Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law

page: 9
83
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
So people with a different opinion than yours is a troll.
"Hey this person is against gun ownership lets get him kicked off this forum because we only want to hear from people who think like us."
I just hope that this country isn't run by narrow minded folks who believe that only people who believe in what they believe in are allowed to talk or express thier opinion.
"Mods he's a troll, Mods he's a troll" you sound like a kid who has hand sand kicked in the face. Pathetic.




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Forgive my ignorance, but how is this possible?

1. Doesn't the US constitution override any law in a state?

2. What about the supposed North American Union? Aren't they supposed be creating a super-state, so the NWO can amalgamate all nations under a common umbrella of one currency, one governance.

Personally, this is absolutely fantastic news


Governments around the World should be broken apart into little pieces and each state/county should embellish their own laws and regulations, as deemed appropriate by LOCAL people.

Some fat f**k bureaucrat behind a desk thousands of miles in Washington, should never, ever tell a farmer how to milk his cows.


The 10th Amendment says that the the Federal Government only has the powers enumerated (spelled out) in the Constitution and all other powers are reserved to the states. In other words, the Federal Government can't legally have any new powers unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed according to Article V.

Montana is just clearly stating that they are sticking with the written Constitution as ratified. Three cheers for Montana.

Write your state legislators and tell them you expect them to do the same!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I recall when the Clinton administration tried to tighten the screws on private gun ownership in the 1990s, and the state of Montana pretty much told Clinton to kiss my ass — but not for Constitutional reasons. As the Montana police officers association figured it, there are enough legally-owned firearms in that state for every Montanan to own 10 guns on average. Not saying that every Montanan owns 10 guns or even 1 gun, but enough Montanans own many more than 10 guns per household.

In a nutshell, police in Montana refused to enforce federal gun-control legislation because they are seriously outnumbered and seriously out-gunned. The cops know it's suicidal to try to enforce unconstitutional federal gun control mandates in Montana.

I don't remember the exact quote, but a Montana police spokesman said something like, "If the federal government wants these laws enforced, then let them come to Montana and go door-to-door. We're not touching it."


— Doc Velocity




[edit on 5/8/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I can't believe that people in this thread are advocating irresponsible gun ownership.

There is absolutely no downside to gun registration. You get a driver's license to driver and yet you want to give a weapon to anyone and everyone? Good luck with that. I hope when the next uni-bomber nutcase goes on a killing spree that the families of the dead light Montana on fire.

And those people who have some notion of being wild west cowboys who'll be taking on the government with your glock are delusional. Only marginally less so when it comes to the 'I'll protect you, lil-lady', thinking that they and their big gun are going to keep us all safe.

I grew up in a rural area, I'm a crack shot. I've hunted. I have no problem with gun ownership. But I learned that guns aren't toys when I was a child.

They aren't status symbols, they aren't for fun. They aren't tools to empower.

They kill things. That's their sole purpose. Don't fool yourself into thinking anything else. And that's fine - mankind are tool users. But they come with great responsiblity for that very reason.

And Montana is playing a game, a political game. With Guns. For crying out loud.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jadette
 


It's no game siding with the Constitution, and upholding it. The restrictions on arms is unconstitutional, and it's time that we return to Constitutional law.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Its supporters next plan to find a “squeaky clean” Montanan who wants to send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives threatening to build and sell about 20 rifles without federal dealership licensing. If the ATF says it’s illegal, the gun bill’s backers plan to file a lawsuit in federal court with the goal of launching a legal showdown that lands in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association, which drafted the bill, has said it will raise the money to pay for any legal costs.

“It doesn’t cost us any money and I like guns,” Schweitzer said after signing the bill.

“I like big guns, I like little guns, I like pistols, I like rifles, and I would like to buy a gun that’s made in Montana,” Schweitzer said.


I'm sorry, but I'll stick with my assessment of gameplaying, and add a stupid as roadkill. THAT'S the governor's eloquent reasoning for the bill. "I like big guns"?

www.helenair.com...



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette
But I learned that guns aren't toys when I was a child. They aren't status symbols, they aren't for fun. They aren't tools to empower. They kill things. That's their sole purpose.


As a lifelong gun-owner and a better shot than you, I know from your statements that you're full of hot air.

Sure, guns aren't toys. Neither is a circular saw. But guns are status symbols, guns are for fun, and most of all guns are tools to empower the user.

Why else would the gubbmint fear private gun ownership in America? It's because 280 Million privately-owned firearms tip the scales of power and not in the gubbmint's favor.

That's what the entire gun-control movement is about — removing power from the people and giving it exclusively to the Executive branch of government.

I'll tell you this, the campaign to disarm the American population is not based on gun-related crime or gun-related deaths. Gun-related crime has been on the decline for over a decade, and gun-related deaths account for only 1% of the fatalities in America annually. By comparison, automobile accidents account for over 40% of all fatalities. These stats are from the U.S. Census.

Definition of "fatality" — any death other than natural death. Accidental deaths and homicides are fatalities. Guns are instrumental in only 1% of all fatalities.

