had a pistol, a rifle, and a shotgun. Which one does Gov. Walz want to take away?

Maybe you can do something about the pistol in Minnesota, but the rifle and the shotgun will never go away in a state that has so much rural area.

Or, maybe I should say, "Like them."

the bottom line is, you're not going to be able to restrict rifles or shotguns in any state that has a substantial rural population. All the bluster about "Do something...ANYTHING" ultimately becomes as effective as thoughts and prayers. If recognizing that makes me an "other" to you, then so be it.

"Grab the guns," right?

with things that don't matter. For instance, suppose someone offered gun reform in what you'd consider a meaningful way, but they want to add gender dysphoria to the list of mental conditions making a person ineligible to purchase a firearm. Would that be a deal breaker for you? It would for a lot of us. Similarly, the other side would strongly resist restrictions on people they considered safe. So, we ultimately wind up with nothing.

for the sake of argument?

The best we can do is treat guns and their owners legally the same as we've treated automobiles for decades. I mean, why not?

Last edited Sun Aug 31, 2025, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

but preventing the next. Banning semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15 would be a good start. No sane, non-criminal needs one anyway. It's time to stop catering to the lunatics.

You also need a permit from your local sheriff's office to buy anything with a pistol grip, like a handgun or AR-15, before also passing the federal background check.

There's not much left between our existing laws here and various gun bans.

Bold action such as this will piss off those who think they need such a weaponry to "defend themselves". If one cannot be satisfied with what they have, then THEY are the reason we are in this mess in the first place.

There, I said it.

The 2nd Amendment is SPECIFIC when it says "a well-regulated militia".

The Second Amendment protects the right of people to "keep and bear Arms" and was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The full text states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". While its original purpose related to maintaining a well-regulated militia for security, its interpretation has evolved, with Supreme Court decisions affirming an individual's right to own firearms for lawful purposes like self-defense.

The 2nd Amendment does not say.."use said weapons to conduct mass killing of innocent people because you're pissed off at someone or the world."

Which will in time be struck down by a Supreme Court dominated by blind partisan conservative ideologues.

Until that happens, such legislation is pointless as assault weapons will enter Minnesota from surrounding states with lax gun laws.

We lost the Iron Range voters years ago as the unions died out, along with the farmers who used to be Democrats here (the DFL stands for Democrat-Farm-Labor) and now virtually all areas outside the Twin Cities, Rochester and Duluth are deep red. Harris won Minnesota with only 51% of the vote vs Trump's 49%, and we lost our blue trifecta in the legislature so now we have to compromise with the GOP.

Minnesota is trending more purple with time, and I'm deathly worried that we're about to flip red in the next few years. I look across the border at Wisconsin's example with dread. And gun bans are red meat to the conservatives for turning out voters.