Dayton slams NRA's 'bogus' gun arguments

[NMRMN]

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... dayton-nra

"We don't need the NRA to be posturing around to 'protect those rights,' because they don't need to be protected," Dayton said. "They're sanctified in the constitution and every politician I know who's elected to office — Republican, Democrat and the like — understand that that's a right, and no one is going to take it away."

[Texastransplant]

And yet the same people howl to high heaven when we ask for ID to vote. Isn't voting a right? If they propose background checks on one right, why not on all? Morons.

[damian_mb]

Wait but didn't he say he will sign any gun control bill?

[darkwolf45]

Voting in this nation's elections is a right for US CITIZENS. I don't see how you couldnt modify licenses over a 4 year period to indicate citizenship status. I.e. "C" for citizen, "V" for work visa, etc. as people come in to renew just ask them to bring in a social security card or some other basic proof of citizenship. The clerk checks a box on the for indicsting whether proof of citizenship is provided and marks it for appropriate inclusion on the license.

Hell, how many people can simply walk up to the counter, tell them what county they were born in, cross check, citizen? Yep, right there johnny on the spot. You dont even have to make proof of citizenship a requirement for the license. If someone says they dont want to put and "n" on the license for no proof provided.

No elaborate background checks or investigations. Just a simple once over as you get your license. Present license or other proof of citizenship at polls. No elaborate mechanisms, just simple "did he provide proof? If yes, go to your booth."

Seriously, if i have to provide proof to buy beer, a gun or drive car then i dont see why this simple 2 second check at the polls has to be such a big deal.

[Thunder71]

Umm, Dayton flat out vetoed a pro gun bill that had unanimous bipartisan support.

[The Verminator]

Let's stick to the facts.

Dayton hasn't vetoed anything.

He said he would veto ANY bill that lacked support from rural DFL legislators.

That eliminates most of the problems.

As to his comments, the smart thing to do would be to send him an e-mail expressing disappointment with those comments and telling him how all bills proposed thus far have given police chiefs almost unlimited power to take away a citizen's right to buy a gun--and also imposed fees and gun dealer costs that are unfair to low income people.

Let's try to act like grownups.

[Thunder71]

Let's stick to the facts.
Dayton hasn't vetoed anything.

Excuse me? That's just flat out not true at all... I think you need to check facts before you speak of them.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collec ... _g_1.shtml

Governor Dayton has vetoed legislation that would have expanded the use of deadly force in Minnesota.

In his veto letter to the Legislature, Governor Dayton said he vetoed the bill because most major law enforcement agencies raised issues about the bill. Dayton said he appreciated the efforts to craft the bill to ease worries by law enforcement but said their concerns "must be honored."

The bill would have given gun owners significantly more latitude to use deadly force for self defense. It would have allowed the use of deadly force with a weapon if people believe they are in imminent danger in a home, hotel room, car, boat or tent. The National Rifle Association issued a statement saying it was disappointed with Dayton's veto.

[darkwolf45]

Let's stick to the facts.

Dayton hasn't vetoed anything.

He said he would veto ANY bill that lacked support from rural DFL legislators.

That eliminates most of the problems.

As to his comments, the smart thing to do would be to send him an e-mail expressing disappointment with those comments and telling him how all bills proposed thus far have given police chiefs almost unlimited power to take away a citizen's right to buy a gun--and also imposed fees and gun dealer costs that are unfair to low income people.

Let's try to act like grownups.

True enough. I suppose that since elected officials are intent on behaving like spoiled children, SOMEONE needs to step up and be the adult.

[The Verminator]

Both sides have significant issues, that's for sure.

[The Verminator]

Let's stick to the facts.
Dayton hasn't vetoed anything.

Excuse me? That's just flat out not true at all... I think you need to check facts before you speak of them.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collec ... _g_1.shtml

Governor Dayton has vetoed legislation that would have expanded the use of deadly force in Minnesota.

In his veto letter to the Legislature, Governor Dayton said he vetoed the bill because most major law enforcement agencies raised issues about the bill. Dayton said he appreciated the efforts to craft the bill to ease worries by law enforcement but said their concerns "must be honored."

The bill would have given gun owners significantly more latitude to use deadly force for self defense. It would have allowed the use of deadly force with a weapon if people believe they are in imminent danger in a home, hotel room, car, boat or tent. The National Rifle Association issued a statement saying it was disappointed with Dayton's veto.

That's over a year ago and the issue was quite different.

This discussion is about current legislation, not history.

Dayton has stated clearly that he will veto any bill that lacks the support of rural DFL legislators.

As to his comments, the smart thing to do would be to send him an e-mail expressing disappointment with those comments and telling him how all bills proposed thus far have given police chiefs almost unlimited power to take away a citizen's right to buy a gun--and also imposed fees and gun dealer costs that are unfair to low income people.

[Thunder71]

Let's stick to the facts.
Dayton hasn't vetoed anything.

Excuse me? That's just flat out not true at all... I think you need to check facts before you speak of them.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collec ... _g_1.shtml

Governor Dayton has vetoed legislation that would have expanded the use of deadly force in Minnesota.

In his veto letter to the Legislature, Governor Dayton said he vetoed the bill because most major law enforcement agencies raised issues about the bill. Dayton said he appreciated the efforts to craft the bill to ease worries by law enforcement but said their concerns "must be honored."

The bill would have given gun owners significantly more latitude to use deadly force for self defense. It would have allowed the use of deadly force with a weapon if people believe they are in imminent danger in a home, hotel room, car, boat or tent. The National Rifle Association issued a statement saying it was disappointed with Dayton's veto.

This discussion is about current legislation, not history.

Dayton has stated clearly that he will veto any bill that lacks the support of rural DFL legislators.

You said Dayton hasn't vetoed anything, my comment earlier was that he has shown recently that he's not in support of pro gun legislation, even when it has bipartisan support - why would I trust his word on his claim to support the 2nd amendment now?

[The Verminator]

You don't have a choice now.

You can only behave in a manner that does not bring animosity toward gun owners.

Unless you really just want to harm our cause.

[Heffay]

And yet the same people howl to high heaven when we ask for ID to vote. Isn't voting a right? If they propose background checks on one right, why not on all? Morons.

I find it funny that some people support voter ID but oppose gun registration. Lack of consistency right there.

[Texastransplant]

And yet the same people howl to high heaven when we ask for ID to vote. Isn't voting a right? If they propose background checks on one right, why not on all? Morons.

I find it funny that some people support voter ID but oppose gun registration. Lack of consistency right there.

Not entirely. One follows the other. Citizenship garauntees both. Proof of citizen should be required for both.

[Lights]

And yet the same people howl to high heaven when we ask for ID to vote. Isn't voting a right? If they propose background checks on one right, why not on all? Morons.

I find it funny that some people support voter ID but oppose gun registration. Lack of consistency right there.

Heffay you are one messed up thinker. Either you are retired or you are receiving goverment help. How can you be on this fourm every freaking second of the day?