Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law, page 9
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 83 times


reply posted on 8-5-2009 @ 10:06 PM by SpacePunk
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.


reply posted on 8-5-2009 @ 10:35 PM by Doc Velocity
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]


reply posted on 8-5-2009 @ 11:46 PM by derfreebie
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"


reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 01:24 AM by Montana
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]


reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 01:30 AM by bluewaterservant
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!


reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 01:42 PM by severdsoul
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.


reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 05:40 PM by Question
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.



reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 06:42 PM by Question
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.


reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 08:17 PM by Jadette
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.


reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 08:21 PM by Jadette
reply to post by Montana



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


reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 09:05 PM by SpacePunk
reply to post by kenton1234



OH, we'll all sleep well. That story is a crescendo of stupid, and you can't legislate stupid.
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^