First a word about our lovely press. If I hear one more reporter grovel and squirm about how we don’t really want to hurt the NRA or take away any gun rights or do anything unreasonable, no, no, we just want to assume there is a solution to the carnage that does not inconvenience any of the gun loving yahoos that watch our networks …. then I’m going to I just don’t know what. Reporters: Please leave open the possibility that a double digit percentage of Americans don’t care one whit how much restrictions there ends up being on guns. We just want the insanity to end, and if that means taking away all the guns, then, whatever. It was not our decision to make guns so available that they can be amassed in sufficient quantities to shoot over five hundred people in one sitting. We want results, we do not care, not one bit, who’s feelings are hurt.
But I digress.
You need to do this before any upcoming elections. Find out who is
on the ballot has a record of opposing guns vs. who has a record of supporting guns, and vote against the gun supporters and for the gun opposers.
I made a list of current members of the Minnesota US Congressional delegation, and put it at the top of the post, with relevant information. I also looked some details up from HERE and HERE.
In a recent rating of recent and current members of the Minnesota House delegation, the NRA gave Rick Nolan, Keith Ellison, and Betty McCollum the grade of “F” and none of these three lawmakers have taken money from them.
Collin Peterson took $2,500 bucks from the NRA, Michele Bachmann took $3,500, Erik Paulson took 2,250, John Kline $2,500, and Tim Walz took $2,000. They all got a rating of “A” from the NRA.
Notice that party lines are being crossed here.
During the recent congressional session, Congresspersons Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison supported zero bills that support guns, but have supported 14 gun control bills.
Richard Nolan has supported one gun control bill.
Al Franken has supported two gun control bills.
Amy Klobuchar has supported two gun control bills.
Those are the clear good guys in Congress from Minnesota. But you might ask why the great variation in number of bills?
Congressman Erik Paulsen has supported one gun rights bill and has not supported any gun control bills. Collin Peterson has supported three gun rights bills and zero gun control bills. Tom Emmer has supported zero gun control bills and five gun rights bills. John Kline has supported a whopping nine gun rights bills and zero gun control bills.
15 thoughts on “Vote Down The Guns”
You are clearly biased against the 2nd amendment and the NRA. Should we take away the first and 4th amendments too? My legally carried gun saved my life with out firing a shot. You can wait for the result of your 911 call (carrying away your body) if you want. The police are the first to say that they can not protect you or your family.”Please leave open the possibility that a double digit percentage of Americans don’t care one whit how much restrictions there ends up being on guns. We just want the insanity to end, and if that means taking away all the guns, then, whatever.” What do you base this statement upon????????????????? I will vote for any of the A grade people you mentioned.More laws will not/do not prevent crimes. Name one “mass shooting” that did not take place in a “gun free zone” How is this possible?” It was against the law. Maybe criminals, spooks, “terrorists” don’t obey laws.
It seems that those NOT in favor of gun control would vote for a law that EVERYONE should have a gun because if we all had one that no one would shoot. Are we going back to the good old wild west? I am not saying take away all guns, but assault rifles and AR 15’s SHOULD NOT in any circumstance be available to the general public and I’m tired of hearing that the bad guys are the mentally ill would find a way to get them anyway. The less of them out there, the less the chances they’d have of obtaining.
Ok. Calm down John Keen. There there. Nobody is going to take away your magical gun that protects without ever firing a shot. BTW, wouldn’t a realistic fake gun have worked just as well for you if that is the case? Anyway, we know that you love your gun John Keen. But if there weren’t so many of the damn things in the hands of criminals and crazies, your need for a gun would become vanishingly small; far smaller than the probability that an accidental discharge of your magical gun would do you or someone you love more harm than good.
Besides, now a days, here on the internets, odds are reasonable that you aren’t even an American or own your own gun, but are instead a wage slave for some Russian paymaster.
Anyway, isn’t it strange how gun lovers do so much of the gun killing in Murka? Criminal gun lovers, crazy gun lovers, pissed off gun lovers, clumsy gun lovers. Funny how nearly all gun deaths and injuries are caused by people who love guns, i.e., gun lovers. Stranger still how the fake, for profit, Russian funded blogger spooks echo the worst sentiments of the gun-loving Murkan public. Quite a coincidence, wouldn’t you say?
Another unsubstantiated claim of a gun foiling a crime. It does happen, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, it is so rare it really doesn’t make a blip on statistics.
The myth of “these shootings keep occurring in gun free zones” comes along too. That was started primarily by J Lott, favorite of the NRA. He repeatedly makes assertions about this, and repeatedly is wrong for a simple reason; his definition of gun free zone isn’t the real definition. If he thinks the requirements for carry are too strict in a location, he calls that a gun free zone. The most famous (but not the only) instance of this came after the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Lott (and others of his ilk) referred to the campus as a gun free zone, and supported that by selectively quoting the college handbook. They claimed it said civilians were not allowed to carry guns; it really said they were allowed to carry if they applied for permission (which was automatically granted).
Honesty and integrity seem to get tossed aside by the “guns at any cost” lobby. The most recent demonstration of this dishonesty is found in another of johnkeen’s recent comments (back at Scienceblogs) where this can be found:
(in the “More guns equals more gun deaths” thread)
Trump isn’t taking away anyone’s free speech. He just wants common sense controls on free speech.
No, he is trying to limit the freedom of the press, which is standard operating procedure for authoritarians trying to shut down legitimate criticism of their behaviour. And it’s decidedly un-American, so why are you endorsing this behaviour?
” He just wants common sense controls on free speech.”
In other words, he wants to limit free speech, which is as strongly against the Constitution as any of the imaginary (meaning false) things President Obama was accused of by the habitual liars and racists on the right.
dean and BBD:
I think MikeN is being sarcastic.
Comparing what Trump is doing with the press with what some want to do with guns – “common sense controls”.
I of just guessing – but that is how I read MikeN’s comment.
The funny thing is you both object to “common sense controls” on the 1st amendment, but not on the 2nd.
At least I bet MikeN thinks it is funny!
Common sense controls on firearms would include the ban on civilian ownership of paramilitary rifles with high-capacity magazines. Common sense controls on free speech would include a restriction on the right to hate speech. In neither case is the freedom of the majority compromised. In both cases, the restrictions would be beneficial to the majority.
And to implement these ideas, the 1st and 2nd amendments would have to be changed. Otherwise, your “common sense controls” would be struck down as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that hate speech is protected under the 1st amendment.
I believe a ban on paramilitary weapons would also be struck down, but such a law has never been passed (that I am aware of). The only bans I am aware of are the full auto ban (not semi-auto) and the sawed off shotgun ban. I don’t think the fully automatic ban was ever litigated (which is lucky for gun control advocates).
Why defend an obviously dysfunctional status quo?
I don’t see myself as defending it (in my comment).
I see myself as advising on what needs to be done to succeed in changing things in accord with your opinion of “common sense controls”.
Yes, that’s what I was doing Rick. I’m surprised it had to be spelled out for what I thought were the brighter commenters, in a thread about guns.
I’d have kept going with it and gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for your meddling.
Scooby dooby do!