Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law

My cousin who lives there just visited family here. He was telling me about this a few weeks ago

I wish WV would do the same.

Ok, so again I will state that I wholeheartedly distrust our federal government and I do not see them letting this stand - through the courts or otherwise.

If I'm not mistaken, the bill said that all firearms manufactured in Montana would have a Montana stamp on it. What is to stop the feds from making their own little secret weapons shop, (with all the money they stole from us) and making firearms with a Montana stamp on it? They could then distribute such weapons all across the nation, putting them in the hands of gangs, drug dealers and even sending them to Mexico, making sure people are killed with them. Then they could turn around and arm the victims with all kinds of lawyers that sue that crap out of Montana.

Don't get me wrong, I am ALL for this law and I wish all states would follow suit. However, I don't see the government letting this happen - one way or the other.

Could there be any safeguards put in place to ensure such a scenario doesn't happen?

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Johnny_Sokko]

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Johnny_Sokko]

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Johnny_Sokko]

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Johnny_Sokko]

reply to post by Johnny_Sokko


I'm sorry, but I mistakenly used Tennessee instead of Montana and tried twice to edit. However, the edits are not being accepted for some reason. The edits show up in the preview but not the final post. Don't know why.



Trying to edit this post for confirmation. (Disregard this line)
Editing problem solved.


[edit on 6-5-2009 by Johnny_Sokko]

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Johnny_Sokko]

Originally posted by CepheidVariable
OK, I'll go ahead & be the pariah of this thread... OK I'm a city kid who simply does not understand this cultural imperative & reverence of gun-ownership. Now, I'm not interested in taking away anyone's rights to own guns (AT ALL) but I just don't understand the fixation.. it seems like an adolescent hold-over that some people never grow out of. I guess most people (not all) who are REALLY INTO THEIR GUNS are living in a local culture that as a whole, never grows out of it either, so it's easier to maintain the collective fixation?

Personally I see guns as nothing more than a tool.. essentially a tool that makes killing things a lot easier.. or the threat of killing easier & so therefor a good defensive/intimidation tool (I'm discounting hunting weapons, as that seems to be a minority of the type of guns most people love to own).. but frankly those who need it to truly defend themselves tend to live in a city & most city dwellers don't really care about guns.

The whole idea that having guns is somehow going to scare the government from 'coming to get you' is a cultural vestige & frankly seems silly.. the days of David Koresch-style take downs is SO last century.. if they want to take you down (like seriously NWO style take-down) they will just point a red laser-dot on your roof & you go bye-bye.. people don't need to be involved anymore, other than the people who remotely control the unmanned drones..

I know this will seem elitist esp. to this crowd, but again, it just comes across to me that this is an adolescent fixation with things that go 'POP!' & gives the illusion of power to those who wield said 'power'.. & on a more archetypal, subconscious level, it seems like something that is meant to make other people think you have a bigger penis.. there, I said it. (I'm SORRY!) Same as the what makes the jerk on the road blow past another driver even though he is not in any real hurry, & innumerable other similar acts & 'trophies' of juiced-up manhood.

Basically, again, I just don't get it.

I should say, I live in St Louis, very high on the dangerous-crime list nationally.. & I love to party downtown until the late hours & luckily NEVER been mugged or even intimidated. But again, most city-dwellers (not all) aren't really 'into' guns. Seems like more a rural phenomenon, where hold-ups & muggings don't tend to be that common.

That being said, I have NO PROBLEM with you having your guns, & talking about your guns, & showing off your guns, & posing with your guns, et al.

To me it's just an alien culture that holds no appeal to me.. though I'm totally interested in hearing a real explanation as to why gun ownership is so important. Again, considering that your gun collection will most likely not even slightly intimidate a truly military force that may, for whatever reason, want to 'take you down'.

Frankly I just find it fascinating, similar to the fascination I feel for other cultures that baffle me. Except this one is in my own backyard!

I'll speak from personal experience;

I'm not a rabid gun owner, nor am I fixated on my guns. We are responsible gun owners who happen to hunt for our winter meat. We have always kept guns. I lived in a large metropolis at one time, where the crime rate was pretty high. I never felt the need to have a gun to protect myself or make a statement against the government. I enjoy hunting, was raised on it. Some folks go to the store to buy their meat, we go hunt for ours.

I also want my constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Also, I'm in control of my guns. Are the police in control of theirs? Wasn't so long ago an officer at a bart train station lost control and shot a handcuffed kid. I tend to find there are more law enforcement out of control with their guns, than your average gun owner. JMHO

It gets so tiresome to hear people say I don't need my gun. I could probably get by without it but I don't want to.

