Thursday, March 08, 2018

In wake of Parkland school shooting Oregon Governor signs new gun control legislation into law. Minnesota state representative also introduces legislation, gets death threats.

Kate Brown
Courtesy of HuffPo: 

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed new gun safety legislation into law on Monday, making the state the first to tighten its firearm regulations since last month’s mass shooting at a high school in Florida. 

The bill expands an existing law to prevent intimate partners who have a domestic violence or stalking conviction from buying and keeping guns. Until now, the state’s law only applied to married partners, and the new measure closes what was termed the “boyfriend loophole.” 

“I’m proud to sign this bill, making Oregon the first state to take action to prevent senseless gun violence since the tragedy in Parkland, Florida,” Brown said in a statement. “Today marks an important milestone, but we know we have more to do. It’s long past time we hold the White House and Congress accountable. Now’s the time to enact real change and federal gun safety legislation.” 

The bill was introduced in January, but the governor called it “historic” because state legislators decided to advance the measure in response to the Parkland shooting.

Well this is good news, and I am guessing that this is only the beginning.

Especially if those amazing Parkland students have anything to say about it.
However a state representative in Minnesota also wanted to introduce legislation to deal with gun violence, things did not go well.

Courtesy of Fox 9: 

Over the last week, Democrat State Representative Linda Slocum has received thousands of emails since introducing one of the most expansive gun control bills in Minnesota. 

Most have been critical, some have been downright nasty. She's been cussed out, compared to Hitler, called a whale and other sexually lewd comments, but one message stood out from the rest. 

“He threatened to kill me,” said Slocum. 

The Richfield representative was startled when she listened to the man's voicemail and then a follow-up email. She does not want to identify him because of safety concerns, but described part of his message to Fox 9.

“I have my gun and I’m ready to come and get you and it was very threatening,” said Slocum. 

As a former teacher and a long-time politician, Slocum says she's used to being called every name in the book, but this was different. She contacted the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office who is now investigating the threat. 

“I will file charges if I hear from him again,” she said.

So when somebody threatens to take away their little metal penis extenders, the knee jerk reaction is to threaten them with said metal penis extender?

In my opinion that right there is reason enough to lose access to those metal penis extenders.

I'm just saying.

39 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:04 AM

    Anyone owning or possessing a firearm has the potential of murder. Al it takes is one bad day,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:37 AM

      HAhahahahaahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

      Anyone with a butter knife, or hands, or a bottle of drain cleaner, or a hammer, or a screwdriver, or a pillow, or a car, or a.... (shall I continue) has the potential of murder....

      Are you really this stupid 4:04.... or is it just that your brain hasn't turned on yet at 4:04?

      Delete
    2. The items listed have a primary purpose other than murder.

      Guns have only one purpose.

      Delete
    3. Leland6:56 AM

      6:37, you're right, BUT, it's a helluva lot faster and easier with a gun. Or are YOU stupid enough to NOT want to understand that?

      Every item you listed has a use for which it was designed, none of which were designed only to kill. Guns are designed to kill. Period.

      YOU need to wake up!

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7:14 AM

      Guns have many purposes Gryphen, one of those purposes is self protection.

      Understood, you have a very limited perspective thru you rose colored liberal glasses.

      Regardless. Do you believe in the Constitution and ALL of it's Amendments? Perhaps we should just scrap the whole thing and instead turn into a warlord land mass?

      Delete
    5. "Self protection?"

      Are you still buying into that NRA bullshit?

      Look, in a real dangerous situation you would most likely shoot your own dick off, assuming you could hit anything that small.

      I have seen so many of you big talking John Wayne wannabes piss yourselves in a real violent confrontation that I can hardly keep count.

      Courage and the confidence to react appropriately in a dangerous situation is not something you can buy at your local Walmart. It is something you develop through training and experience.

      Grow the fuck up.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous7:34 AM

      lol. OK there big shot Gryph!

      So you didn't answer the question, scrap the whole Constitution?


      Delete
    7. Anonymous8:33 AM

      It isn't that they only hve another primary purpose,. It is also that it is MUCH HARDER (and nigh impossible) to massacre dozens with butter knife, or hands, or a bottle of drain cleaner, or a hammer, or a screwdriver, or a pillow, or a car,...

      Are you really this stupid, 6:37 a.m.? Likely your brain is running on low charge no matter the time of day.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous8:36 AM

      NO, jackass 7:14. Rein in teh extremeist "Guns for everyone" agenda of teh NRA to be more COnsitutionally appropriate with a "well-regulated militia." Emphasis on well-regulated. Low shot shotguns - OK. Handguns OK if you have a need - and the need assessed case by case, same for any type of carry permit and no open carry unless you are a cop. Positive mental health evals for any type of gun.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous9:20 AM

      Sorry 8:36, the Supreme Court has previously ruled on this issue, and ruled your interpretation is wrong.

