Minnesota House of Representatives Committee Seeks Public Comment on Gun-Control Measures

Feb 5, 2013 Full story: Free Republic

Three days of public hearings will be held before the Public Safety, Finance and Policy of the Minnesota House of Representatives, Feb.

Full Story
Mike Miller

Minneapolis, MN

#1 Feb 5, 2013
I do not remember what legislator made the comment that the police officers who stood up behind President Obama on Monday should be ashamed of themselves but in my opinion that legislator or whomever they are should be ashamed of themselves for such a crude comment. Who would know better the dangers that guns pose than the dedicated public servants who see up close the effects of our current culture of gun obsession? Yes, not all law enforcement is an agreement with gun control, but those who are in support of some common sense measures, to hear another public servant (and I use the term loosely) criticize them for wanting to bring some discussion and common sense to an area that affects them in a life and death way, is pretty pathetic. If that person has any sense they will apologize to those police officers and come down off of their self-righteous mountain and discuss the topic instead of insult our brave officers who put their life on the line every day for all us.
John Allen

Saint Paul, MN

#2 Feb 7, 2013
Modern firearms are in two distinct groups and should not be included in the same debate. In one group are those fire arms used for hunting, farm pest control, precision shooting and for reasonable protection of one’s home and person. This would not include weapons with clearly military capacity. For this first group the rights and safety of licensed owners and others is of utmost importance and must be open to public review.
In the second group are those firearms solely meant to discharge large amounts of highly destructive, anti personnel firepower, often at close range, and with little precision. This group includes assault rifles, high capacity magazines, anti personnel ammunition, grenades and other military style weaponry. No reasonable common sense would place these types of modern firearms in residential homes with possible access by children and unregistered individuals. Recent school shootings show that members of the households of assault weapon owners, themselves not subject to either a background check or to meet mental health provisions, may a have had relatively easy access to these powerful firearms. Use of anti-personnel rifles should be limited to places and events that are designed to provide positive protection for the public. Citizens who wish to own and use such weaponry should be able to do so but not to cause fear and danger to the general public. The freedom to own a high powered weapon in one’s home should be no more protected than the freedom from fear of that firepower by ones neighbor. These military type weapons should be restricted to approved shooting ranges, stored in supervised, locked facilities when not in use within the facility and not removed from such facilities.
Prevention of gun violence by early identification of mental illness is a weak solution since real proof of such a tendency only comes after the action itself. It is then too late for prevention.
The argument that military style weapons are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution to protect citizenry from the excess powers of government is an insult to a democratic society. It says that laws are an excuse for lawlessness itself.
Corey Askin

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#3 Feb 12, 2013
John Allen wrote:
Modern firearms are in two distinct groups and should not be included in the same debate. In one group are those fire arms used for hunting, farm pest control, precision shooting and for reasonable protection of one’s home and person. This would not include weapons with clearly military capacity. For this first group the rights and safety of licensed owners and others is of utmost importance and must be open to public review.
In the second group are those firearms solely meant to discharge large amounts of highly destructive, anti personnel firepower, often at close range, and with little precision. This group includes assault rifles, high capacity magazines, anti personnel ammunition, grenades and other military style weaponry. No reasonable common sense would place these types of modern firearms in residential homes with possible access by children and unregistered individuals. Recent school shootings show that members of the households of assault weapon owners, themselves not subject to either a background check or to meet mental health provisions, may a have had relatively easy access to these powerful firearms. Use of anti-personnel rifles should be limited to places and events that are designed to provide positive protection for the public. Citizens who wish to own and use such weaponry should be able to do so but not to cause fear and danger to the general public. The freedom to own a high powered weapon in one’s home should be no more protected than the freedom from fear of that firepower by ones neighbor. These military type weapons should be restricted to approved shooting ranges, stored in supervised, locked facilities when not in use within the facility and not removed from such facilities.
Prevention of gun violence by early identification of mental illness is a weak solution since real proof of such a tendency only comes after the action itself. It is then too late for prevention.
The argument that military style weapons are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution to protect citizenry from the excess powers of government is an insult to a democratic society. It says that laws are an excuse for lawlessness itself.
First of all John, it's the SECOND Amendment, not the first. and Second, "excess powers of government" is EXACLTY what the authors were targeting. and I quote "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The key phrase here is a FREE STATE. The dirt bag that is breaking into your house at one in the morning is not a threat to the freedom of the country is he? No he's not, the only true threat to the freedom of a country is another country or that countries own government! The right to defend myself in my home is a right that is inherant to my existance a.k.a. god-given. The Second Amendment extends that right to the protection of my country.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minnesota Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Senate GOP sticks together on Medicare (May '11) 20 min swedenforever 29
Former Minn. Nurse Guilty of Assisting Suicide ... Mon Medicare vs Seniors 2
Why Wisconsin Sucks (Apr '10) Jan 24 Englands finest 152
Report: Christie to tap fundraiser for 2016 Jan 23 serfs up 5
Mock Draft 1.5 Jan 19 Turdsburgh 3
Panel calls for bold action to fill critical sh... Jan 17 humanspirit 2
For Minnesota, U.S. hospitals, re-admissions pr... (Sep '13) Jan 15 breaker19 4
More from around the web