Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Do you think Minnesota's gun laws should be strengthened?

  1. Yes
  2. No
sort: oldest | newest




Apr-03-13 2:48 PM

Just enforce the laws that are on the books and sentence those that break them instead of going with probation that does nothing except let criminals with guns on the street.

13 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-03-13 4:09 PM

How's the poll workin' for ya Per?

24 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-06-13 7:22 AM

It seems that people who want to other people with guns will always find a way. Honestly, what law would really have stopped the nutty kid in Connecticut if you could turn back the clock a year and pass any Constitutional bill that your heart desired? Yeah, I thought so...

7 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-06-13 10:40 AM

Use the laws we have. If new laws worked so well how is is that Chicago and new York have the best laws and yet have the highest murder rates. There was a poster saying no guns allowed in the theater in Colorado and how did that work? The shooting at our military base is another example of existing laws being broken. What medication was prescribed to these mental cases? What common ground did they have. How many were on drugs and worked on Obamas reelection committee? In Minn we have laws regarding guns being purchased now. The time and effort spent by our politicians is just avoiding and hiding the real problems of our country such as illegals and vast wasting our tax dollars with a new health system that is basically a lot of new taxes all hurting the working people. Truthfully a swift trial and death sentence should be carried out immediatly would save the country lots of time and money.

8 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-07-13 2:31 PM

Something funny with the math here. As of this posting 71% do not believe that the gun laws need to be strengthened and only 29% believing that they do. Yet all comments that support the enforcement of existing laws are disagreed with by a wide margin. Only Prod gets more agrees, which is funny cause I think there may be a bit of sarcasm in his question. Anyway, for all those who disagree or the 29% who want tougher gun laws, please post what you believe.

7 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 11:31 AM

It would appear that I'm correct. I offer no opinion on the subject, yet 10 people disagree with my non-opinion. Fools.

3 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 5:39 PM

I am sick to death with "use the laws we have". The laws we have don't work, thanks to the NRA & their successful efforts to strip the ATF of any enforcement authority. You can't enforce the law when you don't have the power to investigate & find violators of the law!

20 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 8:21 PM

They should be strengthened. There are too many people like al, prod and the cereal guy already and we certainly can't trust them to have a concealed weapon permit and be there when we need an armed, law abiding citizen to gun down a madman. That is their argument, right? They need to be able to buy the weapons they want for protection, and if they speak for those who don't want to own a gun, they should be willing to protect those people as well. Or are they just stocking up for when the government decides to overtake us all, which is the logic the 2a zealots hide behind?

20 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 8:25 PM

SE - Please help me understand what the NRA or anyone else has done to render the gun control laws we now have unenforceable. And what do you see proposed in the new laws that will change that. Do you agree the Connecticut school shooting is the trigger for the current effort to make changes? Are you aware that Lanza was kept from purchasing a long gun by current laws? He didn't buy from a friend, family or gun show. He murdered his mother to get the guns. What new law will you suggest that would have changed that?

4 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 10:31 PM

The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. This law mandated that the ATF could only inspect firearms dealers once a year. It reduced record-keeping penalties from felonies to misdemeanors, prohibited the ATF from computerizing purchase records for firearms and required the government to prove that a gun dealer was "willful" if they sold a firearm to a prohibited person.

The Tiahrt amendments. Beginning in 2003, the amendments by then-representative Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., to the Justice Department's appropriation bill included requirements such as the same-day destruction of FBI background check documents and limits on the sharing of data from traces.

19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 10:34 PM


4 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 10:49 PM

"You can't enforce the law when you don't have the power to investigate & find violators of the law!"~SELyonCo

...and you think the solution lies in more laws....

In 2010, prosecutors went after only 22 cases of information falsification, claims the Department of Justice. Over 72,600 applications were denied on the basis of a background check. Lying on the form is a felony. The kitchen staff at BATFE could prosecute 22 cases in their spare time. "Lack of staff" is hyperbole. Or lies.

13 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 11:03 PM

Words have meaning SEL, and words form context, and when you quote something, you need to quote it ALL to maintain context.

Prohibited ATF from conducting more than one WARRANTLESS compliance inspection of a licensee in any 12-month period. Why? Seventy-five percent of ATF prosecutions were "constitutionally improper", especially on Second Amendment issues. Dealers that transposed a number were charged with felonies and ruined. ATF was on a reign of terror.

