Tony Cornish to propose ALTERNATE GUN BILL ??? Huh.

[Holland&Holland]

Grudgily I may agree with that but not too fast.

I'm still giddy with anticipation about your impending "Heffay was right" post.

Do not think I have forgotten that and it is looking good for you but I am taking a wait and see approach. Don't want to call it too early and get suprised last minute.

[BigBlue]

I think it does more than that. It creates a bill that both sides of the issue can supposedly be comfortable with. It creates a clear case where gun rights advocates are not just being beligerant, racist white obstrctionists because our side has gone out of their way to reach out to liberals as well as those in law enforcement to craft something everyone sees as helpful for society.

It also puts antis is a bad spot. The worst thing you can do to someone who is on a long term strategy to ban all guns (from law abiding use) is to counter with a solution that doesn't help their agenda. It makes us look amenable to solving problems of violence, and they suddenly run the risk of their agenda being exposed to the rank and file low info voter.

Do we need more laws? Yes and no, but mostly no. NICS needs to be fixed, and has needed it for a long time. But then, I seriously doubt that antis ever really wanted NICS to work right to begin with. To them its just another step along the way to illustrate how they "tried" to work with us ignorant redneck conservatives, but compromise can never work when dealig with "us."

This.

[Holland&Holland]

I think it does more than that. It creates a bill that both sides of the issue can supposedly be comfortable with. It creates a clear case where gun rights advocates are not just being beligerant, racist white obstrctionists because our side has gone out of their way to reach out to liberals as well as those in law enforcement to craft something everyone sees as helpful for society.

It also puts antis is a bad spot. The worst thing you can do to someone who is on a long term strategy to ban all guns (from law abiding use) is to counter with a solution that doesn't help their agenda. It makes us look amenable to solving problems of violence, and they suddenly run the risk of their agenda being exposed to the rank and file low info voter.

Do we need more laws? Yes and no, but mostly no. NICS needs to be fixed, and has needed it for a long time. But then, I seriously doubt that antis ever really wanted NICS to work right to begin with. To them its just another step along the way to illustrate how they "tried" to work with us ignorant redneck conservatives, but compromise can never work when dealig with "us."

This.

And why do we even need NICS? I get it, lesser of 2 evils I suppose, I guess I am just not convinved that anything needs to be done.

[AR]

I was amused last night while reading the GOCRA blog to see Gun Control referred to as DFL KRYPTONITE...that's good for Minnesota because the 'Outstate' citizens of NY and Colorado are a downtrodden minority.

Representative Erik Simonson (DFL)
651-296-4246
E-mail: rep.erik.simonson@house.mn
Rep. Simonson is a new representative. Remind him that gun control is DFL Kryptonite: it has cost the House its DFL majority before, and it will again.

[BigBlue]

I think it does more than that. It creates a bill that both sides of the issue can supposedly be comfortable with. It creates a clear case where gun rights advocates are not just being beligerant, racist white obstrctionists because our side has gone out of their way to reach out to liberals as well as those in law enforcement to craft something everyone sees as helpful for society.

It also puts antis is a bad spot. The worst thing you can do to someone who is on a long term strategy to ban all guns (from law abiding use) is to counter with a solution that doesn't help their agenda. It makes us look amenable to solving problems of violence, and they suddenly run the risk of their agenda being exposed to the rank and file low info voter.

Do we need more laws? Yes and no, but mostly no. NICS needs to be fixed, and has needed it for a long time. But then, I seriously doubt that antis ever really wanted NICS to work right to begin with. To them its just another step along the way to illustrate how they "tried" to work with us ignorant redneck conservatives, but compromise can never work when dealig with "us."

This.

And why do we even need NICS? I get it, lesser of 2 evils I suppose, I guess I am just not convinved that anything needs to be done.

I'm not qualified to debate the pros and cons of NICS but, as mentioned in another thread, if MN passes HF1323 it may set the precedent for other states following suit. Though doing nothing might be the best outcome, in this current state of affairs we may not be able to stop the 'Do Something! Do Anything!" train entirely. If we can't stop it but we can redirect it down the set of tracks that doesn't impose new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners we will at least have avoided disaster. I'd rather see new laws that have a chance to be effective and that only affect criminals than to see new laws that strip away rights we will never get back.

BB

[Holland&Holland]

I'm not qualified to debate the pros and cons of NICS but, as mentioned in another thread, if MN passes HF1323 it may set the precedent for other states following suit. Though doing nothing might be the best outcome, in this current state of affairs we may not be able to stop the 'Do Something! Do Anything!" train entirely. If we can't stop it but we can redirect it down the set of tracks that doesn't impose new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners we will at least have avoided disaster. I'd rather see new laws that have a chance to be effective any that only affect criminals than to see new laws that strip away rights we will never get back.

BB

That makes sense and I guess that answers my question.