Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

"Gun" story on KSTP tonight 12-30-08
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11275
Page 1 of 10

Author:  Fiasco [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:07 pm ]
Post subject:  "Gun" story on KSTP tonight 12-30-08

My brother called me and said that KSTP did a teaser for a story regarding someone carrying a gun in a city meeting and nothing can be done about it. I'm paraphrasing but wanted to get this topic started.

Author:  Fiasco [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Chris O'Connell is the reporter.

Apparently Greenfield Councilman Elect Howard Veltheizen (not sure about spelling) is known to carry. He carries an NAA .22lr pistol. The story says that some on the city council are going to join the League of Minnesota Cities in lobbying to change the law to allow cities to ban firearms. In the meantime, they are going to try to pass an ordinance prohibiting city employees from carrying firearms.

So, let's make sure that legally permitted citizens can't carry but any lunatic can walk in and...we know how that plays out.

Author:  lobster [ Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S724661.shtml?cat=1



What a bunch of idiots. I'd love to have had a group together to go open carry at the next city council meeting, but unfortunately I seem to find myself in Utah. Stories like this just make me want to go exercise my RIGHTS even more.


I forgot to add that I gave up watching KSTP along time ago. IMHO they are the worst, most unjournalistic "news" station in the Cities.

Author:  mnglocker [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:34 am ]
Post subject: 

Greenfields Mayor is a conservative from what I've heard. Perhaps I'll have to drop in on a meeting. (It's just down the raod from me)

Author:  singhcr [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:59 am ]
Post subject: 

Really balanced reporting there...

The issue is newsworthy, yes, but try presenting both sides of the story. It's not that hard to do. I did it all the time in my school paper.

Author:  atripp [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:33 am ]
Post subject: 

I seem to remember someone shooting up a city council meeting earlier this year, somewhere like Missouri or something. Awesome, lets ban law abiding citizens from carrying to a city council meeting so they cant protect themselves or others from criminals who decide to not follow the signs.

Author:  someone1980 [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:19 am ]
Post subject: 

singhcr wrote:
Really balanced reporting there...

The issue is newsworthy, yes, but try presenting both sides of the story. It's not that hard to do. I did it all the time in my school paper.


If they reported both sides of the story then it wouldn't be activism journalism, and really what would these people do it they were not out "saving" the world from the things that scared them?

Author:  bkrafft [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:41 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
The move comes after council member-elect Howard Veldhuizen brought an unloaded gun to a city council meeting.

So they are wetting their panties because he brought a paperweight to the meeting?

Author:  ree [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:22 am ]
Post subject: 

Stupid reporting and ill informed Greenfield citizens aside, one has to wonder, why was the fact that he was carrying discovered. I like to think that a lot of legal gun carriers are well aware of the large numbers of liberal ninnies working in government and would be cautious to not make it an issue lest it create unnecessary headaches. Alas...sigh. Maybe someone who already knew forced the issue. Maybe they're the ones who should be getting dragged over the coals for scaring people.

Author:  SultanOfBrunei [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:26 am ]
Post subject: 

ree wrote:
...why was the fact that he was carrying discovered...

And why was he carrying an unloaded pistol? It seems like this guy was trying to push someone's buttons.

Author:  Carbide Insert [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:04 am ]
Post subject: 

Careful there Ree. Your post sounds dangerously close like you are apologizing for being an American. :?

It got me somewhat irked. :x

Author:  ree [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:34 am ]
Post subject: 

Carbide Insert wrote:
Careful there Ree. Your post sounds dangerously close like you are apologizing for being an American. :?

It got me somewhat irked. :x

Yeah, I know. Of course I also know that we're dangerously close to having some of our good statutes challenged. There is a saying about picking your battles. Like the signs, this isn't one that needs to be fought. The law is good the way it is.

I have been critical of people armchair QB'ing other carrier's in DGUs and police stops, and I guess I'm guilty of that now. So here's my refined, qualified perspective: given that word was out that he carries (either before or during the meeting), perhaps Veltheizen should have been more prepared to go on the offensive when/if the issue arose about why his carrying is a good thing.

Author:  Fiasco [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:43 am ]
Post subject: 

This is all opinion so, it may not be worth much but here goes.

The idea that the carry law is good and we should pick our battles (read, avoid conflict, stay in the shadows etc.) is, I believe, counterproductive. Those with views in opposition to our rights are not silent, nor do they pick their battles. They are vocally opposed to: Concealed carry, open carry, unregistered firearms, pistols, magazines with more than 10 rounds, scary rifles...and at every opportunity use their allied media outlets (traditional media) to voice those irrational views.

I did a quick google search looking for items related to the League of Minnesota Cities and carry. It seems apparent to me that this organization is anti gun, or at least in favor of government regulation at the local level that exceeds that of the state. I believe this organization is symptomatic of a new era in government where representative government will be trumped by local dictates supported by an innavigable beurocracy and too powerful court system. Too many politicians believe this mechanism is in place to allow them to do what they want.

This attitude of those "in power" within local government is pervasive in everything from free speech (the ability to put up a sign in your yard) to eminent domain, to our right to defend ourselves and families. While such attitudes have always existed, the expansion of government is giving more leverage to those who would abuse governmental "authority".

I hope people aren't writing this off as black helicopter. I think many who used to have a standard reply of "they can't do that" or "they would never do that" are realizing just what "they" are able to do when unopposed.

My rant is almost done so bear with me.

The media in Minnesota controls and/or parrots much of the agenda when the left holds the legislature. The same could be said on the national level.
so,
I'm proposing a new arm of an existing organization or a new organization dedicated to the "marketing" of the 2nd ammendment. It almost sounds ridiculous doesn't it? That fact underscores the need. Most of the existing organizations, like the NRA or Minnesota Gun Owners etc. focus on lobbying, which is absolutely essential, but those organizations speak to those already in favor of 2nd ammendment freedom. I believe there is an untapped market. I'm thinking of the single mother in Brooklyn Park who has no idea she even has the right to own a gun. Or the married mother of two who takes her kids to hockey practice at 5 every morning. Her husband travels for work and grew up in the city and was "never around guns". I know that at a local level, many of us try to help those folks understand that they have options but there isn't a concerted effort. Instead we have KSTP marketing a message of fear.

Rant complete. If this needs to be moved to a different topic, so be it...

Author:  kimberman [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

GOCRA will be happy to sponsor a "marketing arm" or any other good idea.

But, WHO is it going to do it?

My wife was bitching just this morning that she will not have my attention (which SHE has earned) for the next 5 months while the Legislature is in session. If I got paid and could spend some of it on delighting her, she'd be happier.

Activism, beyond the computer keyboard, requires that someone sacrifice work, home, family to the cause. A cause most female spouses don't share with any enthusiasm.

So, WHO is it going to be ???

Marketing is not in my bag of talents.

Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

Fiasco, your opinion is welcome (and worth what we paid for it :)).

That said, there is something to be said for not "poking the bear."

Forcing a confrontation is sometimes a good idea, and sometimes not.

Right now, forcing a confrontation on an issue WE ALREADY WON is a bad idea. We have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Page 1 of 10 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/