I'd be curious to learn more what you mean by this negative view people have about MN right now.
Most everyone that I talk to from out of state have mentioned something. I got calls asking if I was okay. Rumor is my wife's office will be closing or relocating out of DT next to Target Center when the lease is up due to crime. That is 100+ people getting lunch, taking clients out to dinner, and going to concerts and games regularly. We have not made it official but we are closing our office in Minnesota now.
We spent the weekend on great lakes of Iowa. Everyone had a comment when they found out we are from Minnesota. Minneapolis had a good brand going for itself coming off a Superbowl and Final Four. Now its brand is closer to Saint Louis, Chicago, Detriot, & Baltimore. Those are all places companies I work with don't have satellite offices.
That is what I am personally seeing and hearing. In my opinion, if you want a vibrant city it will start in the core and work its way out. Minneapolis slowly has stopped policing downtown and over the last 3 years. It was starting to be a problem last year for restaurants and the trend will continue. Otherwise, you will see the people that live in the zip codes with cash not coming back.
Thanks for the reply. If you are willing to I'm curious what solutions are you suggesting starting at the core and working out?
No CCW restrictions, which is btw unconstitutional. You have the right to bear arms and defend yourself. Having the GOV tell you you can't is directly against the constitution.
The US imprisons the highest percentage of people in the world and has arguably the most intense police state. Adding more police or military is not the solution, adding whoever wants a gun IS the solution.
People carrying guns makes everyone safer, because criminals will think twice or rioters will think twice about committing crimes if a lead sandwich is likely to follow. Just an FYI, criminals already are carrying guns, because by definition, they are not following the law anyways. GOV just stops everyone else from being safe. GOV is the problem, not the solution.
I'd be curious to learn more what you mean by this negative view people have about MN right now.
Most everyone that I talk to from out of state have mentioned something. I got calls asking if I was okay. Rumor is my wife's office will be closing or relocating out of DT next to Target Center when the lease is up due to crime. That is 100+ people getting lunch, taking clients out to dinner, and going to concerts and games regularly. We have not made it official but we are closing our office in Minnesota now.
We spent the weekend on great lakes of Iowa. Everyone had a comment when they found out we are from Minnesota. Minneapolis had a good brand going for itself coming off a Superbowl and Final Four. Now its brand is closer to Saint Louis, Chicago, Detriot, & Baltimore. Those are all places companies I work with don't have satellite offices.
That is what I am personally seeing and hearing. In my opinion, if you want a vibrant city it will start in the core and work its way out. Minneapolis slowly has stopped policing downtown and over the last 3 years. It was starting to be a problem last year for restaurants and the trend will continue. Otherwise, you will see the people that live in the zip codes with cash not coming back.
Thanks for the reply. If you are willing to I'm curious what solutions are you suggesting starting at the core and working out?
No CCW restrictions, which is btw unconstitutional. You have the right to bear arms and defend yourself. Having the GOV tell you you can't is directly against the constitution.
The US imprisons the highest percentage of people in the world and has arguably the most intense police state. Adding more police or military is not the solution, adding whoever wants a gun IS the solution.
People carrying guns makes everyone safer, because criminals will think twice or rioters will think twice about committing crimes if a lead sandwich is likely to follow. Just an FYI, criminals already are carrying guns, because by definition, they are not following the law anyways. GOV just stops everyone else from being safe. GOV is the problem, not the solution.
I'd be curious to learn more what you mean by this negative view people have about MN right now.
Most everyone that I talk to from out of state have mentioned something. I got calls asking if I was okay. Rumor is my wife's office will be closing or relocating out of DT next to Target Center when the lease is up due to crime. That is 100+ people getting lunch, taking clients out to dinner, and going to concerts and games regularly. We have not made it official but we are closing our office in Minnesota now.
We spent the weekend on great lakes of Iowa. Everyone had a comment when they found out we are from Minnesota. Minneapolis had a good brand going for itself coming off a Superbowl and Final Four. Now its brand is closer to Saint Louis, Chicago, Detriot, & Baltimore. Those are all places companies I work with don't have satellite offices.
That is what I am personally seeing and hearing. In my opinion, if you want a vibrant city it will start in the core and work its way out. Minneapolis slowly has stopped policing downtown and over the last 3 years. It was starting to be a problem last year for restaurants and the trend will continue. Otherwise, you will see the people that live in the zip codes with cash not coming back.
Thanks for the reply. If you are willing to I'm curious what solutions are you suggesting starting at the core and working out?
No CCW restrictions, which is btw unconstitutional. You have the right to bear arms and defend yourself. Having the GOV tell you you can't is directly against the constitution.
The US imprisons the highest percentage of people in the world and has arguably the most intense police state. Adding more police or military is not the solution, adding whoever wants a gun IS the solution.