As for the stale old anti-gunner mantra "Guns have only one purpose. To KILL," again I can say that you're full of hot air.

Aside from hunting and military applications, the gun's best and most potent purpose is to instill fear and deter crime, and this goal is attained daily all over America, without ever firing a shot. If you know anything about law enforcement — and I do — then you know that just the presence of a gun does more to deter crime than actually discharging the thing. Every day across this country, police officers draw their guns in resolving various situations and apprehending suspects, but very very few officers ever discharge their weapons in the line of duty.

More importantly, civilian ownership of firearms empowers the American citizen in deterring crime, which is far more crucial than police responding to a situation ten to thirty minutes after the fact.

The presence of the gun is enough. The gun carries power, and the user is empowered in wielding the gun, even without firing it. So there goes the old "Guns have only one purpose" LIE.

— Doc Velocity







[edit on 5/8/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Forgive my ignorance, but how is this possible?

1. Doesn't the US constitution override any law in a state?


The federal governments power and limitations are what makes up the constitution, what they can and cannot do is clearly listed, if its not on that list then the issue was intended to fall upon each of the states individually, The federal government was never intended to be a slave master but rather a protector of the constitution, and it was given the tools to do such. MOST of the issues congress votes on are actually issues that the states should be deciding for themselves, but over time, states rights have been bribed away with federal tax dollars. Each state was intended to be a sort of country unto themselves, each of which with one thing in common, the rights and protections of the constitution. The federal government was only supposed to get involved in states rights issues when the states violated the constitution.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by CepheidVariable
 

I believe you have it spot on, with the hunting thing. The only problem is, your government is soon going to be hunting US with automatic weapons made predominately in Germany and Austria. The reason is simple, we will let them by not having our own.

"Oh Caesar, save us from YOU"



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette
I'm sorry, but I'll stick with my assessment of gameplaying, and add a stupid as roadkill. THAT'S the governor's eloquent reasoning for the bill. "I like big guns"?

www.helenair.com...



No, his reasoning for signing the bill was stated at the TOP of the article. You know, the place where they are actually speaking of the new law and people's intentions. That is where he says-


“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” Democrat Schweitzer said.


Would you please explain to the class why you felt it was necessary to only provide the quote that casts the governor in the worst possible light, and not the other?

Edit to comply with TOC on external sources

[edit on 5/9/2009 by Montana]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by XTexan
 


you must look at the un treaty and it's constitution and the countries that signed it. that is what happened to our constitution,it got signed off!



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
So a frew friends and i have been kicking around the idea of starting a gun shop, BUT still wating for answers to questions. As the law reads will we need federal permission and permits to mfg guns "made in montana' , or would those not apply? Hmmmmm interesting.. wating on responce from the gov. But not sure if even he knows the answer to this as new as it is , and what happens if the law is reversed, and we are already in biz selling guns.
So our delema. Love the new law though, i hope more states follow through and stand up and get noticed.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
hmm double post, sorry guys, the computer had a hick up

[edit on 9-5-2009 by severdsoul]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


The last study i read (been a while in a local paper, there are 3 guns for every living person here. Old, young, what ever age. Which is probably is about the same as your study read porportion wise.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kenton1234
 


No, it's not that I'm narrow minded, I'm usually open minded to many trains of thought. But your post was so utterly RIDICULOUS and lacking in thought or substance, that my thought was that it simply HAD to be a troll. That and the fact that your post count is so low can lead to suspicion of somebody who simply posts when they want to cause trouble, not a serious debate.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Hello gun owners heres your daily bread:

www.comcast.net...

Enjoy your dinner and sleep well.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kenton1234
 


We will, you just make sure you hide in your little hole all safe and quiet when the war comes. This world already has too many cowards.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Ooo, a pissing contest! Well, I've owned guns most of my life and who can say who is the better shot? My comment was more rhetorical to paint a picture, but if you want to take it as a challenge, feel free.

As for guns being fun, I never claimed they weren't. Only that they shouldn't be trivialized.

As for your second point, I'll reiterate: if you think you and your ten pals with your glocks are going to take on the remaining superpower in the world - good luck with that. It's really childish to imagine that gun ownership is a legitimate thread to nuclear armed nation with a full standing army and navy.

As for your third point, the 'FEAR' doesn't exist without the primary purpose. As for a gun's ability to deter crime in the hands of law enforcement, I agree. And I don't think I argued that it didn't. But I don't think that translated to private citizenship ownership. YOU might feel safer owning the gun, but unless there's someway you can let the criminals know that you own a gun and can use it, it's pretty useless. Well, as a FEAR deterent. It certainly can still kill.

My point in saying that guns have a sole purpose, to kill, is to remind people of the serious nature and responsiblity of ownership.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


Ah, but I already covered that in point one: using it as a pawn in a political game.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kenton1234
 


OH, we'll all sleep well. That story is a crescendo of stupid, and you can't legislate stupid.





new topics
top topics
 
83
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join