A couple week's ago, sports columnist Dan Carlson stunk up my local paper by pontificating that the Boston bombing demonstrated that gun regulations are useless. "Government cannot protect us," Carlson asserted, calling apparently for a return to the state of nature and survival by shotgun (or eventually by slingshot, since you only get shotguns when people organize communities with government that permit the luxury of specialization of labor and public resources to support manufacturing...).
Yeah, sure, government can't protect us... except when it does:
FBI officials said Monday that they foiled a terrorism attack that was being planned in a small western Minnesota town, but they offered no details about the exact targets of the attack _ or the motive of the man accused of having a cache of explosives and weapons in a mobile home.
The FBI said "the lives of several local residents were potentially saved" with the arrest of Buford Rogers, 24, who made his first appearance Monday in U.S. District Court in St. Paul on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Rogers, of Montevideo, was arrested Friday after authorities searched a mobile home he's associated with and found Molotov cocktails, suspected pipe bombs and firearms, according to a court affidavit.
"The FBI believed there was a terror attack in its planning stages, and we believe there would have been a localized terror attack, and that's why law enforcement moved quickly to execute the search warrant on Friday to arrest Mr. Rogers," FBI spokesman Kyle Loven said Monday [Amy Forliti, "FBI: Minnesota Raid Disrupts Planned Terrorist Attack," AP via Beatrice Daily Sun, 2013.05.06].
A guy named Buford (nicknamed Bucky) making Molotov cocktails in a trailer park—wow! Who writes this stuff?
Note again the initial charge allowing the authorities to keep this guy locked up:
According to a federal affidavit, FBI agents from the domestic terrorism squad searched the mobile home in Montevideo and discovered Molotov cocktails, suspected pipe bombs and firearms. The affidavit said Buford was there at the time, and one firearm recovered from the residence was a Romanian AKM assault rifle.
In an interview with authorities, Rogers admitted firing the weapon on two separate occasions at a gun range in Granite Falls, the affidavit said. Rogers has a 2011 conviction for felony burglary and is not allowed to have a firearm [Froliti, 2013.05.06].
Sure, gun regulations won't keep guns out of bad dudes' hands. But when we find those bad dudes plotting mischief, we can look at their guns, say, "The law says you can't have that; you're going to jail," and thus keep those bad dudes from hurting anyone while we investigate their machinations.
Worth noting: the FBI says the Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office joined a host of agencies in the May 3 Montevideo raid. I wonder what brought the Minnehaha heat across the state line and five county lines to bust up this trailer park arsenal?
I'm guessing that there was Muslin fabric and a certain wing of talk jihadist radio and online sites involved.
Speaking of terrorist threats...do you suppose the Minnehaha sheriff's department will disclose their involvement to the SD news media?
Sorry, my bad.
Why do you hate guns so much? Did they some how wrong in another life or something?
We need a balanced, common sense approach to all this. Law enforcement does a great job in breaking up these plots before people get killed. They can't be omni-present. We have to assume some responsibility for ourselves. For some that mean having a gun, for others a dog. It also means we need to be alert to our surroundings. Alerting authorities when something isn't right. Residents working with law enforcement.
BTW Minnehaha County may have just provided man-power in a mutual aid agreement or provided intel on the suspect.
Cory is one of those blogging idiots who thinks everyone is suppose to believe in and like what he believes in and likes. I think him and Stace Nelson are a lil kinky if you ask me
I don't hate guns, MC. I hate the promulgation of the idea that guns provide practical solutions for any of the major policy problems facing our state and country today. I also hate the suggestion that government cannot protect us, and thus present this story as obvious counterevidence.
Kate, please provide me an example of something you believe related to public policy that you don't think anyone else should believe. (And do so without silly and gratuitous personal insults to myself and Rep. Nelson.)
I wonder how Buford got his mitts on a AKM despite his felony conviction? Perhaps the gun show or internet loophole allowing him to avoid a background check?
