Minnesotans rally at State Capitol against stricter controls on guns

  • Article by: KELLY SMITH , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 20, 2013 - 12:03 AM

More than 500 people turned out against measures proposed after Sandy Hook killings.

  • 175
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
unionsrockJan. 19, 13 4:01 PM

What a bunch of kooky people. The state and the federal government are not going to take their guns away... although I wish they would take away and prevent the sale of all high capacity magazines - those over 10 rounds.

oldmasterJan. 19, 13 4:14 PM

The gun advocates who insist that their weapons will be confiscated must have a learning disability,or at least do not listen well. The proposed legislation addresses MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT WEAPONS, not your hunting rifles, shotguns or pistols. Unless you are planning to launch an assault against some army or law enforcement, you cannot seriously justify these weapons. Next thing we'll see is a road rage incident turn into a shooting, or a neighborhood argument result in an automatic rifle strafing...what a country. The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment when the musket was weapon...quit hiding behind an amendment written with no clue about the weapons we have today.

anomaly01Jan. 19, 13 4:14 PM

Each year there are more deaths related to drunk driving than homicides related to firearms. If banning high cap mags is supposed to stop mass shootings, maybe banning 24-packs of beer will stop drunk driving.

twspt7Jan. 19, 13 4:15 PM

I wish these people would outgrow their adolescent preoccupation with firearms. Nobody wants to take them all away, kids. We just need to make a few rational adjustments to their access and use. If someone really cannot understand the need for change, then they have not been paying attention.

texas_technomanJan. 19, 13 4:30 PM

We need laws similar to Canada. Safety training prior to getting a permit to own a handgun, all handguns registered, "military type" weapons banned, limits on magazine capacity. None of which infringes on the 2nd Amendments. These folks protesting may be worried about the background checks and mental health checks.....

jbrillJan. 19, 13 4:37 PM

You know, for being pro-gun and pro arming folks, they seem to know relatively little about armed engagement. How exactly do a couple armed guards or teachers prevent a classroom massacre that may be happening over on the other side of the school. Also, how does one expect to defend one's self, let alone others, with a 9MM glock with at max 15 rounds against a bushmaster with 100+ rounds. The math does not add up unless you want teachers teaching with AR-15s slung over their shoulders. Aside from being a pain in the butt, that's very dangerous in a close quarters situation such as a classroom whereby someone(s) could surprise the teacher, obtain the weapon, and it's all over. This is why jail guards do not carry guns in the midst of murderers. One's best bet to eqalualize the situation is to prevent someone from getting an assault rifle in the 1st place. There was an argument against gun control going around saying the sandy hook shooter's guns were purchased legally. As a gun control advocate, I think that makes my point rather nicely.

serfdumbJan. 19, 13 4:39 PM

If we take guns away from the law abiding citizens, then we need to take them from the police as well. Then we will all be on a level playing field against the criminals. Equally unarmed. How does that sound. If you notice the picture of police in standoff story, what do they have? AR-15 rifles. Why? Because they need to be equally armed as the criminals. Go figure.

tskittyJan. 19, 13 4:42 PM

How dare people who weren't even there take the not-surprising superior and elitist attitude that the people in attendance are "kooky". I was there -- among young families with strollers and soft-spoken gentlemen.

unrealtardJan. 19, 13 4:45 PM

Unionsrock: I'm one of the "kooky" people that attended the rally today. The rally had nothing to do with people "taking away their guns". It was about responsible, law abiding gun owners like myself. 99.9% of us that don't do anything illegal or dangerous with our legally owned firearms. We're your neighbor, your work mate, your friend. We pay taxes, own homes, and give to charities. Unfortunately, we're often portrayed as "kooky" but the vast, vast majority of us are no kookier than anyone else. As for magazine capacity limitations, it's selling opiate to the masses. It will do nothing to reduce gun crimes. People who don't own firearms get sucked into these "feel good" myths because they think it makes them safer when in fact, it doesn't. Trust me, most mass shooters have been found with many loaded magazines still on their bodies and dead at their own hands. The majority of mass shooters quit shooting and kill themselves when the target of opportunity is gone, not because they ran out of ammunition or were stopped while changing magazines.

erikj3Jan. 19, 13 4:49 PM

NO ONE is saying take away all the guns. Period. All we are saying is that tools of mass murder shouldn't be allowed in ANYONE'S hands (criminals or the average person). This includes 30 and 100 round magazines and assault weapons. There is also no reason why the average person should fear a background check when trying to buy a gun, and that there should be limits on how many guns a person can buy a year (to prevent gun running). Many of these are insanely popular, even among homes where someone owns a gun and even in homes where someone is an NRA member (especially background checks). Congress would be wise to look at the polls and vote accordingly.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters






question of the day

Poll: Grade the Timberwolves season

Weekly Question