U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-15-2009, 02:16 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,929,906 times
Reputation: 967

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
Context is everything. Those words were written over 200 years ago. The threat of invasion by Great Britain is rather lessened these days.
there are many many reasons the founding fathers placed our first and second amendments where they are. There are many different reasons for them being there, one of them is to overthrow a government that stops working on behalf of the people, call it the ultimate check in our system of checks and balances. Other reasons for our second amendment are simple, and extremely easy to understand. Protection is most defiantly one of them, not only from our own government, but from criminal elements that wish us harm.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2009, 05:32 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,629 posts, read 26,686,574 times
Reputation: 11373
Good-bye Montana.

Don't expect to be able to travel to other states without a passport; don't expect any services from the US.
You and your militia training centers are on your own.

Last edited by chielgirl; 03-15-2009 at 05:49 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2009, 05:46 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
10,755 posts, read 33,679,315 times
Reputation: 6916
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
Good-bye Montana.

Don't expect to be able to travel to other states without a passport; don't expect any services from the US.
You're and your militia training centers are on your own.
LOL, good points but honestly does anyone out there think the US would allow Montana to leave the Union??

Lets be serious.

We all know how Montana loves the FBI, they would be out there like flies on you know what and take over the state until more suitable people to govern could be found.

Montana, get over yourselves.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2009, 06:47 AM
 
Location: NorthTexas
634 posts, read 1,472,293 times
Reputation: 327
Talking very well said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren View Post
LOL, good points but honestly does anyone out there think the US would allow Montana to leave the Union??

Lets be serious.

We all know how Montana loves the FBI, they would be out there like flies on you know what and take over the state until more suitable people to govern could be found.

Montana, get over yourselves.
I thought Texas was too full of themselves (which of course it is). But this is nonsense.

Montana-get over yourself! I think you are dreaming if you think that if you think that heavily arming every man woman and child that somehow you are safer; you are not.

Freedom cannot be taken from anyone, it can only be given up. When you commit crimes you risk your freedom, you give it up. I do not think that allowing citizens to stockpile automatic weapons in their homes is what the second amendment is all about. I think that would be more like preparing and or provoking war, and that is NOT covered by the second amendment.

Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2009, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Way on the outskirts of LA LA land.
3,043 posts, read 11,009,013 times
Reputation: 1959
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllenArlingtonPark View Post
Freedom cannot be taken from anyone, it can only be given up. When you commit crimes you risk your freedom, you give it up. I do not think that allowing citizens to stockpile automatic weapons in their homes is what the second amendment is all about. I think that would be more like preparing and or provoking war, and that is NOT covered by the second amendment.

Who said anything about stockpiling automatic weapons?

The basis of the issue is the desire of many in Montana to maintain their firearms (and other) freedoms. There are many others in the nation that feel the same way as those in Montana. If the U.S. nullifies the 2nd Amendment, there will be a lot of people in the nation calling for secession, not just in Montana.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
On another note: Will someone please direct me to a source that verifies that the government is going to strip everyone of their guns?
As for the "government" wanting to take away firearms from American citizens, one has to look at who is leading that government. This is our current President's agenda regarding firearms:

Quote:
Originally Posted by whitehouse.gov
Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Here is where it can be found:
Urban Policy

While all of this sounds innocent enough, each point is a nail in the coffin of the 2nd Amendment. The Tiahrt Amendment protects gun owner's privacy. Here is more information on it:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=208 (broken link)

If you think about it, "commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals" is just another way of saying they are going to restrict gun ownership and sales. History has proven that.

"They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent." What purpose would this serve? The ban during the Clinton years did nothing to reduce crime with "assault weapons." It's hard to reduce something that is essentially non-existent. The foundation of the 2nd Amendment was to provide for citizens to possess weapons in common use at the time. This was to allow the citizens to join together to form a Militia to protect the nation from invasion and tyranny. How would the citizens of the nation do so without the ability to arm themselves with the weapons in common use (by the armies of the world)?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2009, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,629 posts, read 26,686,574 times
Reputation: 11373
Again, goodbye Montana, don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2009, 07:31 AM
 
Location: Southern Maryland
144 posts, read 383,282 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
Again, goodbye Montana, don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Do you ever have anything constructive to say?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2009, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,629 posts, read 26,686,574 times
Reputation: 11373
Only when called for.
How about you?

If it wants to go, let it go.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2009, 07:41 AM
 
11,944 posts, read 13,859,364 times
Reputation: 2772
I'm thinking if montana is such a strong supporter of the constitution, ready to pledge their lives and fortunes upon it, it's best they start standing up for gays, who also insist the constitution be followed. Oh yes, and women, who don't need to be harrassed about the difficult choices they have to make. There's that too.

Or maybe montana really wants to pick and choose what they abide/ impose on others to suit themselves out of convenience and to hell with the 'just a piece of paper' standing in their way. Funny, I didn't hear y'all up in arms when the man you put in office used that language, and suddenly the toilet paper he was wiping his butt with is precious? Quit lying. You're fooling no one but yourselves.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2009, 07:55 AM
 
4,455 posts, read 3,908,768 times
Reputation: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarthMother1951 View Post
HELENA—Secretary of State Brad Johnson joined the many other Montanans who have weighed in on the DC v. Heller case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. A letter to the editor from Johnson appeared in today’s Washington Times, urging the court to protect an individual’s right to bear arms.

“This is an important issue for Montanans,” Johnson said. “Many of Montana’s elected officials spoke out on this issue; I am proud to be among them.”

The letter can be found at this link.

Johnson’s letter argued that Montana’s agreement with the United States to enter the union included Montana’s constitution at the time, which guaranteed the right of “any person” to bear arms. He urged the Supreme Court to uphold an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, rather than a collective interpretation, as best in keeping with Montana’s Compact with the United States.

Many other elected officials around Montana have concurred in a statement of the same argument, in a bipartisan effort to defend Montanans’ individual right to keep and bear arms. The list of officials, as well as their resolution, can be found at: http://www.progunleaders.org.




Letter from the above link:

Second Amendment an individual right

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday).

The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.

Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.

BRAD JOHNSON

Montana secretary of state

Helena, Mont.


http://sos.mt.gov/News/archives/2008/February/2-19-08.htm

I might have to consider moving to Montana ESPECIALLY since this was the state that told Washington to *&%^ off with the REAL ID.

Montana people congrats you have leaders in power who have a spine.


You know Washington D.C. is stepping over it's bounds when you have states threatening to withdraw from the Union. If they do I will move there the next day. That's a promise.
Can't see it happening. They have a DEM Governor and the state of Montana though did not go blue this last cycle it came pretty close.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top