      Delete
    10. Leland12:05 PM

      @9:20.

      What YOU don't want to realize is that in that ruling you are referencing, they also stipulated that the government retained the right to regulatory controls on firearms.

      Delete
    11. Supreme Court has been wrong before and they'll be wrong again. As long as they allow POLITICS to bias their judgement.

      Citizen's United anyone? Based on a law clerk's error.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous3:03 PM

      Sorry folks. You simply aren't going to win the take all the guns away argument. You aren't going to take away all the guns already are owned, nor those that will be bought into the future. It is a guaranteed right. By and large, what can be purchased now, will be able to be purchased in the future, even if the pendulum swings slightly back and forth regarding magazine sizes and the 'look' of a firearm.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous3:10 PM

      Maybe the Supreme Court needs to take on another abortion challenge issue, and maybe it would undermine Roe vs Wade and the previous interpretation of the 14th. What do you think mlaiuppa and leland? If the court rulings and Constitution are so bendable, why not? How about the 19th Amendment?

      Delete
    14. Leland3:54 PM

      @ 3:10

      I would prefer to NOT get into wild speculation. Yes, the SC can revisit any ruling that has been made. It has been done before. And they can alter previous rulings. But this isn't a SC question yet.

      Of course, if you WANT to speculate, the country can just as well remove the 2nd Amendment. Yes, it takes the question of writing and passing it in Congress then having two thirds of the states approve the change, but hey, things have changed before. How many amendments are there?

      And if you want to go even further, the governors can call for a Constitutional Convention to discuss things.

      How wild do you want to go?

      As for the bindability thought you tossed out? The RULINGS by the SC are NOT as stiff as the Constitution! Rulings can be changed based on a deeper question on a subject. THEY determine what cases they will hear. THEY determine what the outcome will be.

      And BTW, the SC can NOT alter the Constitution, It can rule on questions about it, but not change it. The procedure for the alteration of the Constitution is set IN the Constitution.

      You seem to forget - or want to forget - that most of the Bill of Rights is limited. Speech - as an example - advocating the assassination of a President or sedition are illegal. There are hundreds of examples of things like that.

      Delete
    15. Anonymous5:05 PM

      Sounds like you are admitting you realize you can't have it both way Leland. If you want your rights, you have to be ok even with the ones you don't want others to have.

      Congratulations. Gold Star.

      Delete
    16. Anonymous6:49 PM

      "And BTW, the SC can NOT alter the Constitution, It can rule on questions about it, but not change it. The procedure for the alteration of the Constitution is set IN the Constitution."

      uhhhhh, what do you think you have been hearing Leland? Are you really this dense?

      Delete
    17. Leland2:37 AM

      @6:49 specifically.

      Ok, let's try it your way.

      HEY STUPID! No one is trying to take away your guns! With the exception of those weapons used in mass killings.

      BUT, the SC CAN tell you WHAT type of firearms you CAN have. Or are you dumb enough to not understand plain English? The SC RESERVED THE RIGHT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL AND REGULATE. Is that clear enough? Or are you simply refusing to accept that possibility?

      In which case, YOU are the idiot.

      Go away, troll.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous6:20 PM

      Sumun's leland tyin ta takeway my guns sonbitch i is gots rights and moralities.

      Delete
  2. Here's another example of just how loony, unhinged, detached from reality, bizarre, and desperate the NRA crowd is.

    A Democratic candidate in Virginia posted a video of herself cutting up her AR-15. She then took the pieces to the cops and turned them in.

    She was immediately and viciously attacked by the NRA nuts who claimed she violated federal law because, as she destroyed the AR-15, she cut off part of the barrel, thereby shortening the barrel, in violation of federal law.

    http://bluevirginia.us/2018/03/va02-dem-candidate-karen-mallard-responds-to-gun-trolls-claiming-she-violated-law-by-destroying-ar-15

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:38 AM

      They are correct.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:39 AM

      Funny.

      Seems that not too long ago... on various occasions, you yourself Old Redneck, have talked on here about stockng up on thousands of rounds of ammo.

      Delete
    3. 6:38:d Yes, they are correct. So -- how about you call the ATF in Richmond, VA and report her: 804-200-4196.

      As for 6:39: Yes, I have a lot of ammo. Much of it self-loaded for hunting and shooting. A few cans of AR-15 ammo for when the Charlottesville Nazis show up, armed and threatening.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous6:00 AM

    A real ethical honest decent gun collector or owner with proper training do not whip out guns or threaten anyone with those guns. Those guns are in a safe secured area.
    It is the owners that did not receive training or proper background checks for their mental deficiencies and character that are dangerous. Also life changes and some owners that may have qualified in early years have today become unhinged or criminal in nature. So behavior matters, actions matter. history matters, and America does not need to arm everyone for a sound society. The law enforcement and military agencies should be the first line of protection. For law and order put the guns away, put them down, disarm and demand law enforcement do their job of removing guns from criminals or those that should not own and carry guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:35 AM

      "The law enforcement and military agencies should be the first line of protection."

      lol. When is the last time you called for the police? How long did it take for them to show up.... if they even did they show up?

