Ladies Logic

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Dodge City or Murderapolis

Oh my friend Amendment X is going to LOVE this one.....

"A couple of weeks ago, I checked into a hotel in Bloomington, a Minneapolis suburb framed by the airport and the Mall of America. On the hotel door was a sign: “Firearms Banned on These Premises.” The next day I drove to St. Joseph, an hour west of the Twin Cities, where I saw the same sign. Slowly the logical conclusion sank in. If firearms are banned on these premises, then they must not be banned in other places.
Sure enough, a year ago the State Legislature passed a “concealed carry” law, which means that it’s legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a “shall require” state. If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must grant it to you."

What I found to be highly amusing (and so totally expected....this is the Grey Lady after all) was this:

"I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a “shoot first” bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation. The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked."

You hear that, dear readers???? The streets of Minneapolis are one step away from being Dodge City again....OH WAIT...they already ARE!

Those who have followed the goings on in Amy Klobuchar's Minneapolis (like Rambix and the KvM guys) know that the streets are already awash with guns and gangbangers and gangster wanna bes. Any one of them are looking for the chance to prove themselves to their "peeps".

"This is what I’d expect of Florida, which recently passed a “shoot first” — also called a “shoot the Avon lady” — bill. I’d expect it of Texas too. But Minnesota? I grew up thinking of Minnesota as a socially progressive state. After all, it was home of the D.F.L. — the Democratic Farmer Labor Party — and a place where local control and common sense had strong roots. Like my family in Iowa, Minnesotans were gun owners because they hunted pheasants and rabbits and deer. But then I’m thinking of a time when the leadership of the National Rifle Association resembled a band of merry sportsmen and not the paranoid cabal it is today. Whether this was also a time when a legislator could vote his conscience, and not his gun lobbyist’s orders, I was too young to know."

You want to know what's changed? Here's a hint. In Minneapolis in 2006, the animals are roaming the streets of the city and not foraging in the forests "up north".

One thing that the folks like this author fail to recoginze is what happened AFTER the Florida conceal carry law was passed. Contrary to the nay-sayers prediction of "blood in the streets" crime actually DROPPED in Florida.

Then again, facts are something that the writes for the old grey ghost seem to disregard if they don't fit the the preconceived conclusions.

4 Comments:

  • The “shoot first” bill is insane and unnecessary. Sometimes I think the Minnesota political consultants amuse each other by switching interns on the other side with their own people and seeing how much havoc they can wreak or how closely they can bring the talking points to resemble Playskool without the other side noticing. We've already seen similar bad advise when the DFL (possibly Hatch) people floated the idea of politicizing the Sjodin murder by saying budget cuts caused it. In the end people need to know when to stop building on an idea

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:58 PM  

  • Joel,

    Do you know more than law enforcement?

    http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1041

    Current law allows people to use deadly force if someone is breaking into their home.

    Cornish, R-Vernon Center, would expand that to include their car or bicycle.

    The bill also calls for allowing those threatened to be able to use whatever force necessary

    to defend themselves and won’t have to worry about prosecution. If someone pulls a knife,

    they can pull a gun.

    The bill also expands the circumstance in which one can use deadly force. Current law
    provides that people can use deadly force if they are threatened with permanent bodily harm or injury. Cornish would loosen that requirement to “temporary” bodily harm.


    Huettl calls the legislation “crazy,” and Cornish conceded law enforcement will fight it.

    Unfortunately, police officers will pay once again for the decisions of politicians to
    create laws that really don’t make average people more safe, but create more stressful and
    unsafe situations for police officers.

    I will concede I had not read it. I did 1 search after your response and brought up the page above.

    I also retract comparing this legislation to any Democrat hijinx. I believe it is sincere and as a republican I support it. but how hard is it get police onboard and why wouldn't you try?

    Regards

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:13 AM  

  • Since Joel won't blow his own horn, the best fisking of the article in question I believe has been done by him. You can find it here:
    http://joelrosenberg.livejournal...577.html#cutid1

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:14 AM  

  • Joel - thank you so much for adding to the discussion insight that I just don't have. I am not a gun owner - I even admit that I have an un-natural fear of handguns, but I fully support the rights of law abiding citizens to carry weapons for defense.

    The left's fear of an armed citizenry says much about how they feel about their own politics.

    By Blogger The Lady Logician, at 1:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home