Minnesota Network for Progressive Action

About Comments
The mnpACT! blog welcomes all comments from visitors, which are immediately posted, but we also filter for spammers:
  • No active URLs or web links are allowed (use www.yourweb.com).
  • No drug or pharma- ceutical names are allowed.
  • Your comment "Name" must be one word with no spaces and cannot be an email address.
You should also note that a few IP addresses and homepage URLs have been banned from posting comments because they have posted multiple spam messages.

Please be aware we monitor ALL comments and reserve the right to delete obvious spam comments.

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

site search

Site Meter
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

No Rational Discussion Can Happen About Guns

Category: Guns
Posted: 03/12/14 15:45

by Dave Mindeman

During a discussion on politics, Chuck Todd, an MSNBC commentator said this:

You are not allowed to have a rational statistical argument when it comes to guns in the political arena.

That is absolutely true.

Obama's nominee for Surgeon General is being scored by the NRA because this nominee has advocated gun studies as a public health policy.

That's worth blocking a nominee?

In some states, insurance agents are not allowed to ask people if they own guns because they are concerned about insurance rates being altered because a homeowner owns a gun.


Alcohol has more public health interventions as a legal product than guns, which is also legal and also causes health problems.


Arguments about the place for guns in our society are severely altered to favor gun ownership. Nobody argues about the right to bear arms, but reasonable safety concerns in regards to that are berated as being against those gun ownership protections.

There must be a tipping point somewhere when the dominos of the NRA will come tumbling down. How many more deaths from gun violence have to happen before that tipping point is realized?
comments (1) permalink

Tony Cornish Defends Ted Nugent

Category: Guns
Posted: 02/25/14 12:49

by Dave Mindeman

Timothy Stanley, a history professor at Oxford and columnist on American politics, wrote a piece for CNN entitled - "I'm Embarrassed By Ted Nugent". He opens with:

When did conservatives become prisoners to idiotic vulgarity? I ask that question as someone who self-defines as conservative and who is sick and tired of being embarrassed by Ted Nugent.

Mr. Stanley is British, but has followed American politics historically for some time. His latest book is a biography of Pat Buchanan - "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan".

He has written about the American Republican Party in a favorable light. But apparently he has had it with Ted Nugent.

Now I mention this because Rep. Tony Cornish felt compelled to post on Facebook a defense of Ted Nugent.....

Tony Cornish: Timothy Stanley is a "PUTZ" This is the guy that said Ted Nugent embarrasses him. He should be so luck(y) as to be Ted Nugent. "Tim! You're a Putz!"

Cornish is the legislative heart and soul of the NRA in the legislature. But is Ted Nugent THAT important as a representative of guns that he is to be defended - no matter what he says?

Just for review, last month the aged rocker called President Barack Obama a "subhuman mongrel" in an interview with Guns.com.

That was OK? Is Cornish saying that that is allowable because it was Ted Nugent saying it?

If Ted Nugent is your "guy" in the gun debate, I seriously question your judgment.
comments (0) permalink

It's Shouldn't Be 2nd Amendment Rights VS Gun Safety

Category: Guns
Posted: 12/19/13 01:44

by Dave Mindeman

The anniversary of the Sandy Hook shootings has come and gone. I imagine the pain of Newton welled to the surface once more, while the rest of us cannot even begin to make comparisons in regards to our own feelings vs. the deep, deep sorrow of theirs.

I won't even try.

But advocates of gun safety need to rise to the occasion once more. In Minnesota, last legislative session, an attempt was made to put together some real common sense changes to gun regulations. That attempt wasn't talking about taking away anybody's guns. It wasn't restricting assault weapons. It wasn't asking for registration. Nothing of the sort. Yet, it was slapped down as Constitutional infringements.


Going into next session there is talk of trying once more. And it is coming from law enforcement as a means to protect the public. Yeah, law enforcment - the hard core "anti-gun" people ;).....

The so-called "prosecutors package" of laws includes measures making it a felony to knowingly give a gun to a person prohibited from carrying a gun; it would prohibit felons from possession ammunition and include certain domestic violence offenses as "crimes of violence" -- that way a person convicted of one of these crimes would face tougher penalties for getting caught with a gun.

OK. Let's try to be rational and look at these new laws on their face. How can anybody object to them? If a person gives a gun with the knowledge that he or she is prohibited from having it, why does that no follow as pure common sense? Personally, I have to wonder why it is not already a felony. And mixing domestic violence and weapons? Why do we not already make gun possession in such cases a means of putting these characters away?

It is like gun advocates want to defend violent criminal behavior? Is that now part of our constitutional rights?

I still cannot understand why gun advocates fight universal background checks.....

Gun control advocates say they will push again to expand background checks on gun purchases to include private sales. Currently in Minnesota, a person can buy a gun from a private seller without going through a background check, an exception known by some as the "gun show loophole."

I don't care it you are selling a pistol to your brother - a background check should follow any sale. Each and every one of them. Gun shows, trade shows, antique shows, family gatherings, Craig's list, or an ad in the weekly fishwrap.....if a weapon sale occurs, a background check should be front and center.

That is not infringing on anybody's rights. Argue it all you want - if you own a weapon, a background check should have been involved. If you are a law-abiding citizen (as all the gun rights advocates claim to be), then you have nothing to fear from a background check.

Yeah, I know the drill. Criminals will always get the guns. Gun thefts and gangs put too many weapons out there. But really, building up your own private arsenal is just as crazy. How many guns does one person need to protect him or herself?

I understand the hunters and recreational shooters. Even though I don't get it, it is still your right to do what you want. But guns are dangerous. They are not toys. And to utilize common sense restrictions to make everybody safer is not a personal attack.

We have to think clearly and rationally on this. The Second Amendment is a freedom, but it was never meant to be an anchor dragging against a common sense approach to public safety.
comments (0) permalink
« First « Previous


« April 2014 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30

Latest posts


(one year)




RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

Powered by
Powered by SBlog
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.