      Unless you are in a rich neighborhood, forget it.

      It is ironic however.... the libs bashing on cops every chance they get... now they are the first line of defense to you?

      Delete
    2. Leland7:07 AM

      6:35? At it again? The commenter was talking about what NEEDS to be done. Or did you not catch and understand the significance of the word SHOULD in that sentence you quoted?

      I personally agree with them and feel that if all that happened, the police WOULD react in time because of a lightened crime load.

      The police forces we have are overloaded because of idiots who can't reasonably handle owning a firearm or because the perpetrators feel it is safer for them to have them and make it easier to perform their criminal activities.

      Look at England. Their police personnel never carried firearms until relatively recently when THEIR population started getting more firearms, thus making it easier for the criminals to get firearms.

      As for us bashing the police, when those same police go rogue or use the authority to mistreat or hassle whomever they please. It may be a small percentage of the number of police in the country, but they DO exist and NEED to be spotlighted.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:33 AM

      Leland. You live in Le Le Land.

      Confused hypocrites like yourself, who believe they know everything, are the very kind of people that turns other people conservative for life.

      So please, keep flapping your lips bud!

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7:40 AM

      "The police forces we have are overloaded because of idiots who can't reasonably handle owning a firearm or because the perpetrators feel it is safer for them to have them and make it easier to perform their criminal activities."

      lol. So now police over load is due to firearms lol?

      Try alcohol, meth, heroin, oxy, etc... add in mental problems, whether from genetics or environment or both... and you will start to see why cops are so busy.

      You are so dumb.

      Delete
    5. Leland7:57 AM

      @7:33/7:40.

      I, at least, do not have to be insulting or belittling to have a discussion. I don't need to. My points are accurate. Simply because you refuse to acknowledge them does not make them less valid.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous8:38 AM

      Or, they've become old and dangerous, extreme dementeds and dotards. Just like you have to take away the car keys from Gram and Gramps at sme point, the same goes x10 for guns. Parkinsons and accuracy are not mutually compatible.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous8:41 AM

      And most of use understand that it is the proliferation of guns that has caused soem of the issues. Whne cops have to assume that EVERYONE from the 8 y o on uphas lethal force on them, yeah, cops shooting first will increase.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous9:30 AM

      i got another call from a cop "charity". "oh, you're hard to get a hold off!" "listen, maybe you can help me. police-that's as far as he got. i told this charity that the day cops stop shooting innocent black people is the day i'll give a dollar-AND DON'T CALL AGAIN! he hung up. you've all heard that listen maybe you can help me crap when they know they called sue but ask for jack. sick of it. sorry about the dump.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous8:18 AM

    OH FUCK PIG$>
    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/trumps-video-game-violence-panel-features-police-trainer-says-lethal-force-leads-best-sex/

    "The Washington Post’s Radley Balko, who has written extensively on Grossman’s courses in the past, writes on Twitter that Grossman not only tells cops they should employ more lethal force, he also tells them that “after KILLing a man, they’ll have the best $EX of their lives.”"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:52 AM

    The central flaw is an incorrect understanding of the nature of the self.

    No one exists inherently.

    On one arises independently.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous9:00 AM

    https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/17093042/larry-summers-brookings-economic-heartland-midwest-west-virginia-subsidy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers

    ' "The real strategic choice Americans face is whether the objective of their policies is to see the economies of the rest of the world grow and prosper. "'

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9:50 AM

    Because I'M FAT RIGHT? & POXed faced UGLY.

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/weinstein/

    'FRONTLINE investigates how Harvey Weinstein allegedly sexually harassed and abused dozens of women over four decades. With allegations going back to Weinstein’s early years, the film examines the elaborate ways he and those around him tried to silence his accusers.'

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous11:01 AM

    http://fortune.com/2018/03/06/utah-state-bar-topless-woman-picture-lawyers/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=fortune.com&utm_campaign=ideal-media-internal-recirculation&utm_term=68739&utm_content=2200184

    'convention in St. George, accidentally also attached an image of a topless woman—and the email was sent to every member attorney.

    According to the organization’s website, more than 11,000 attorneys belong to the Utah State Bar.'

    MorMen^

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous11:11 AM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn4Bec306mE

    'Save the Life of My Child - Heart'

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous1:33 PM

    Here in the midwest, lots of my friends have guns, AR15's and gunsafes. They call them ni**er blasters. They talk about mowing them rioters down like they were the undead. And I have a mulatto stepdaughter. My reality.

    MacBruce

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.