Nick, more than likely he bought it from an individual in a private sale. Sure, the gov't got the bad guy this time. I'd rather they didn't overlook the thousands of violations and quit picking specific ones to enforce. More laws just means more laws for them to overlook. The background checks proposed by Reid were ridiculous. He just couldn't make it simple and require background checks for all gun sales at the point of purchase. He had to go after more that just didn't make any sense b/c you can't let a good gun debate go to waste. Cory's "obvious counter-evidence" can easily be picked apart by showing how irrelevant one case is by considering the number of criminals that go unnoticed after violations and commit further crimes. You are still better off protecting yourself rather than waiting for the police to arrive to find your lifeless body.
That could very well be DB. That's why I support a background check anytime a gun changes hands. In a private transaction the parties should have to go to a licensed dealer and perhaps pay some fee to the dealer for doing the paperwork and running the check. The amount of the fee, if any, would be up to the dealer.
I'm with you there Nick, but if I leave my guns at my father's while I am out of town for an extended period, I will not pay to have a background check done on each gun which is limited to 1 a month. It could take me up to a year if I brought all of them to his place. Also, I will not run a background check on my father if he wants to borrow a gun. This is the over zealous nature I am talking about that got their background check bill killed. Require background checks at the point of purchase ONLY and you will have most every gun-owner's support. Not only that, but make it available to citizens so we don't have to access the system through a FFL dealer and pay money. We shouldn't have to pay money to exercise our rights.
Funny how the GOP is all about jumping through hoops to be able to vote...but assault weapons...not so much.
Cory, the government cannot protect us from every possible danger that is out there. We have to accept some responsibility for our own safety. We cannot totally protect ourselves from everything that could harm us by ourselves. We need the government busting up the terror plots and stopping bad guys BEFORE they kill. We have to work together, as a team.
My issue with the background checks is they are incomplete. People that have certain mental disorders are not ‘in the system.’ Criminals will find a way to get a gun if they really want one. They don’t scare me too much. The people who really scare me are those nut jobs who either don’t care, or just plain wacko. They kill for the fun of it.
And Jana, What’s wrong with showing some ID to vote, I have to show my id for just about everything else? Besides, I would much prefer people be trained, and pass some kind of proficiency test or exam before they can own a weapon. However, the law of the land states very clearly 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.” Seems pretty clear to me.
But MC shouldn't we try to make things easier to vote? To me it's backward. Conservatives want to make it tougher to vote but easier to get a gun. Doesn't make sense.
You're right MC background checks might be incomplete, but does that mean we shouldn't do anything?
Owen, I understand your confusion. I just renewed my driver's license. What a hassle! Went all the way back to Colorado just to get a 'Real' birth certificate + all the other documents needed just so I can have a gold star! I would be okay with this if every state was doing it. They are not! Which makes the Real ID Act something of a joke. I feel bad for the ladies that have been married more than once.
I would like gun sellers (dealers & private) be more responsible. preform not just a background check, but something of a proficiency check. I knew a man would not sell a horse to another man, for $200.00 simply because he didn't believe the horse would be taken care of. (The horse was sold to a 15 year old girl for $10.00)
Driving a car is a privilege and it should be tougher to get a license while voting is a right and should be realitively easy to do.
I agree with you MC that a proficiency check is needed. Great idea that won't happen.
Owning a gun is a right, right?
Well grudznick throught a 5-4 Supreme Court vote its is. However pulling a voting lever isn't going to kill anybody. A gun can be used to take away my right to live. So tougher restrictions are needed.
I'm not saying take way guns. Just harder to get
I understand the reasoning behind the 'Real ID' Act. It really doesn't matter if someone is getting a Drivers license or just an ID Card. They have to produce the same paper work.
Wait, DB, listen to yourself. You contend I can protect myself and my family better by walking up to Buford's door and telling him to quit shooting off his Romanian rifle and stockpiling Molotov cocktails than by calling the police? Seriously?
MC: proficiency check? Interesting proposal!
MC, yes, I am responsible for my safety in many ways. But Carlson's original assertion that government cannot protect us is downright silly. We create government for the specific purpose of protecting us, and in many ways, it does so much better than any of us could individually or even in little posses of fellow deer hunters.
The background check laws in place now are anti-business. Think about it.
A legitimate business like a Scheels, Cabella's or Dakota Mart has to do a background check and a lot of paperwork to conduct business. Joe's little firearm flea market is given a competitive advantage by being able to expand his market to illegal aliens, gangsters, felons, the mentally ill, people with domestic violence restraining orders and even zombies without regulation or the expense of a background checks and regulations.