People carrying guns makes everyone safer, because criminals will think twice or rioters will think twice about committing crimes if a lead sandwich is likely to follow. Just an FYI, criminals already are carrying guns, because by definition, they are not following the law anyways. GOV just stops everyone else from being safe. GOV is the problem, not the solution.
I just want to make sure I understand. I'm reading this as anyone can get a gun no questions asked?
The only restriction that makes sense is someone who has been convicted of a violent gun crime already. IE you shoot someone and rob them, murder someone, etc. Other then that, I see no reason why anyone over 18 can get and carry any gun they want.
The threat of a gun is why people are safe, see Chicago or other major places that highly restrict CCW. Which is unconstitutional. They have more gun crime!
The reason the GOV wants to ban guns is they want people dependent on GOV, irresponsible and poor. No threat to the GOV power.
I have no proof but I suspect many of these riots were started by the same people who want to ban guns, increase the police state, expand GOV's power over the population. It's called a false flag. Shoot down your own ship so you can start a war with another country. Operation Northwoods was one proposed false flag under Kennedy by the DoD. The plan was to shoot down an American passenger jet and blame it on Cuba. In order to start a war with Cuba.
Here is a snippet from Wiki-
Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to both stage and actually commit acts of terrorism against American military and civilian targets,[2] blaming them on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The possibilities detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban immigrants, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas,[2] hijacking planes to be shot down or given the appearance of being shot down,[2] blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.[3] The proposals were rejected by President John F. Kennedy.[4][5][6]
Fidel Castro had taken power in Cuba in 1959 and began allowing communists into the new Cuban government, nationalizing US businesses and improving relations with the Soviet Union, arousing the concern of the U.S. military due to the Cold War. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the U.S. Government.[1] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
WolvesFan21 wrote:The only restriction that makes sense is someone who has been convicted of a violent gun crime already. IE you shoot someone and rob them, murder someone, etc. Other then that, I see no reason why anyone over 18 can get and carry any gun they want.
The threat of a gun is why people are safe, see Chicago or other major places that highly restrict CCW. Which is unconstitutional. They have more gun crime!
The reason the GOV wants to ban guns is they want people dependent on GOV, irresponsible and poor. No threat to the GOV power.
I have no proof but I suspect many of these riots were started by the same people who want to ban guns, increase the police state, expand GOV's power over the population. It's called a false flag. Shoot down your own ship so you can start a war with another country. Operation Northwoods was one proposed false flag under Kennedy by the DoD. The plan was to shoot down an American passenger jet and blame it on Cuba. In order to start a war with Cuba.
Here is a snippet from Wiki-
Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to both stage and actually commit acts of terrorism against American military and civilian targets,[2] blaming them on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The possibilities detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban immigrants, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas,[2] hijacking planes to be shot down or given the appearance of being shot down,[2] blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.[3] The proposals were rejected by President John F. Kennedy.[4][5][6]
Fidel Castro had taken power in Cuba in 1959 and began allowing communists into the new Cuban government, nationalizing US businesses and improving relations with the Soviet Union, arousing the concern of the U.S. military due to the Cold War. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the U.S. Government.[1] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
That's for clarifying. What about people with mental disorders? What about people with disabilities that would not be physically about to protect themselves with a weapon? Wouldn't that make them even more vulnerable than they already are?
WolvesFan21 wrote:The only restriction that makes sense is someone who has been convicted of a violent gun crime already. IE you shoot someone and rob them, murder someone, etc. Other then that, I see no reason why anyone over 18 can get and carry any gun they want.
The threat of a gun is why people are safe, see Chicago or other major places that highly restrict CCW. Which is unconstitutional. They have more gun crime!
The reason the GOV wants to ban guns is they want people dependent on GOV, irresponsible and poor. No threat to the GOV power.
I have no proof but I suspect many of these riots were started by the same people who want to ban guns, increase the police state, expand GOV's power over the population. It's called a false flag. Shoot down your own ship so you can start a war with another country. Operation Northwoods was one proposed false flag under Kennedy by the DoD. The plan was to shoot down an American passenger jet and blame it on Cuba. In order to start a war with Cuba.
Here is a snippet from Wiki-
Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to both stage and actually commit acts of terrorism against American military and civilian targets,[2] blaming them on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The possibilities detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban immigrants, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas,[2] hijacking planes to be shot down or given the appearance of being shot down,[2] blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.[3] The proposals were rejected by President John F. Kennedy.[4][5][6]
Fidel Castro had taken power in Cuba in 1959 and began allowing communists into the new Cuban government, nationalizing US businesses and improving relations with the Soviet Union, arousing the concern of the U.S. military due to the Cold War. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the U.S. Government.[1] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
That's for clarifying. What about people with mental disorders? What about people with disabilities that would not be physically about to protect themselves with a weapon? Wouldn't that make them even more vulnerable than they already are?
