OPINION | Gun fight: Can Minnesota have a fair gun debate at gunpoint?


4 thoughts on “OPINION | Gun fight: Can Minnesota have a fair gun debate at gunpoint?

  1. Representative Alice Hausman was not even there to present her own bill. Instead she had an out of state anti-gun lobbiest do it for her. Both sides need to work together, but the anti-gun crowd has been misquoting numbers during the hearings. The majority of Minnesotans do not favor a gun ban as they claimed, but instead favor universal background checks. Here’s the thing folks; we need to look at the numbers in Minnestoa. Last year three people were killed with rifles. One of those rifles was an assault rifle. It was a Lee Enfield curio&relic gun from the late 1800’s, which falls under the new definition of an assault rifle. Last year  111 people in Minnesota were killed in drunk driving crashes. Yes some things need to be tightened up, but gun bans are not the answer.  An anti-gun lobbiest putting up pictures of Sandy Hook kids is simply meant to manipulate emotions. Why didn’t she put up any pictures of the little brown kids killed by drone strikes? 

  2. Painting all gun owners as cowboy gunslingers at the capital is not a accurate depiction of gun owners. More than a few parents saw fit to bring their family members including their children into the capital to view these hearings. Gun owners and Americans as a whole appreciate all portions of the Constitution of the United States. I find what was even more disturbing than leaving the hearing chamber was allowing others to present the bill that were not from Minnesota. It made our state DFL party look less than sincere. Another point I would like to bring up is how can a legislator knowingly send others into hostile situations by passing laws without being able to stand by them citing a percieved threat that has not materialized. Could those legislators not have asked the state police to guard them while they presented their legislation? Could they not have asked to be safeguarded by this mysterious threat? Could our legislators have armed themselves like millions of citizen of all race creed and color already have? Many of these pro gun people that showed up were former military and police. Would you like to know how I could tell? I am former military myself. Many of us faught for your freedoms, many of us lost our patriot brothers and sisters. It hurts me more than a little to hear you speak this way but, I respect you right to say it.

  3. Did it occur to you that the reason so many “Pro Gunners” were at these debates was because the majority of Minnesotans are “Pro Gun”? Sometimes it isn’t just a get out the vote thing, it actually may be reality.

    We don’t need more gun laws, in fact, we don’t need ANY “gun” laws. We just need to enforce crime laws. If you commit a crime, you have to face the music. The problem is we don’t even enforce the laws we have. 

    A mere stroke of the pen on this will not eliminate bad men. It will only enable them and despots who have plagued mankind since the beginning.

  4. ” I, myself, have both a “carry permit” and approval to carry a weapon in the Capitol. But, as I have argued elsewhere, allowing guns in the Capitol — Minnesota is one of onine states to do so — makes for a tragedy that is waiting to happen.”

    Gee whiz, Mr. Coleman! YOU have approval to carry a weapon in the Capitol?! I’ve been trying for years to obtain that special privilege! I have a number of points to make with a wide selection of our intrepid legislators and there’s nothing I’d love to have more than a delightful theatrical prop like one of those “Glocks” (those certainly seem to be fashionable).

    So tell us simple folk, HOW did you get “approval” and what kind of sidearm do you favor? And is it for self-defense, a journalistic tool or just a fashion accessory? You owe it to your readers to keep us informed.

    And there’s no need to thank me. I’m always glad to help people like you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *