MN Legislators Walk Out on Firearms Expert Testimony

Bartholomew Roberts · February 15, 2013, 02:56 PM

http://pjmedia.com/blog/video-mn-dem...inglepage=true

During recent testimony on proposed gun control laws in MN, two firearms experts brought two 10/22s (cleared by security) to demonstrate how the proposed legislation would ban only cosmetic features. Rather than listen to the testimony, which purportedly was for the purpose of informing the legislators so they could write good laws, the committee got up and walked out on the experts - refusing to even listen to what they had to say.

eldermike · February 15, 2013, 03:03 PM

That's good representation for low information voters.

hermannr · February 15, 2013, 03:49 PM

All this proves is they do not care what is right, they do not care what the constitution says,and they really do not care to hear anything that is contrary to their own person political opinion.

Our (WA) senators in DC are no different. They don't care about facts, or the constitution. they care about control, power, and their ownnotion of what is "I will determine what is good for you, don't confuse me with facts"

Glenn E. Meyer · February 15, 2013, 03:56 PM

This is called selective information processing and confirmation bias.

People will only listen to information that confirms an existing belief.

What else is new?

I've found that if I try to point out some gun thing to someone who doesn't like guns - they say - I don't like guns.

The emotional route blocks info that would rationally challenge a belief system from being processed. It occurs in every domain.

mayosligo · February 15, 2013, 03:57 PM

And this is truly the enemy - ignorance and emotion - rule the day. Anyone who does not believe that this is a battle between freedom and socialism is just as ignorant. Don't get in the way of my control with facts.

MLeake · February 15, 2013, 04:31 PM

I'm amazed we don't have laws requiring our legislators to actually listen to both (or all) sides of a debate on a bill, before they are allowed to vote on the bill.

Seems to me these MN legislators should not be allowed to vote on this one.

Unfortunately, we don't have such laws (as far as I know), and I'm sure they will vote.

We need to make the 2014 elections very, very painful for these people, in our given states and districts.

HarrySchell · February 15, 2013, 06:23 PM

This is the face of a new tyranny, that of people who will not even stand to listen to ideas they don't already have.

Now they walk out of hearing, in which they allege "they were doing the people's business" and fulfilling their oaths of office.

What will be the next step? Active suppression of dissenting views? A secular theocracy as pervading as Sharia law?

This makes the case for 2A, if anything, as we regress politically to a sort of tribalism.

One of the prototype laws for 2A came out of England, IIRC, in a time when Protestants were under physical attack by Church of England believers, and a law was passed that allowed them to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and to assemble peaceably.

I might have the parties mixed up, and I am not going to check it. It appears to me we are regressing. The consistency of ideas shown by those interested in disarming citizens remarkable, and their moral zeal seems to relieve them of even listening to differing views.

This is unlikely to end nicely, even if the federal enactments are functionally irrelevant.

MTG · February 15, 2013, 07:10 PM

Quote:

We need to make the 2014 elections very, very painful for these people, in our given states and districts.

This^^^^^^

Yeah, I'd say 2014 will be an important year...ESPECIALLY for a mid-term.

horatioo · February 15, 2013, 07:14 PM

If you were a legislator would you listen to anti gun people? May here have a lifetime of hearing pro/anti gun arguments. It is probably polite to stay, but most arent going to listen even if they are there if it is just more of the same.

Dr Big Bird PhD · February 15, 2013, 07:19 PM

I would listen to an Anti, but at the end of the day a truly rational discussion could only lead to less gun restriction. It's kind of a moot point to bring up "what we would do in their position."

TDL · February 15, 2013, 07:28 PM

Quote:

And this is truly the enemy - ignorance and emotion - rule the day.

For the public maybe, but for those legislators it is neither. The name of the game is scapegoating. That is a cool, calculated political ploy.
I would say virtually all politicians in support of bans and controls already know they do nothing to lower crime, just like all those police chiefs know it. They don't want to tell the truth and say we need harsher prison sentences, and the national politicians with Hollywood money sure don't want to point to the pornographic level of violence in films.

These politicians are putting their finger to the wind and solving the problem like politicians usually do, by targeting the politically weakest sector to blame and then taking credit. Walking out of a hearing with testimony by a couple of "gun nuts" (read: anyone who has some sober knowledge) is a nice bit of drama to stigmatize gun owners and abet the elected officials' political posturing.

monkey95 · February 15, 2013, 09:30 PM

Bartholomew Roberts, saying "the committee got up and walked out on the experts" might be a bit of a stretch. If you go to 1:32:55 of the following video I only see one vacant chair on the committee and plenty of occupied seats at the end of Doar's (the guy with the 10/22's) testimony, granted it is hard to see left and right sides but the middle is full.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw7pTX_kDEg

Although there were no questions asked of Mr Doar, noted to possibly be a first, it looks as if the majority of the committee was still there at the end of his testimony.

The article in the OP shows a tweet by Doar saying "they all walked out together quietly in the middle of my testimony" yet in the comments section he (assuming it is really him posting under his real name) says "Rep. Hausman couldn’t even be bothered to stick around to hear any of the testimony.

I offered to do the presentation again for her… her office declined."