I wouldn't restrict people with mental disorders, because if we went that route, anyone can be considered mentally ill. You post Trump sucks, boom now you are red flagged and mentally ill. "People with physical disabilities" - Having more people carrying guns will make them safer. Because potential robber won't know if they have a weapon or not. The US already has 350+ million guns. It's not like it's hard at all for any criminals that want to rob people to get guns. We need guns easily accessible for the avg person to carry and conceal to make the streets safer for all, even if you choose not to.
WolvesFan21 wrote:The only restriction that makes sense is someone who has been convicted of a violent gun crime already. IE you shoot someone and rob them, murder someone, etc. Other then that, I see no reason why anyone over 18 can get and carry any gun they want.
The threat of a gun is why people are safe, see Chicago or other major places that highly restrict CCW. Which is unconstitutional. They have more gun crime!
The reason the GOV wants to ban guns is they want people dependent on GOV, irresponsible and poor. No threat to the GOV power.
I have no proof but I suspect many of these riots were started by the same people who want to ban guns, increase the police state, expand GOV's power over the population. It's called a false flag. Shoot down your own ship so you can start a war with another country. Operation Northwoods was one proposed false flag under Kennedy by the DoD. The plan was to shoot down an American passenger jet and blame it on Cuba. In order to start a war with Cuba.
Here is a snippet from Wiki-
Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to both stage and actually commit acts of terrorism against American military and civilian targets,[2] blaming them on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The possibilities detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban immigrants, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas,[2] hijacking planes to be shot down or given the appearance of being shot down,[2] blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.[3] The proposals were rejected by President John F. Kennedy.[4][5][6]
Fidel Castro had taken power in Cuba in 1959 and began allowing communists into the new Cuban government, nationalizing US businesses and improving relations with the Soviet Union, arousing the concern of the U.S. military due to the Cold War. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the U.S. Government.[1] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
That's for clarifying. What about people with mental disorders? What about people with disabilities that would not be physically about to protect themselves with a weapon? Wouldn't that make them even more vulnerable than they already are?
I wouldn't restrict people with mental disorders, because if we went that route, anyone can be considered mentally ill. You post Trump sucks, boom now you are red flagged and mentally ill. "People with physical disabilities" - Having more people carrying guns will make them safer. Because potential robber won't know if they have a weapon or not. The US already has 350+ million guns. It's not like it's hard at all for any criminals that want to rob people to get guns. We need guns easily accessible for the avg person to carry and conceal to make the streets safer for all, even if you choose not to.
Ok. A couple more questions. So what about the 12 year old kid that clearly can't have a gun? What about the 37 year old quadriplegic in a wheel chair?
WolvesFan21 wrote:The only restriction that makes sense is someone who has been convicted of a violent gun crime already. IE you shoot someone and rob them, murder someone, etc. Other then that, I see no reason why anyone over 18 can get and carry any gun they want.
The threat of a gun is why people are safe, see Chicago or other major places that highly restrict CCW. Which is unconstitutional. They have more gun crime!
The reason the GOV wants to ban guns is they want people dependent on GOV, irresponsible and poor. No threat to the GOV power.
I have no proof but I suspect many of these riots were started by the same people who want to ban guns, increase the police state, expand GOV's power over the population. It's called a false flag. Shoot down your own ship so you can start a war with another country. Operation Northwoods was one proposed false flag under Kennedy by the DoD. The plan was to shoot down an American passenger jet and blame it on Cuba. In order to start a war with Cuba.
Here is a snippet from Wiki-
Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to both stage and actually commit acts of terrorism against American military and civilian targets,[2] blaming them on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The possibilities detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban immigrants, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas,[2] hijacking planes to be shot down or given the appearance of being shot down,[2] blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.[3] The proposals were rejected by President John F. Kennedy.[4][5][6]
Fidel Castro had taken power in Cuba in 1959 and began allowing communists into the new Cuban government, nationalizing US businesses and improving relations with the Soviet Union, arousing the concern of the U.S. military due to the Cold War. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the U.S. Government.[1] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
That's for clarifying. What about people with mental disorders? What about people with disabilities that would not be physically about to protect themselves with a weapon? Wouldn't that make them even more vulnerable than they already are?
I wouldn't restrict people with mental disorders, because if we went that route, anyone can be considered mentally ill. You post Trump sucks, boom now you are red flagged and mentally ill. "People with physical disabilities" - Having more people carrying guns will make them safer. Because potential robber won't know if they have a weapon or not. The US already has 350+ million guns. It's not like it's hard at all for any criminals that want to rob people to get guns. We need guns easily accessible for the avg person to carry and conceal to make the streets safer for all, even if you choose not to.
Ok. A couple more questions. So what about the 12 year old kid that clearly can't have a gun? What about the 37 year old quadriplegic in a wheel chair?
So what about them? You think if more people are carrying guns that the 12 year old is in more danger or less? Actually it would be less since 99% of people are really morally good and if something was to happen to the 12 year old good people would step in and act.
