Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 83 times


reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 12:30 PM by Agrilid
Please for the sake of everyone else, everyone who thinks Montana is on the right path, please move there so we can quarantine it off from the rest of the nation!

There has not even been a handfull of posts on this topic that actualy touch the main idea. Why should people be able to recieve a weapon that can kill others without any sort of background check?

This advancement in "rights" as you say only benefits the criminals and the unfit for ownership in America.And how does having to wait a week or more prevent you from protecting your family? It doesn't.
If you can 't wait the alloted time for a handgun etc.. then you shouldn't own a gun. Also the fact that people are just saying " Hooray Montana standing up against the goverment" perhaps they should find a diffrent topic such as seatbelt usage to stand up against them on. (At least that way people are killing them selves and not others)

I'm not saying guns are bad or we should be rid of them, I just firmly beleive that background checks etc should be required, What is to stop parolee of murder to walk into a gun shop and buy a handgun? Not every american is qualfied to have a gun weather it be mentally or physically.


P.S If the government is actualy bothered by this , there are many things they can do to force Montana to retract this bill, Such as removing all federal funding for roads,schools, etc. (which there is a lot of).


Thats just my two cents.


reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:57 PM by detachedindividual
reply to post by David9176


What worries me right now is the seeming impression in the US that this is all about Conservative Gun nuts and racism.

I regrettably read an article on Alternet (a place I previously trusted for giving a better view of any situation) but even they are assigning the run on guns as a radical insurgency of right-wing racists.

They're all missing the point.

The fact remains, that while a large number are indeed probably racist gun nuts paranoid about Obama bringing change they don't like, many of them are simply people who understand the gravity of the situation with the US financial system.
They are disillusioned, fearful of the future, probably just as against Bush in his last year as any Democrat.

It's not as simple as stating "the gun nuts are right-wing". These are people who see a federal government larger than it ever has been, interfering in the very basic mundane details of state operations, implementing laws and changes that they feel threatened by, in an unstable financial environment where the rich benefit and are bailed out while the average person is left to pay for it.

It doesn't all come down to right-wing racists with a chip on their shoulder about seeing a Republican govt. lose.

It could be any government in power, and the president could be any color, there would still be millions of young Americans out buying guns in order to protect their families against what they see as a threat. Whether that threat is from looters when the $ collapses, or from the US military in a state of martial law, there are several scenarios where the right to protect yourself is justified, and all of those scenarios are more likely and probable now than they ever have been in the past fifty years.

I used to be entirely against the mentality of gun ownership. I was on the bandwagon of outlawing them entirely. From a Brit perspective it seemed insane that you'd all put up with gun massacres and the murder of your kids and justify it by stating "the constitution allows it!"
But, over the last eight years of Bush, I can fully understand why American's want (and need) guns.
When a government becomes so huge, and so instrumental in controlling peoples lives, you have to have the ability to remove them by force, if it ever comes to that.

It's a sad situation, and I truly hope that no one takes things too far on either side. Right now, the only action to take is one of moderation. Obama needs to lay off the gun control idea for at least a year, complete inaction and silence.
The "gun nuts" need to show responsibility and reason. Don't combine it with secession, and don't poke the hornets nest of federal power while waving your rights to bear arms in their faces.

If any side makes a bad move, it will certainly result in an armed conflict within the US. And as soon as that happens, you're in a state of civil war with several groups and even entire states declaring their solidarity to one side or another. It would give evidence to either side that the other is trying to destroy them.

This is becoming very tricky indeed, I just hope it doesn't become insanely stupid because one state decides to become a rogue.


reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 02:21 PM by Agrilid
reply to post by Johnny_Sokko





You can't expect a country that is 200 years old to still follow the basic laws it was founded it. I mean this in the sence that as a nation evolves so does it laws.

You did not have semi automatic weapons to the degree you do now. During this nations begining Johnny Smith could walk into a town square and perhaps get off one shot with his musket, maybe two. But yet now that same man could go into a mall and unload 15 bullets and still reload quickly enough to continue his rampage of destruction.( Of course there will be restriction)


Laws evolve, and people have to except that, You can't fall back on the basis of well this was how the nation was founded and we should keep it that way, if so we might as well keep slavery and as well as call the white man supreme over all.


As a side note, the country was a little less stable 200 years ago , such as farmers protecting land from native americans etc.


reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 02:36 PM by gyoung88
reply to post by Agrilid


I know it's a cliche, but it is the truth. If you are a convict, you could care less about gun laws. You are going to get them anyway! Mostly illegally. The biggest thing they're afraid of is armed citizens. The percentage of people who are actually going to do something bad/illegal is so low but god knows we'll hear all about the one person that took advantage because the media is manipulative.

It is not okay to take everyone's freedom away for the actions of one individual. It's hardly honest to do a thing like that. The news says that's the only way. That's just more tyranny and will only worsen the problem we face today.



reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 02:41 PM by obilesk
reply to post by Agrilid


So what you are saying is that gun ownership is akin to slave ownership? I will assume you were using it as an example of amending the Constitution despite what some State-level politicians wanted.

I see your point that laws evolve to meet the needs of modern times. But the fundamental right of the people in a republic, founded on the principle that the people are the government, to remove those in office that are enemies of the Constitution seems to be the one right that should never be taken from us. I agree that some guns are just too easy to rampage with, so some regulation is needed because, realistically, some people just shouldn't be trusted with firearms. But to take all the cookies away from the class because one or two of the kids start throwing them at each other is ludicrous.

What ever happened to having a right, and earning the privilege of keeping that right, with personal responsibility??


reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 02:51 PM by Agrilid
reply to post by obilesk




I agree , But quite frankly I'm not saying get rid of guns, But heaven forbid someone has to wait a week or have a background check before buying a gun. The freedom of owning a gun is still there .


reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 02:58 PM by reluctantpawn
reply to post by Agrilid


Yep two hundred years ago if someone went off and shot someone else with a musket everyone else that had a musket would shoot back. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting or murder spree at a gun show? It doesn't happen. Why have all of the mass shootings happened in "gun free" zones? Today in a local mall if everyone had open or concealed carry and someone went off, more than likely a responsible gun owner would take him out, just like two hundred years ago.

respectfully

reluctantpawn


reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 03:06 PM by marg6043
reply to post by David9176


Hallelujah, the federal government is in a panic, because gun sales has been at a high time since the recession started, is not way in hell that any laws will be able to make into congress to take guns away from citizens in any state that allowed them at this time with so many home owners protecting their constitutional rights right now.

This will mean revolution baby.




reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 03:32 PM by marg6043
reply to post by mr. wildflowers


While you bring a great point and I even agree with you, you have to understand that when it comes to "criminals" they will get their guns anywhere and at anytime.

Just because background checks are done, they are only for the law abiding citizens, not for the criminals as they know better than trying to get a gun by legal means, if a criminal wants to commit and act of violence he is not going to leave a trace for the police to find then easily.



[edit on 7-5-2009 by marg6043]



reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 04:40 PM by Shamrock87
reply to post by milesp


Well you have to remember that enacting gun laws to supposedly keep the citizens safe does not necessarilly work. I've said this before many times that bad people will do bad things regardless of the law.

Do you think telling Gangland it's illegal to own guns is really going to stop them?


reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 04:43 PM by Johnny_Sokko
Originally posted by Agrilid
reply to post by obilesk


I agree , But quite frankly I'm not saying get rid of guns, But heaven forbid someone has to wait a week or have a background check before buying a gun. The freedom of owning a gun is still there .


Chew on this: How many people in the US have been wrongly put onto the strict no fly list? I can assure you that it's many, though you can do the research yourself. With that said, let us examine a cute little video clip, shall we?



So if they ever get their way with linking the no fly list to background checks, how many people would be denied their "right" to own a firearm? Especially when the government will not even reveal the criteria for being put on the no fly list. Background checks are just another tool to deny people their right to own a gun when the criminals will always have them regardless.


reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 05:03 PM by Not Authorized
reply to post by Agrilid


What the heck are you talking about when you say "You can't expect a country that is 200 years old to still follow the basic laws it was founded it. I mean this in the sence that as a nation evolves so does it laws."

Are you implying that other 'basic laws' as part of this document should be thrown out, such as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, or freedom of religion? Have those basic rights outlived their usefulness? How about a petition for redress grievances? Where else should we run a sharpie through the bill of rights?

Why stop your sharpie there? Lets remove clauses that means you can be searched at anytime without a warrant. Hell, lets black out the part of the Constitution that bans issuing a bill of attainder or ex past facto laws.

Oh yeah, that's right. We're "evolving" as a nation and those rights just aren't as important as they once were. That type of attitude is the reason that every single one of those 'basic laws' I listed above are threatened, already lost, or in jeopardy of being lost.

The are JUST as important today -- if not more so, than when they were written.

I'll tell you where we are "evolving" into -- a federal dictatorship in which you have limited rights, or worse. Read 1984 a few times and be ready for that boot print smashed into your forehead for all time.

Not to sound callous, but back then it was just not muskets. Most with this argument forget that it also included weapons such as artillery. Where do you think cannons came from? The people owned them, and they are arguably far more destructive to life and property than a semi-automatic weapon.

"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."

Our founding fathers were right with this as history has shown us time and time again, even in this nation. This amendment was not put into place with the bill of rights to protect hunting. It is protection FOR the people against a tyrannical federal government. Read it very slowly. For a STATE to be secure and FREE, it is NECESSARY for people to keep and bear arms -- not optional. The Federal government CANNOT infringe on this right, period, end of discussion.

Montana is within it's every right to tell the Federal government to go pound sand. That right was directed specifically States and to the people. There is no ambiguity in that amendment and the Federal government has NO constitutional standing to enact such laws without a change to the constitution directly.

However, if you want to give up your rights and freedoms on a silver platter, then I implore that you -- not me -- to move someplace else outside the purview of the Constitution in which you have no rights as a citizen. You want liberty and freedom? Then pick up a firearm and be ready to die for your it -- even if that oppression comes against you in the form of your federal government.

As far as your comments later about a gun registry or background checks.

There was a nation in the 20th century that enacted such gun laws and gun registries, all under the guise of protection and peace. Later, that same registry was used to disarm the entire populous against an aggressive and tyrannical government. That same nation later began a war of aggression that killed millions of people in one of the worlds most violent wars. That nation was 1930's Germany.

That same propaganda used in Germany is being used on the populous today.

I leave you with this to ponder, because all your arguments on gun control will always be filtered towards "little temporary safety".

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I agree with Mr Franklin. You deserve neither.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^