YEAH! I've heard about this in Utah but it hasn't been televised or covered by the media as much as I think it should.

More power to the governor of Montana.Let's see if the feds let this fly.

reply to post by XTexan
You are correct,refer to the 10th ammendent. Any power not GRANTED by the PEOPLE to the fed is automaticaly reserved by the states.

With so much negativity floating around, this should be seized by everyone as a beacon. Forward this to your friends, forward it to your family, shove it down your politicians throats , write your local paper...

join the stance on the side of freedom and help guide others toward freedom. Time is of the essence.

b

reply to post by David9176


I hear ya. I am over in the Grand Rapids area and the majority of us are all for gun control (that is, using both hands).



But really, I hope I don't have to move, which is looking more and more like a possibility with the economy around here and the freedoms being secured in other states. GO MONTANA!

Now, to find out what kind of real estate market and home prices they have...

reply to post by Asherah


Sorry. Replied to wrong person.

Deleted and replaced with corrected direction of reply.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by obilesk]

[edit on 7-5-2009 by obilesk]

Goose Stepping Anti-Fox Fascists - Wake Up

I can't help but feel that an overt bias against a particular source of news is an effort to get people not to look at it. It's like the good old boy lawyer who says "Don't go paying no attention to any of that there evidence that boy is trying to show you, he's just the town idiot." Well, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the evidence or news that the powers that be do not want me to look at are exactly the sources which need to be considered. Goose stepping to the party line has never been for me.

Everything is available for anyone who chooses to look. For those who without medication are pathologically averse to anything reported by Fox News, you can generally get the same information from the Congressional Record or a multitude of other sources. The only problem is that it will generally not be fed to you on a spoon with your morning cup of talking points from the mainstream media.

It does seem very odd that if something is reported by Fox News there seems to be some segment of the population who immediately will put their hands over their ears, close their eyes, and start going LA LA LA LA LA - I can't hear you - LA LA LA LA LA... It's actually very bazaar behavior from people who otherwise would claim to want as much information as possible in order to draw some conclusion to what the truth may be.

Just in case you didn't figure it out yet... The bought and paid for corporate mainstream media are nothing more than a lobbying group for the New World Order. The only difference is that the mainstream media lobbies the public while other lobbyists lobby Congress - and any alternative media that does not subscribe to the Fascist talking points, or person who dares to present other information or a different opinion, will be attacked.

The funny thing is that the majority of people who do most of the attacking invariably fancy themselves as "Free Thinkers" when in fact they take their marching orders from the media elite as if they were uneducated hypnotized zombies.

I'm sorry if it comes as a shock to some of you, it should come more as an embarrassment, like waking up in a field with none of your clothes. But goose stepping in line with the mainstream media and parroting the talking points of the party in power hardly makes you any type of a rebel. If you were a German in 1939 you would be wearing a brown shirt and saluting the Fuhrer. You are completely owned, operated, and spoon fed your beliefs, all while being told you are a free thinker.

The truth really is that "Politically Incorrect" is the most politically correct show on television and the ultimate irony for the little prince's and princess's
who wake up one day to find they have no clothes, just like the king, is that the network they have been bashing so long, Fox News, is the actual politically incorrect source... Pssss - Here's a secret way to figure this out... If the President, both houses of Congress, and 98% of all media say one thing, and Fox News points out something different that the others don't want you to know about, but nevertheless proves to be true, guess who the alternative media is.

Believe it or not Fox News is the actual counterpoint and you're nothing but a goose stepping clone spitting the party line. Coasting through life with blinders on thinking that you can see, waiting for your feed bag every morning from the mainstream powers that be, and if you're a good little clone regurgitating what you've been told by MSNBC maybe a pat on the head from the master - or to quote a line from the movie "Babe"... That'll do Pig, That'll do.

Originally posted by obilesk
reply to post by Asherah

 

First off, you say you are a kid. Your opinions are not surprising considering the time in which you are growing up. I will give you that.

Where did I say I'm a kid? Sometimes I wish I were still a kid. lol

Now, let me try to explain to you some things and I hope you read carefully. First, I live in a city just like you do. And there are plenty of people in this city that enjoy the recreational use of guns, the personal protection they offer to the responsible, and the right to threaten a tyrannical government bent on oppressing its people for ideologies incongruous with the principles upon which this country was founded. So please, drop the "rural thing" perception. That just makes you sound uninformed. Which you may be, and that is OK. You're young and we all have to learn as we grow.

I certainly don't know it all yet.