While some my have left most of the committee seems to have at least listened to Doar's testimony.

kilimanjaro · February 15, 2013, 10:22 PM

Hopefully a few of them can be voted out of office. I don't care which side of the aisle or the argument they are on, when a politician shows arrogance and disdain for the citizens' right to seek access, redress and to be heard, they need to voted out in no uncertain way. A recall would be better, it's sooner.

February 15, 2013, 02:56 PM	#1
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	MN Legislators Walk Out on Firearms Expert Testimony http://pjmedia.com/blog/video-mn-dem...inglepage=true During recent testimony on proposed gun control laws in MN, two firearms experts brought two 10/22s (cleared by security) to demonstrate how the proposed legislation would ban only cosmetic features. Rather than listen to the testimony, which purportedly was for the purpose of informing the legislators so they could write good laws, the committee got up and walked out on the experts - refusing to even listen to what they had to say.

February 15, 2013, 03:56 PM	#4
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	This is called selective information processing and confirmation bias. People will only listen to information that confirms an existing belief. What else is new? I've found that if I try to point out some gun thing to someone who doesn't like guns - they say - I don't like guns. The emotional route blocks info that would rationally challenge a belief system from being processed. It occurs in every domain. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 15, 2013, 03:57 PM	#5
mayosligo Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2006 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 301	MN Legislators Walk Out on Firearms Expert Testimony And this is truly the enemy - ignorance and emotion - rule the day. Anyone who does not believe that this is a battle between freedom and socialism is just as ignorant. Don't get in the way of my control with facts.

February 15, 2013, 06:23 PM	#7
HarrySchell Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2007 Location: South CA Posts: 566	This is the face of a new tyranny, that of people who will not even stand to listen to ideas they don't already have. Now they walk out of hearing, in which they allege "they were doing the people's business" and fulfilling their oaths of office. What will be the next step? Active suppression of dissenting views? A secular theocracy as pervading as Sharia law? This makes the case for 2A, if anything, as we regress politically to a sort of tribalism. One of the prototype laws for 2A came out of England, IIRC, in a time when Protestants were under physical attack by Church of England believers, and a law was passed that allowed them to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and to assemble peaceably. I might have the parties mixed up, and I am not going to check it. It appears to me we are regressing. The consistency of ideas shown by those interested in disarming citizens remarkable, and their moral zeal seems to relieve them of even listening to differing views. This is unlikely to end nicely, even if the federal enactments are functionally irrelevant. __________________ Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain

February 15, 2013, 07:19 PM	#10
Dr Big Bird PhD Senior Member Join Date: October 26, 2012 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 779	I would listen to an Anti, but at the end of the day a truly rational discussion could only lead to less gun restriction. It's kind of a moot point to bring up "what we would do in their position." __________________ I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor

February 15, 2013, 03:03 PM	#2
eldermike Senior Member Join Date: January 24, 2013 Location: NC Posts: 545	That's good representation for low information voters.

February 15, 2013, 03:49 PM	#3
hermannr Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2011 Posts: 730	All this proves is they do not care what is right, they do not care what the constitution says,and they really do not care to hear anything that is contrary to their own person political opinion. Our (WA) senators in DC are no different. They don't care about facts, or the constitution. they care about control, power, and their ownnotion of what is "I will determine what is good for you, don't confuse me with facts"

February 15, 2013, 04:31 PM	#6
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	I'm amazed we don't have laws requiring our legislators to actually listen to both (or all) sides of a debate on a bill, before they are allowed to vote on the bill. Seems to me these MN legislators should not be allowed to vote on this one. Unfortunately, we don't have such laws (as far as I know), and I'm sure they will vote. We need to make the 2014 elections very, very painful for these people, in our given states and districts.

February 15, 2013, 07:14 PM	#9
horatioo Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2008 Posts: 332	If you were a legislator would you listen to anti gun people? May here have a lifetime of hearing pro/anti gun arguments. It is probably polite to stay, but most arent going to listen even if they are there if it is just more of the same.

February 15, 2013, 09:30 PM	#12
monkey95 Member Join Date: February 5, 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 75	Bartholomew Roberts, saying "the committee got up and walked out on the experts" might be a bit of a stretch. If you go to 1:32:55 of the following video I only see one vacant chair on the committee and plenty of occupied seats at the end of Doar's (the guy with the 10/22's) testimony, granted it is hard to see left and right sides but the middle is full. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw7pTX_kDEg Although there were no questions asked of Mr Doar, noted to possibly be a first, it looks as if the majority of the committee was still there at the end of his testimony. The article in the OP shows a tweet by Doar saying "they all walked out together quietly in the middle of my testimony" yet in the comments section he (assuming it is really him posting under his real name) says "Rep. Hausman couldn’t even be bothered to stick around to hear any of the testimony. I offered to do the presentation again for her… her office declined." While some my have left most of the committee seems to have at least listened to Doar's testimony.

February 15, 2013, 10:22 PM	#13
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	Hopefully a few of them can be voted out of office. I don't care which side of the aisle or the argument they are on, when a politician shows arrogance and disdain for the citizens' right to seek access, redress and to be heard, they need to voted out in no uncertain way. A recall would be better, it's sooner.