« STAR TRIBUNE: CIRESI TO ANNOUNCE HIS POLITICAL PLANS NEXT WEEK | Home | DAY FOR CONGRESS »
MDE FROM ARCHIVES: CIRESI SUPPORTS HANDGUN REGISTRATION
By Michael B. Brodkorb | February 8, 2007
"As Ciresi walked the windswept parade route in a blue denim shirt and khaki slacks, Gary Bothan of Dalton reached out from his lawn chair, shook the candidate's hand and said: 'Mike, I can't vote for you. You're for registration of guns.' 'Just handguns,' Ciresi responded. 'That's just a start,' Bothan said. Not easily discouraged, Ciresi knelt down beside Bothan and spent several minutes trying to persuade him they could find common ground on gun safety measures. It didn't work. As he stood up to leave, Bothan said: 'I don't want Uncle Sam to know I've got guns. It's none of his danged business.'" Source: Pioneer Press, September 10, 2000
###
Ciresi past support for handgun registration will likely make his potential candidacy for the U.S. Senate unpalatable to the hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and sportswomen in Minnesota.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 29 Comments »
29 Responses to “MDE FROM ARCHIVES: CIRESI SUPPORTS HANDGUN REGISTRATION”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Yeah man, because I always go phesant hunting with my glock.
Sean
February 8th, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Yes, that and his incessant chasing of ambulances will make unpalatable to all sorts of people.
It is interesting because Dems haven’t run on gun control in years because they always lose on the issue. It turns out that lots of people who might otherwise vote Dem, really don’t like the idea of having the Government know they have the means to protect themselves.
In fact, the only people who Democrat elected officials take for granted and piss on more than the gun control crowd are gay rights groups. And blacks. Oh, and union workers. And farmers I guess.
Ask former Senator Dean Johnson what it is like to stick your finger in the eye of Minnesota’s sportsmen and women.
If Ciresi runs, this is going to cause him all sorts of problems.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Hillary wants to confiscate profits from a private business, Ciresi wants our guns, all the democrat presidential candidates want surrender.
What a great bunch of people.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Wow. A republican who won’t vote for Ciresi. He had better just fold up shop now.
I love how republicans are all for being tough on crime, as long as it doesn’t mean taking any steps to change things. Bare bones funding for courts and jails, no effort to reign in illegal guns, banning Sudafed despite the fact that 90 percent of our meth comes from out of state.
I can’t pinpoint exactly when it was that republicans lost focus, but sufice to say, the past election proved that Minnesotans recognize that they have.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Fred — law abiding citizens should have the right to shoot dead any motherfu*cker storming through their door in the dead of night.
The right to bear arms: It’s called the second amendment. … to the Constitution… that document that liberals love to trample… except when they find imaginary “rights” in it.
… btw… 90 percent of meth comes from out of state now… thanks to bans on amphetamines. Prior to that law, it was all coming from your basement.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Kyle-
You make such great points. If only one day you based them in reality, you would see that none of your arguments make sense.
1) Second Amendment. If you are a part of a well regulated militia, I believe you are correct in having the right to bear arms. Short of that, I believe the right to plink at squirrels with a AK-47 is not guaranteed.
2) 90 percent of meth came from out of state before the law. A slight bit more comes from out of state now. These are the figures that were used during the debate at the capitol. If you have numbers that prove otherwise, I would love to see them.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Fred — that’s how you and the anti-gun crowd reads it, but that’s not what it says.
2) That’s bullshit. Like most everything else you post.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:12 PM
You’re right, I do read the second amendment as it is written:
“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.”
By removing independent clauses, we can really make some interesting things flow from the Bill of Rights.
Lets say, you yanked some of the clauses out of the first amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Check it out. I just got rid of freedom of speech and the press just by ignoring independent clauses of the first amendment. YAY FOR ME.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Fred — the founders had no intent whatsoever to abridge citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. You can extort and play pretend all you want.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Period.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Fred, you act like kyle has actually read the entire Constitution
February 8th, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Ceresi’s opposition to conceal and carry definitively makes him a no contest for Norm.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:03 PM
“law abiding citizens should have the right to shoot dead any — storming through their door in the dead of night.”
-Even if it’s your son or daughter coming back in after letting the dog out to take a poo on the lawn and you didn’t hear he or she leave because you were snoring? alot of people get shot and killed for misunderstandings like this, that’s why citizens have a legal responsibility to escape when they perceive that they are in danger. or didn’t you get the training for the conceal/carry permit?
you’ll make a great head of the household once you’re done with puberty kyle.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:41 PM
I believe the family in Waseca is dead now because there was a firearm in the house that was used against them.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Kyle-
With your encyclopedia-like knowledge of our founding fathers’ intent in drafting the bill of rights, it is a wonder you are not serving in an official capacity as a constitutional reference for the federal government. Knowing as you apparently do what the intent was behind the scenes would certainly make you a much more sought after commodity than the rest of us who simply ponder such things.
February 9th, 2007 at 9:32 AM
Paulp — name one.