I believe you have misunderstood me. I never said gun ownership should be specific to rural living.

reply to post by Johnny_Sokko


Deleted post as it is no longer applicable.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by obilesk]

reply to post by Asherah


I apologize. Sometimes Mountain Dew at 1 in the morning isn't helpful. I meant my post to be directed to CepheidVariable, who you were replying to. Again, sorry. I will delete and repost as a reply to him/her. lol

reply to post by CepheidVariable


First off, you say you are a kid. Your opinions are not surprising considering the time in which you are growing up. I will give you that.

Now, let me try to explain to you some things and I hope you read carefully. First, I live in a city just like you do. And there are plenty of people in this city that enjoy the recreational use of guns, the personal protection they offer to the responsible, and the right to threaten a tyrannical government bent on oppressing its people for ideologies incongruous with the principles upon which this country was founded. So please, drop the "rural thing" perception. That just makes you sound uninformed. Which you may be, and that is OK. You're young and we all have to learn as we grow. I certainly don't know it all yet.


First, what is a nation? A nation is a bordered area of land and sometimes continental shelf that is claimed under locally and internationally recognized bodies of persons that claim to represent or control the populous of said area. It has a defined economy, common defense, borders, and agreed-upon name or title. This is a basic and broad definition, but it should suffice.

Now, what is a government? Loosely defined, a government is a body of people that have the force of military might at their disposal. Essentially, a government has a monopoly on violence. This is to ensure peace through threat of violence. This has always been and likely always will be the fundamental definition of a governing body, or at least the one attribute that makes it viable. If this is questionable to you, just think: If some guy told you to give him your money and threatened you verbally, and you turned around and saw him blindfolded, his arms and legs tied up and he was hopping toward you in an attempt to threaten you, you, like anyone else, would not give him anything. Some might ask why the heck he is tied up, but for sake of example, no money would be forthcoming from your hand. Now lets say he hopped up behind you and said the same thing, only this time he is accompanied by a few individuals holding guns to your head. I am sure the blindfold and ropes would not matter, and he would get your money, one way or another. Like that man, government is powerless without the force of violence on its side. If all our military from the brass on down to the grunt, and our local and state police and Guard were to turn on the politicians in D.C. and tell them they can't keep governing they way they currently do, there is no way the politicians could stop it.

So, to sum it up, a government must have a recourse of force or it would be what we call a paper tiger (all growl, no bite). It would be nonviable and unable to function, as no one would have any incentive to comply with their laws. Now, how does this tie into our right to bear arms? Well, if we - that is, the citizens of this country - are the government, whom are entrusted with the right to vote on who would represent our opinions and ideals within the central government, then this is a government by the people, for the people and of the people. If we are the government, we have the right to remove our representatives when they no longer serve our interests, either by vote, by protest, by lawsuit, or, if all else fails, by force. Weapons that can kill from a distance, like a gun, are a last hope of a free people against a governing body that oppresses them and the Constitution it swore to protect.

I agree there are people that like to show off and there are irresponsible people that abuse others' rights and deserve to have their own rights limited. After all, with great freedom comes great responsibility, but to quote George Washington:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ..."

Finally is good to see some news that doesn't make me angry at the government. Hopefully we can keep the momentum and get this passed in Utah as well. I am so sick and tired of people in Washington acting like they know whats best me for, they need to but out and mind their own business.

Suppose Montana also refuses to bear the consequences of the a possible scenario of people actually buying unregulated Montanan weaponry to use and sell outside of Montana?

Remember that they also have the privilege of no border checks and freedom of movement.

Suppose instead of Montana, it were Mexico, and instead of "gun", it were "heroin".

Well, living in California, you know the state where the Miss USA contestant says she does not believe in homos getting married (which btw represents the majority of Californians) and they rake her over the coals for "not" representing the homos, I can only start looking at places like Montana to move to!

The government opened up a can of worms, and they're going to get a real good taste of them.

Are there homos in Montana?

Don't be surprised if some nutjob just happens to go on a shooting rampage in Montana.

I wouldn't put it past TPTB to try and pull off a stunt like that in order to gather support for their cause.

They may already have done this in Australia when they banned guns:
home.overflow.net.au...

Let me start out by saying that I have no problem with people owning guns for recreation, hunting, or personal protection. I do, however, get nervous when trends start to emerge that point to people arming themselves for political reasons.

I see people on this site that really believe that Obama and the democratic party want to 'take their guns' for nefarious reasons. The fact of the matter is that gun control laws are designed to prevent the mindless violence that plagues so many American cities. Whether or not they work is certainly debatable.

I personally believe that there are better ways to prevent violence. Whether it's guns, booze, or alcohol prohibition instead of sensible regulation only seems to exacerbate the problem.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that people should try not to get caught up in this perceived romanticism of armed revolt. There are much more effective ways of bringing about revolution.

Anywho, kudos to Montana for taking a stand for what they believe in.