Citizens For A Safer Minnesota

[Philo]

I was listening to Chris Baker this morning on K-Talk (100.3 KTLK) out of the Twin Cities. He had a guest on from "Citizens For A Safer Minnesota." I didn't know this group existed. Here's their website:

http://www.endgunviolence.com/

Baker kept his cool and let her do most of the talking. The interview was a perfect example of people who have been popping up over the last few days and know little or nothing about crime, firearms, and firearm laws, yet feel they know what's best for all of us.

For example, she feels that restricting the number of rounds in a magazine would have limited the number of people killed/wounded in AZ last week. According to her, large capacity mags are for "combat." They're not necessary for civilians and even LEOs. She said that she thinks the police never have to face combat situtations! She also feels that laws permiting carry have no effect on crime rates. Then there was the usual "more laws will stop crime" rhetoric. Right. Like some looney tune is going to take note of a law, put his gun away, and leave the premisis because killing someone with a gun is illegal there.

What is really disturbing to me is that these people seem to be coming out of the woodwork and they are spewing out nonsense in the media outlets. I think they are very united in their mission and well organized. Yeah, they're making fools of themselves in front of people who know better, but your average citizen (and legislator) is probably not informed enough to know the difference. I realize it is a very potentially explosive topic, but to me, it doesn't seem like there's anyone on the opposite side of the issue who is willing to lay out all the facts and statistics for the American people and is knowledgeable enough to counter the statements made by the other side. Is the GOP, IRA, etc. going to just lay low and hope it all blows over? Does the leadership have a plan? Last thing I want is to end up living in a state like Illinois and Kalifornia.

[nyffman]

They've been around for a while. Part of the Brady Bunch.

[goalie]

FWIW, I don't think the cops should be able to carry anything I am not allowed to own.

[Heffay]

FWIW, I don't think the cops should be able to carry anything I am not allowed to own.

What are they allowed to carry that you can't own?

[goalie]

FWIW, I don't think the cops should be able to carry anything I am not allowed to own.

What are they allowed to carry that you can't own?

machine guns and cans.

[Heffay]

FWIW, I don't think the cops should be able to carry anything I am not allowed to own.

What are they allowed to carry that you can't own?

machine guns and cans.

I thought you could get a permit to buy a machine gun? I thought it was just expensive and onerous to get the permits.

I don't know what you mean by a can. Kidney beans?

[JoeH]

I'm headed to the can.

[White Horseradish]

I thought you could get a permit to buy a machine gun? I thought it was just expensive and onerous to get the permits.

I don't know what you mean by a can. Kidney beans?

It's not technically a permit. You pay tax and get a stamp every time you transfer a machine gun. MN allows them, but restricts them to curio and relic ones, which is a smaller and more expensive subset of what is allowed federally. Cans are suppressors. Completely forbidden in Minnesota since 1963. Allowed for law enforcement in 2003.

[Philo]

FWIW, I don't think the cops should be able to carry anything I am not allowed to own.

I'm in total agreement on that one, but the sad reality is that the criminals and lunatics will carry whatever they want, even if it's, -gasp!-, illegal.

[macphisto]

I realize it is a very potentially explosive topic

Please tone down this violent rhetoric.

[goalie]

You cannot buy and M4. Period. The registry for machine guns is closed last time I checked.

Like I said, the cops should not be allowed to carry ANYTHING I am not allowed to own.

Can=muffler for your gun

[Philo]

I realize it is a very potentially explosive topic

Please tone down this violent rhetoric.

Yah, you betcha. Here's something interesting that a Facebook friend posted yesterday:

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

Of course, in the current monologs about "violent rhetoric," you won't hear anything about these examples in the mainstream media.

[carver952]

In many juristictions, only SERT/SWAT can use full auto or supressed rifles.
Most regular patrol officers just get semi-auto.
Clarification: I'm not saying that's the way it should be, just stating how it is today.

[goalie]

In many juristictions, only SERT/SWAT can use full auto or supressed rifles.
Most regular patrol officers just get semi-auto.

Like I said, the cops should not have anything I can't have. Period.

(Notice, I didn't say, except for "special" cops....)

[mrokern]

FWIW, I don't think the cops should be able to carry anything I am not allowed to own.

And for anyone who wants to put forward the "they have better training" argument, ask Roger or Sue about the SWAT team that shot up one of the doors at the end of one of BPR's bays. DonL tells it pretty well, too.