February 9th, 2007 at 9:34 AM
or more to the point Paulp, citizens with successfully defend themselves from the criminals liberals put back on the street all the time.
Fred, you’re an idiot.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:25 AM
We’ll start with Fred’s deficiencies. A knowledge of English syntax and vocabulary — and nothing else — should be sufficient to determine that the amendment protects an individualist right to firearms.
The amendment reads (with accurate punctuation): 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.
Approaching the sentence grammatically, one notices two things: the simple subject is “right” and the full predicate is “shall not be infringed.” This, in other words, is a sentence about a right that is already assumed to exist. It does not say, “The people shall have a right to keep and bear arms.” The amendment recognizes, but does not grant, the right. Yet again in simpler terms, the right to keep and bear arms is independent of the Constitution.
In the founders’ view, individuals, joining together to form a political unit, delegate rights and powers to government. But the people do not — cannot — consent to an infringement of their rights — such consent, logically, would make no sense. The term infringement implies lack of consent.
As a matter of logic, it absurd to believe that nullification of the opening phrase would nullify the main clause.
Still Fred seems to think that the amendment revolves around the need to join a militia, or the rights of states to form militias. Yet, the bill of rights is not about ascribing rights to states. (e.g. States don’t need “rights” to peaceably assemble… also illogical). It is, however, about defining the rights of individuals.
The only amendment that mentions “states” is the 10th, but not in terms of rights. The 10th Amendment ascribes powers, not rights, to the states. Further, the 10th names both states and people. When the founders meant “states” they said “states” when they meant “people” they said “people”.
The second amendment says “people”.
And would they have said “States”, it would have conflicted with other clauses in Article I of the Constitution.
In fact, Madison’s (you know, one of the authors of the Constitution) original draft of the 2nd Amendment read: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.”
Left that way, Madison further implied that the way to achieve “the well-armed and well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state” is to recognize the right of people to own guns.
In fact there is nothing about the second amendment or any other part of the Constitution that can be construed to mean that individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Additionally, The Federalist Papers are rife with founders’ commentaries on the necessity of individuals to have the ability to keep and bear arms and to form militias independent of any state of federal force, for self defense and to defend against tyrannical governments.
Now your ACLU card is cute, but it’s full of shit.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Hey, Kyle. Who did you get to write that for you? Certainly the compendium of your previous posts never have shown any indication of such critical thinking. You copied that from somewhere! Not that it makes the argument invalid. Just don’t take credit for it.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:20 PM
anonymous, I often grace these pages with sound, critical thought. Though, I also grace these pages with full, critical deconstructions of the liberal arguments — and the liberals — who share them. And sometimes I just rant.
My post is drawn from a number of sources, as well as my own knowledge. So, you’re correct, I had help… but isn’t that the same of all research.
But as you said, the argument is solid… irrefutable, really. There is no other justifiable reading of the 2nd amendment, no matter how much lipstick liberal put on their anti-2nd amendment pig…
For more legal background to the construct of the 2nd Amendment, read “The Commonplace Second Amendement” by constitutional law scholar Eugene Volokh, and published in the New York University Law Review in 1998. Here is a link http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Kyle, I guess I’m just puzzled then why, if you have the ability to rationally discuss issues, you choose to most often sound like a 35 year old loser with a huge chip on his shoulder who has no job and lives in his parents’ basement. Just the way you come across, buddy.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Same reason you chose to come off as an unhinged liberal nut job anonymous… if that’s your real name…
LOL!
February 9th, 2007 at 4:10 PM
‘Anonymous’ really is my name – and my last name is ‘Jackass’
February 10th, 2007 at 12:52 AM
kyle,
google:
accidental death by firearm
and
mistaken identity
and next time you have trouble finding something that common, ask you highschool teacher for more help using search engines.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:11 PM
paulp, try those search results. You get nothing.
“accidental death by firearm” + “mistaken identity”
The 254,000 results you get when you remove the quotes are so terribly off point, you can’t comment on it.
However, the 369,000 results you get when you search: gun + intruder + defense are all on point.
Needless to say however, neither search reveals anything that one could draw a conclusion from, as they are simply web sites discussing the issue.
Again, asshole… name one.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:50 PM
just think, if you refocused all the time you spend on blogs onto your studies instead, you could get a full ride to bob jones university and make your parents proud!
February 11th, 2007 at 8:24 AM
What’s the problem Paulp, is this too hard for you? Why do you hate so much? Compensating for your weakness and insecurity?
Pathetic loser.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Paulp appears to be just another intellectually challenged, lazy and impotent liberal. Such an abundance…
February 11th, 2007 at 9:45 PM
sorry i struck a nerve kyle, but if reason would persuade you, i would use it. you are the self-made man who worships his creator. you compress the most words into the smallest ideas.
February 12th, 2007 at 6:24 AM
Paulp — you never used reason… or evidence… or logic… in approaching any argument.
Seems you can’t be troubled with facts. This has been a pretty cut and dry conversation. I have produced fact. You have produced nothing… typical liberal.