That being said, we don’t have enough jail space to hold every offender who uses a gun to commit a crime so we have to figure out a better solution for incarceration. I think longer sentences with staggered serving periods and shortened release based on compliance shows great potential. I feel the same about first offense drunk driving as well.
For multiple or more severe offenders, prison – no parole. Decriminalizing and releasing non-violent drug offenders should free up plenty of space.
There should be routine and mandatory background checks for all retail based gun sales but the reason would be to monitor the seller to assure that they are doing their due dilligence and not selling to a known criminals. Once the weapon is sold and on the “street”, there’s really no way to regulate without violating a persons privacy rights.
All: For the record, there is no “h” in “sarcastic”.
Thank you.
That being said, we don’t have enough jail space to hold every offender who uses a gun to commit a crime so we have to figure out a better solution for incarceration.
We could start by leaving out the first time, and maybe second-through-fifth-time, marijuana offenders.
But this does bring up an interesting issue. County Attorneys in the metro – Klobuchar and Gaertner – have been given fairly powerful sentencing guidelines to use against gun crimes – and have been very loathe to actually USE them. At one point, some years ago, Susan Gaertner had pled away the gun charge in every case. This sends a lousy message.
I think longer sentences with staggered serving periods and shortened release based on compliance shows great potential. I feel the same about first offense drunk driving as well.
There might be something to that.
For multiple or more severe offenders, prison – no parole. Decriminalizing and releasing non-violent drug offenders should free up plenty of space.
True enough.
There should be routine and mandatory background checks for all retail based gun sales but the reason would be to monitor the seller to assure that they are doing their due dilligence and not selling to a known criminals. Once the weapon is sold and on the “street”, there’s really no way to regulate without violating a persons privacy rights.
True.
But…
I’m one of three liberal posters in a room full of conservatives.
There are about five or six regular liberal posters that I can think of. Two or three of them manage to get through their discussions without getting all snide and petulant. A couple seem to exist to do nothing but insult and froth. Doug’s sort of in the middle of the pack.
Mitch said,
“We could start by leaving out the first time, and maybe second-through-fifth-time, marijuana offenders.”
Alread implied when I said “Decriminalizing and releasing non-violent drug offenders should free up plenty of space.”
But other than that, we’re pretty much in agreement then and I can go back to being Dishonest, disingenous, condescending and humorless? Or do I need to share my views on abortion too?
Note to Paul. When you add baking soda to more baking soda, it’s pretty uneventful. Consider me the vinegar.
Mitch said,
All: For the record, there is no “h” in “sarcastic”.
Noted although it’s one of those spelling errors that was making way back In Sister Mary’s 4th grade class. A ruler whack to the back of the hand was ineffective at correcting my frequent error and at 42 years old, I’m probably not going to be very successful at correcting it now…