13 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-13 11:44 PM

"..prohibited the ATF from computerizing purchase records for firearms and required the government to prove that a gun dealer was "willful" if they sold a firearm to a prohibited person."~SEL

In spite of FOPA, the BATFE Firearms Tracing System contains millions of firearm tracing and registration records, and consists of several databases. Illegally. And why would they maintain these databases? Confiscation? The restriction was put in place to prohibit that.

The NICS background check verifies a purchaser IS NOT prohibited from receiving a firearm and by federal law can serve no other purpose. The Tiahrt amendment amends the Gun Control Act of 1968. Not much to attribute rampage killings to.

12 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 10:43 AM

Saturday night found SELyonCo watching an old TV rerun of "All In The Family".

As usual, there was a social issue satirized, and Saturday night's issue was gun control.

Gloria: "65 percent of the people murdered in the last 10 years were killed by handguns"

Archie Bunker: "would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?"

7 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 4:36 PM

Prod is using Archie Bunker, a character modeled after the prototypical poorly educated, bigoted, biased, self-centered, chauvinist, white male (which, by the way, makes up the majority of the NRA membership) as the voice of reason on gun violence. Brilliant!

SEL is right, the NRA has worked against the enforcement of gun laws AND used their propaganda to marginalize those agencies charged with enforcing existing gun law. Will universal background checks eliminate all gun violence? Of course not, but to sensible folks it serves as the ONLY viable means of preventing guns from being purchased by individuals who are banned from possessing a gun. As gun zealots claim, gun violence is not the fault of the gun – it's rooted in the PERSON with the gun – hence background checks.

In your conspiracy-fraught mind Prod, no agency or group exists which COULD enforce our gun laws without forcing you to seek refuge in your bunker. Gun confiscation – nothing but NRA propaganda!

20 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 7:26 PM

And most likely prod has an ffl or a substantial collection of firearms useless for anything but shooting up the nearest school. It's interesting that the pro-gun crowd wants to put the onus on everyone else to screen out the crazy people. Pirate, you did say long gun, not hand gun. And why should I be on the hook for a guy like, maybe prod, who doesn't keep his assault guns secure enough and has them taken and then used to kill innocent people?

19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-13 8:24 PM

That Archie thing was too funny, huh h75? It's getting pretty near the end, I imagine a D.C. Mortuary service is polishing up an urn for the ashes of the Gun control act of 2013. Timing is good, isn't it? I mean, what with “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” with egg on their faces...a member has been arrested for using a handgun to try intimidating a young man into sex acts. Mayor in PA had the police bring him a minor, got him drunk and made advances, met resistance, and out comes the 9mm persuader. They've lost a few other Mayors to DWI's and child sex charges, corruption, and, uh, assaulting a police officer. They gotta vote quick or Bloomberg'll be the last man standing. And I think this outstanding bunch is all the support they have.

5 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 10:27 AM

Hartman - the NRA has no legislative or enforcement capability - that is solely in the hands of our police and justice officials -and they aren't even remotely enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

5 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-14-13 5:59 PM

Uncle Joe is 70, although he wasn't 70 until November of last year. Therefore, no SS earnings deduction.

3 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-15-13 6:38 PM

That bombing thing in Boston is too funny, huh Prod? After all, we should all be allowed to buy all those ingredients since it's our right. I'm disappointed you weren't there with your cape to protect everyone... Oops, thats right, you are only interested in protecting your personal interests and do not care about collateral damage

19 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-15-13 11:54 PM

You are a sick person, common.

5 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-16-13 10:11 AM

Common, WTF are you talking about? What "ingredients" Herr. Goebbels, what freedoms do you want banned now? You have some information as to what happened in Boston, then I would suggest the police need to speak to you.

5 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-16-13 4:56 PM

I passed the NRA gun safety course when I was in 4th grade, 9 years old. It opened up a new freedom that every person should have. With my single shot 22 and my bike I could ride into the country and shoot gophers, squirrels, pigeons, and anything that moved. Trying to hit mudhens in the swamp from a grassy knoll was awesome. The albino pheasant I brought home tasted a lot like chicken. Do not take that freedom from us. Oh what fun I could have had with a semiautomatic. This is an American right! I never did bring down any enemy airplanes but was accused of shooting someone's horse. Nope, it was not me.

20 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-16-13 7:42 PM

WBL - good one except I didn't know you could ride a bike.

4 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web