Gun control debate is testing Minnesota's rural congressmen

  • Article by: KEVIN DIAZ , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 20, 2013 - 9:44 PM

Democrats in rural Minnesota keenly feel the tensions between support for gun rights and push for new controls.

  • 144
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
jimiekJan. 20, 13 9:56 PM

Farmers don't run this country!

turgidJan. 20, 13 9:56 PM

Rick Nolan is right. There's no practical need for assault weapons. They are an invention of the modern age and couldn't have been forseen when the 2nd ammendment was written.

hobie2Jan. 20, 1310:18 PM

No brainer - support and defend the constitution, as the opening duty of your oath requires... After that, consider what your constituents - ALL of them - want; your constituents today do not get what they want if the Constitution guarantees it to even one citizen, no matter how many want it NOR how much sense it makes today... That is why we have rights listed in the Constitution and not just leave it to the elected to decide who gets what... And if it is a great idea but the Constitution says no - work to change the Constitution and see if it is still a good idea in 5 years, after it goes to all the legislatures

commoncent4Jan. 20, 1310:21 PM

If the average American can't see that democrats are not trying to solve any problems, we have larger troubles than guns.

thisisinsaneJan. 20, 1310:40 PM

"Walz has softened his long-held opposition to banning military-style assault weapons, one of the central planks of Obama's gun-control plan, ..... But Walz isn't all the way there. "I have a responsibility as someone who understands firearms to explain what a semi-automatic weapon is," he said.>>>>>>>>Yes indeed, and the liberal media including the Strib here does too. So let's be clear in an effort to stop the misconceptions and outright lies. There are no MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPONS being sold and used by U.S. civilians. Those are of the automatic firing style. Stop with the "military assault weapon/rifle" language already. An A-15 is NOT a military assualt weapon. It's nothing more than a regular old rifle dressed up with a pistol grip for added stability and black paint instead of woodgrain and some decorative other stuff to make it look kinda scary and something like a Rambo weapon to gun haters. It's only semi-automatic, just as other rifles. In fact, a regular old hunting rifle can do more damage than one of these things. Are you going to ban those? Someone last night here was screamng about banning the 100 clip magazines that go with the A15s (insert eyeroll). People, there is no such thing!!! If there was it would weigh about 30 pounds! Pretty sure someone with a 9mm could take down some trying to lug that around effectively. You contantly tell readers to stop listening to Fox News. Well, you libbies need to stop listening to the lies of Racheal, et al on MSNBC.

thisisinsaneJan. 20, 1310:47 PM

Another thing. Those 20 something executive commands Obama issued are not the same as the sweeping legislative agenda he plans to engineer. However, it all could be moot. It was reported today that old man Harry Reid might not even let any gun control legistation be heard in the Senate. There's too many vulnerable Dem Senators up for re-election in 2014. They'd loose easily if they'd support anything close to far-reaching gun control. That 60% the writer here claims is very misleading. You might have 60% for some increased background checks, but for the more extreme stuff like outright bans and a federal database of gun owners.....umm noooo way.

censormaxxJan. 20, 1310:54 PM

The purpose for that pesky 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the government doesn't overrun your rights to other ones. The anti liberty Democrats are stepping into their own cowpies on this issue

vegas2112Jan. 20, 1311:09 PM

RE:"That can include my Benelli shotgun for duck hunting. It's a semi-automatic that can shoot one bullet after another by pulling the trigger." ------------------------------ Waltz, I think you will be ok, without a semi-automatic shotgun to kill ducks. It is a small price to pay.

minn12Jan. 20, 1311:10 PM

Any democrat even THINKING about voting for gun bans or restrictions, that have already been tried and FAILED to make any difference, should remember what happened the last time they tried it: they were all booted out of office. Millions of Americans and Minnesotans own guns, and are not fooled by the lies and spin that these useless proposals would make a difference, except to take away some 'scary looking guns' they think are 'assault weapons'. Any rational thinking person can look up that Columbine happened in the middle of the LAST 'assault weapons' ban, and the Conn. school shooting happened in a state that ALREADY bans them, along with some of the most restrictive laws in the country. But all those bans and laws FAILED to stop the mass shootings. It is the height of insanity to keep proposing things that have been tried and failed. How about focusing on the real issues: Kids on psychotropic drugs, and gun-free zones, where such shootings always take place.

beaglemomJan. 20, 1311:11 PM

The best part of this article is the acknowledgement that most politicians don't have basic gun knowledge but are making the decisions for all of us. Start having ways for friends and family members to be able to get help for troubled people over 18 PRIOR to them breaking a law and we will have some real solutions. Taking rights away from the law abiding is not helpful.


Comment on this story   |  


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