Heck, Joe's Flea Market Firearms most likely pays no taxes to support roads, ALEC conferences, foreign dairy companies and education.
Totally unfair to taxpaying businesses.
Isn't that a lot like that taxpayer internet thingy that you got all wadded about, Ms. Jana?
Taxpayer fairness. You won't see grudznick on the wrong side of that issue. That's why I helped defeat Mr. H's "Tax all of us for just some of you" IM16 pile of steaming pond scum.
Nobody can accuse grudznick of being baggy panted.
Just pointing out the continuing saga of conservative hypocrisy Grud.
So you are against the Joe's Flea Market Firearms...or at least making them play on a level that other patriotic companies are willing to do?
Contain yourself Cory, please?
The proficiency check idea won't go any further than this blog, I know it just about everyone who frequents this blog knows it, and deep down you know it too.
In order for it to work, Sellers (Dealers & private) have to buy into the idea. They are not going to unless there is some profit in it. I get it, it is just business. Maybe when we start to care less about $$$ and more about what is really important...
Jana, that sounds just as unfair as making South Dakota shop owners pay sales tax while letting their online competitors off scot-free. And hey, Didn't Senator Thune and Rep. Noem both just agree to do something about that by expanding tax regulations to give state tax collectors authority to reach into more pockets?
MC, you identify exactly the problem. Our gun policy is being set by greed, not by concern for life, liberty, or safety. The gun lobby will work hard to block any sensible regulation that cuts into their profits. But that doesn't change the good arguments for such regulation and for electing people who will stand up to that lobby.
Wow Cory that must be some kind of record! You took what could be a great idea, and totally runied it.
'Sensible regulation?' This problem isn't going to solved with rules and regulations. This can only be solved by people who care more about community safety than they do about profit. When they care more about honor than the bottom line. We need people to say "No, I am not selling you that XXX because you will misuse it."
While Smith and Wesson can't legally be held liable for what some one does with one of their guns, they should still 'feel' some sense of responsbility. They should want to do something to prevent it from happening again.
But non existent voter fraud deserves more regulation...I see the logic ;-)
please check this out:
http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures
I don't know about you but I would call 24,000,000 invaild voters an issue.
I'll do some checking MC but I'm a little skeptical when I see truethevote is Chck Norris approved
Corey ~ I contend that you have a better chance of protecting you and your family than any other person can. The gov't will get their guys, and even more will slip through. You can take your chances and do nothing, that is your choice. I won't. Bad people will always exist in this world. That's reality.
As far as proficiency checks go, I'd be ok with requiring hunter safety prior to owning a weapon. That is a requirement before you can use your weapon in a hunting setting or even purchase a hunting license.
Jana, your idea on how buying a gun goes makes no sense. You have no idea how the process works. People's perceptions on what a background check entails and what work a seller has to go through is so warped. Most people don't even realize they just set you at a computer, in which you could lie through every question, with nothing being done. A "background check" is nothing like what people perceive it to be. You want to help keep guns out of the mentally ill?...then remove all your privacy gains through Hippa. I doubt the left will jump for that anytime soon. Now, we want to put more hope in the same people enforcing that system????? Actually, just spit out my coffee finding the hilarity in that. The clowns won't even enforce the violations now. Also, you are doing a great job perpetuating the divide on this topic though. I'm just curious....what side do I fall on being a gay supporting, pro-life, free contraception, anti-religion, gun toting, anti-monsanto, fiscal conservative? I figured someone who knew where the lines are drawn could help me out.
24,000,000 million confirmed acts of voter fraud? Wow...
Here's a couple of sites you should check out and then tell me about how many people posses guns illegally.
http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification
http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/
I will blame that number on the 'floating decimal point' error ;)
What is so hard about showing your id? you have to show it for beer, cigarettes, cashing a check, to enter a bar, to enter the armed services, to rent a car, to get on an plane or a train. Why not to vote?
Guns that are sold illegally is one thing, Guns that are sold legally to people who shouldn't have them is something different. For the guns that are sold/traded illegally, no matter what law is passed, it won't do any good because they don't follow the laws we have now.