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

More verbal diarrea from Scott Knight
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=7805
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Glockwinger [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:45 am ]
Post subject:  More verbal diarrea from Scott Knight

The letter below is from the Red Star. I did a search and did not find it posted here yet. More of the same B as in B, S as in S. :roll:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/lett ... 08832.html


Letter of the day: D.C. gun law repeal will make us less safe
Last update: February 13, 2008 - 6:00 PM

As chief of the Chaska police department, I was disappointed to learn that members of our state's congressional delegation have joined Vice President Dick Cheney in filing a U.S. Supreme Court brief urging the justices to strike down generation-old restrictions on handgun ownership in Washington, D.C.

The court's ruling won't affect just the nation's capital. The decision could also prevent the federal, state and local governments from crafting reasonable firearms laws to reduce crime in their own jurisdictions.

Gun violence plagues every corner of this country, including Minnesota. In the years from 2000 to 2005, firearms killed 1,998 residents of our state.

In 2005 alone, the last year for which data are available, 361 Minnesotans were killed by firearms -- 88 by homicide, 255 by suicide, nine through accidents, two in the course of legal intervention and seven with unknown intent. In other words, firearms accounted for twice the number of Minnesota deaths that year from drowning, fires, lightning, tornados, heat and floods combined.

Different legal approaches may make sense in different parts of the country. But state and local leaders, in consultation with law enforcement, should have the authority and tools they need to fight crime in their communities. Police know from experience that common-sense measures like background checks, requirements for safety training and trigger locks, and other laws are effective in protecting public safety. Eliminating these measures would only put our citizens, and our officers, at greater risk.

That's why the International Association of Chiefs of Police (with 20,000 members in 112 countries), Major Police Chiefs (representing the 56 largest police departments in the United States), the International Brotherhood of Police Officers (representing more than 50,000 members) and other law enforcement groups have supported the right of Washington, D.C. -- and other jurisdictions -- to make their own law enforcement decisions.

Members of Congress should spend their time finding ways to help police fight crime, rather than undermining law enforcement for political gain.

SCOTT KNIGHT, CHASKA

What a tool.

Author:  mostlylawabidingcitizen [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:55 am ]
Post subject: 

Yes, because if guns were banned then all those suicides just wouldn't happen! :roll:

Mostly-

Author:  halvey [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: More verbal diarrea from Scott Knight

Quote:
law enforcement groups have supported the right of Washington, D.C. -- and other jurisdictions -- to make their own law enforcement decisions.

SCOTT KNIGHT, CHASKA

Taking away rights is now a "law enforcement decision". :roll:

Author:  Lenny7 [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:53 am ]
Post subject: 

He should know as well as anyone that criminals, by definition, break laws.

Author:  lance22 [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:20 am ]
Post subject: 

Policitcians have guns and bodyguards w guns in DC. How many of them get killed each year? Zero? I wonder if their guns are making them safer?

He forgot to mention the number of firearms-related homicides in DC while their gun ban has been in full affect? Where is his case that the ban has been working? After all, the guns have worked very well in managing the security of the politicians.

His stats about MN are interesting though irrelevant to the substance of the DC vs Heller case.

Author:  Traveler [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Let me get this straight, since I am perceptionally challenged.

Is Scott Knight saying that in the best interests of law enforcement, sections of the Constitution may be suspended or abbrogated at will? Is it that this hick town law enforcement officer is under the impression (with all due respect to hick towns and their inhabitants) that he and other LEO's can create laws out of whole cloth?

Isn't this person charged to some degree to defend the Constitution of the United States, and the State Constitution?

The question at hand is one of Constitutionality. It is not a silly little argument over the wonderful attributes of trigger locks and it certainly isn't a political question. It is about the Constitution of the United States.

Author:  havegunjoe [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

One thing we have to fight is the usage of the term, “gun violence” and the idea that “firearms killed” anyone. Guns are not violent, people are. Firearms do not kill people, violent people kill innocent people. He acts as if a gun has a life of it’s own. And yes he apparently wants to remove portions of the Constitution to make his job easier.

Author:  AGoodDay [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: More verbal diarrea from Scott Knight

Glockwinger wrote:
Gun violence plagues every corner of this country, including Minnesota. In the years from 2000 to 2005, firearms killed 1,998 residents of our state.


Do you think I could use that as a legal defense?

*Points at gun* "He did it!"

Author:  Burnsville Guy [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Two words. SUPER DOOOOOUCHE!! Constitution we don't need no constitution! :evil: :evil: :evil:

Author:  Srigs [ Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

He gets to keep his job by scaring the masses and this keeps him in the news. No new "Events" say Goodnight Knight ;)

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