You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
There is one big problem with the city council's witch hunt on gun control, everything they want to act on only applies to law abiding citizens. They must be fools to think that anything they want to do will have an effect on criminals.
This is a great idea since criminals will be so happy to follow the new laws. Oh that's right, they don't follow the laws... I guess you'll just punish everyone else. Good job.
The legislators should deal with the issue of mental illness, reform, instead of ignoring the fact that these are the people that need help. Not putting restrictions on the law abiding citizen. We should have the right to defens ourselves, not limit them. The government needs to face the bigger issue of maintaining mental institutions, because the mentally challenged and the criminals and law breakers are not going to follow the restrictions and/or laws. It's just easier for the legislators to propose a ban, than to create health care that would help prevent people from doing what the law abiding want to protect themselves from. Besides the mentally incapacitaed people in the public who commit crimes, and need help from which the government has cut funding, the criminals and outlaws will now be able to overpower the law abiding citizen who these restrictions will be put upon. It seems like a rush to judgement and a poor decision by the legislators, who are paid by the tax payers money.
Guess I won't be going to the excel, Fitzgerald, or Grand Ave anytime soon,
Chicago had 506 homocides in 2012. Gun control really works well.
"For the safety of the citizens of St. Paul and our law enforcement officers, we need to work to make reasonable amendments to our gun laws at the state and federal level," said Council Member Chris Tolbert.
He forgot to say that this is the new reason that our elected officials are using to slowly strip us of our rights,take the TSA (or brown shirts if you prefer) for example,how much dose that cost us in personal rights in the name of our "safety"?
Chris Tolbert, you were elected to a municipal-level position, so you can stop trying to play at the state/national level. As a law enforcement officer, please don't use me as your poster child for the need to take away our citizens' rights - better men than me have given their lives to obtain and secure them.
Why is it your right to own a rapid fire military style assault weapon, considering the carnage wrought with them? Gun activists willfully ignore the larger moral issue -- they demand what is in effect a hobbyists pursuit -- in the face of murderous carnage throughout our country. We have the right to impose regulations on these weapons, and the Supreme Court ruled so.
I'm not sure of the laws in Minnesota but a lot of cities that have tried to pass local policies/ordinances (especially the permit restrictions mentioned here) like these get them thrown out because they violate State law.
I, on the other hand, thank my city council for making me feel safer in the wonderful Capital St. Paul! The problem is the country needs to follow suit: look at Australia or almost any country in Western Europe. Drastically cut wounded and killed by guns! How is that a bad thing?! I want my kids to feel safe, not arm them- statically any gun in the home is multiple times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks