MSNBC Home
Newsvine Home
MSN Home
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
advertisement

Should guns made and sold in Montana for state residents be exempt from federal gun laws?

advertisement
Ready To Join?

Newsvine is msnbc.com's social-news community where you can discuss stories, publish your own column, and connect with other news lovers.

Ready To Join?

Results with 37 short comments
Total of 2,489 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments

77.9%
Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.
1,940 votes
18%
No. Allowing states to enact their own rules would undermine efforts to curb gun violence.
449 votes
3.3%
Maybe. If there was a way to keep the guns from crossing state lines, it would be fine.
83 votes
0.7%
I don't know.
17 votes
Display Comments:
No. Allowing states to enact their own rules would undermine efforts to curb gun violence.

What an outlandish idea.

{"commentId":6797994,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"mastaface"}
  • 2 votes
 - 8:18 pm EDT on Wed Apr 29, 2009
No. Allowing states to enact their own rules would undermine efforts to curb gun violence.

If they want federal protection afforded by the 2nd amendment of the constitution then they must also comply with federal regulations too.

{"commentId":6799376,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"td3k"}
  • 2 votes
 - td3k
 - 9:18 pm EDT on Wed Apr 29, 2009
No. Allowing states to enact their own rules would undermine efforts to curb gun violence.

No.

{"commentId":6799629,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"jason-abdon"}
  • 1 vote
 - 9:28 pm EDT on Wed Apr 29, 2009
No. Allowing states to enact their own rules would undermine efforts to curb gun violence.

this is so stupid it isnt even worth talking about - isnt it time to start being angry about something important is is that too much to ask

{"commentId":6800229,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"brad-6"}
  • 1 vote
 - 9:54 pm EDT on Wed Apr 29, 2009
No. Allowing states to enact their own rules would undermine efforts to curb gun violence.

Since the law seems to have no way to enforce the "intend to keep the gun in Montana" clause, it's a very poorly written law.

{"commentId":6800675,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"danielfkinch"}
  • 1 vote
 - 10:14 pm EDT on Wed Apr 29, 2009
Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

The States should have the right to control their fate
Some states feel they have the right to ban guns, In violation of the Constitution

{"commentId":6800750,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"floyd8143"}
  • 5 votes
 - 10:18 pm EDT on Wed Apr 29, 2009
Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

I think we have too much "federal" gun control already...I say it is a kick in the teeth to Obama...and I am 100% for it...GOD BLESS AMERIC

{"commentId":6800944,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"russdog"}
  • 5 votes
 - 10:26 pm EDT on Wed Apr 29, 2009
Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

It's time to tell Washington to shove it! They are going FAR beyond what the constitution allows on ALL fronts. States rights still exist

{"commentId":6801972,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"UltimateLibertarian"}
  • 5 votes
 - 11:14 pm EDT on Wed Apr 29, 2009
Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

If we don't stand up for our rights the Brady Campaign will whittle away at them until we have no rights left.

{"commentId":6802081,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"ray-5"}
     - RAR-MN
     - 11:19 pm EDT on Wed Apr 29, 2009
    Maybe. If there was a way to keep the guns from crossing state lines, it would be fine.

    if Montana can guarantee that these guns will stay in Montana and kill only residents of Montana, it's fine with me.

    {"commentId":6802159,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"raremare"}
    • 2 votes
     - 11:23 pm EDT on Wed Apr 29, 2009
    Maybe. If there was a way to keep the guns from crossing state lines, it would be fine.

    I agree - if they stay inside Montana. The minute they get trafficked to other areas of the country could mean trouble.

    {"commentId":6802345,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"nhguy78"}
    • 2 votes
     - nhguy78
     - 11:33 pm EDT on Wed Apr 29, 2009
    Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

    I live in Montana and we sure do not want Washington DC making our rules. They have no idea what life is like living in MT.

    {"commentId":6802896,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"billingsmt"}
    • 4 votes
     - 12:03 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
    Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

    It is about time we took some of our rights back from federal controls. The right to bear arms means freedom for all. Total support from me

    {"commentId":6803335,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"kevincarol1"}
    • 5 votes
     - 12:32 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
    Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectiv

    {"commentId":6804504,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"nfceagles"}
    • 5 votes
     - 2:19 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
    No. Allowing states to enact their own rules would undermine efforts to curb gun violence.

    Guns need to be controlled specifically because of people like these who think they can do what they please.

    {"commentId":6804864,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"bevumland"}
    • 2 votes
     - BGU
     - 3:16 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
    Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

    If states can make sticter gun controls, then states should be able to make more liberal gun controls.

    {"commentId":6805450,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"TCS57"}
    • 4 votes
     - 6:03 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
    Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

    I may move to Montana...

    {"commentId":6805544,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"jim-pourchot"}
    • 4 votes
     - 6:29 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
    Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

    States rights should almost always come first.

    {"commentId":6806129,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"grant-goss"}
    • 4 votes
     - 7:59 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
    Maybe. If there was a way to keep the guns from crossing state lines, it would be fine.

    Any activity contained within the borders of any state are that state's business.

    {"commentId":6806313,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"miner"}
    • 2 votes
     - Bill M
     - 8:17 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
    Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

    Gun laws apply to decent,law abiding citizens.The scum will always find a way to get a gun.

    {"commentId":6806324,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"phbeck"}
    • 4 votes
     - 8:18 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
    Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

    The less federal control the better. We have the right to keep and bear arms, if the federal govt won't protect it, the states must.

    {"commentId":6806716,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"azmont"}
       - AzMont
       - 8:50 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
      Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

      we have a bigger flu problem then gun violence problem. This is a made up boogy man.

      {"commentId":6807172,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"ottawahouse"}
      • 1 vote
       - Ottawa
       - 9:19 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
      Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

      Follow the constitution, as legally amended. simple, Simon.

      {"commentId":6808431,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"peacejoyandlove"}
      • 4 votes
       - 10:17 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
      Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

      What is not granted to the Federal Govt is reserved to the people and the several states.

      {"commentId":6808670,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"6derebel56"}
      • 1 vote
       - 10:26 am EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009
      Yes. State rights should take precedence in matters of gun control.

      If anybody understood the 10th amendment, they would see that Montana is completely within their rights to do this.

      {"commentId":6821260,"threadId":"566565","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"BrainFarts"}
      • 2 votes
       - 7:06 pm EDT on Thu Apr 30, 2009

      Newsvine Discussion with 106 comments - Click here to jump to the comment form.

      Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4
      {"commentId":6794553,"authorDomain":"jimham56"}

      The second admendment is clear and is designed to keep the people in power over the government. I like the Switzerland model better than US attempts at gun control. If everyone was trained in gun usage and given a rifle the country would be safer with less crime.

      {"commentId":6794553,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"jimham56"}
      • 2 votes
      Reply#1 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:15 PM EDT
      {"commentId":6795062,"authorDomain":"jimrousch"}

      If society punished those who engaged in child abuse and gave the victims free therapy, there'd be less crime.

      {"commentId":6795062,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"jimrousch"}
      • 1 vote
      #1.1 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:31 PM EDT
      {"commentId":6799965,"authorDomain":"mojosfun"}

      The second admendment gives the individual the right to own a gun as part of a militia. Every gun should be registered, every purchase should require training and a two week waiting period. The owner of the gun should be responsible for any crime committed with that gun and there should be a 100% tax on the gun. Gunshows should be totally controlled by the government.

      I worked as a Psychologist in a Jail and have interviewed 50 people within 36 hours of thier arrest for murder, all using hand guns. Guns do murder people because they allow the impulsivity to be lethal. Most were mortified of their crime.

      Actually every member of the NRA is partially responsible for every gun murder in America. Your membership cards are red with blood, your view of the Constitution is perverse and you deserve what ever violence comes your way.

      {"commentId":6799965,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"mojosfun"}
      • 5 votes
      #1.2 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:43 PM EDT
      {"commentId":6800570,"authorDomain":"floyd8143"}

      If in fact you did work in a jail, you should know of the rate of murders in that jail. The supposedly safest place in the world with complete control of every aspect of life.

      And STILL criminals kill each other and also manage to kill armed guards.

      Do you still not understand the psychology of the criminal who cares nothing for all your great psychobabble. In a place where crime should be impossible, murder happens, drugs are sold, people are raped. Get real and wake up.

      There are a considerable number of people in your same jail held on a charge of vehicular homicide , Do you have a plan to ban cars?? or didn't the car kill anyone ??

      {"commentId":6800570,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"floyd8143"}
      • 4 votes
      #1.3 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:10 PM EDT
      {"commentId":6801379,"authorDomain":"kf4vko"}

      Moe-bad,Floyd-good

      {"commentId":6801379,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"kf4vko"}
      • 2 votes
      #1.4 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:48 PM EDT
      {"commentId":6802534,"authorDomain":"mike-themikester"}

      There are a considerable number of people in your same jail held on a charge of vehicular homicide , Do you have a plan to ban cars?? or didn't the car kill anyone ??

      No, it's not necessary to ban cars. But you still need to register your car, and prove that you have the ability to drive it.

      {"commentId":6802534,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"mike-themikester"}
      • 2 votes
      #1.5 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:43 PM EDT
      {"commentId":6802710,"authorDomain":"ryjoe"}

      Wrong again...    Cars are registered so taxes, (Licenses) can be sold to maintain the roads along with gas, etc.   No such roads are associated with guns.   This arguement is so old,  it hardly rates a comment, but you must not be old enough to understand.

      {"commentId":6802710,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"ryjoe"}
      • 4 votes
      #1.6 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:52 PM EDT
      {"commentId":6803244,"authorDomain":"cmoore-21"}

      I kind of like the old AMERICAN way of training a child to use a firearm. Its called a GOOD father. Someone who has had kids and takes responsibility for their upbringing and actions!

      NRA members have blood on their membership cards huh? Wake up. I think that the LAWYERS of this country protecting guilty criminals have more blood on their hands than anyone. Their actions allow guilty people to go free to commit another crime another day! How about we constitute lawyer control, only so many can graduate from law school in a year. How about that?

      {"commentId":6803244,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"cmoore-21"}
      • 1 vote
      #1.7 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:26 AM EDT
      {"commentId":6844514,"authorDomain":"john-hale"}

      Amen Brother Jim, and Gun Control is Wrong.

      Moe, I hope no one steals your car and kills someone with it, That would be all YOUR fault and you should be prosecuted ... Shame on you for owning a car that can kill people and for being hypocritical of gun owners. I hope you pray for forgiveness for your evil thoughts. Please get a real degree in psychology, don't just work as a psychologist part time, this is an injustice to the criminals you are interviewing.

      {"commentId":6844514,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"john-hale"}
        #1.8 - Sat May 2, 2009 12:27 AM EDT
        {"commentId":7302165,"authorDomain":"jlon"}

        HEY MO!

        If guns kill people- do pencils miss spell words? IDIOT!

        Your field of study has cured no one and your results are inconclusive and lack any substance of normal thinking as determined by myself who has studied much more applied sciences and mathematics to the point that I can now make guns in my garage for my friends if I choose and build nuclear power plants!

        {"commentId":7302165,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"jlon"}
          #1.9 - Wed May 27, 2009 3:20 AM EDT
          Reply
          {"commentId":6794906,"authorDomain":"mmullins"}

          The federal government can't or won't enforce the laws they already have on the books. If they did, there would be a lot more convictions for violations of firearms laws. FBI statistics show that there thousands of "attempted" gun purchases through Brady/NICS checks yearly, yet they prosecute NO ONE for these violations. The information below was just taken from the NICS website and was quoted by their chief. "The NICS has ensured the timely transfer of firearms to individuals who are not prohibited under federal or state law, while denying transactions in more than 540,000 instances for convicted felons, fugitives from justice (the subjects of active warrants), and various others. The bold print I added to emphasize that they freely admit that they DENIED firearms to 540,000 individuals since 1998, yet not one of these persons COMMITTING a felony is ever prosecuted. If they only enforced this law, we would have many violent felons of the streets. common sense should prevail. Obviously, they only wish to politicize this issue and have no desire to really make a difference in violent crime.

          {"commentId":6794906,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"mmullins"}
            Reply#2 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:26 PM EDT
            {"commentId":6795032,"authorDomain":"jimrousch"}

            The State of Montana needs federal troops dispatched immediately, as the Civil War was decided 144 years ago.

            {"commentId":6795032,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"jimrousch"}
            • 3 votes
            Reply#3 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:30 PM EDT
            {"commentId":6802102,"authorDomain":"UltimateLibertarian"}

            Read the constitution and begin to understand what's at stake here. It's not just guns. It's our very rights and our state's rights that are GUARANTEED. You need to take some constitutional law classes to understand. Any local college can provide this education for you.

            {"commentId":6802102,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"UltimateLibertarian"}
            • 1 vote
            #3.1 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:20 PM EDT
            {"commentId":6802769,"authorDomain":"ryjoe"}

            Your point is??? The constitution says the Fed Government cannot send in Fed. Troops to the state, unless requested by the state. Read the Constitution. It'll tell you the Federal Government HAS NO RIGHTS that are not given to them by the state.

            {"commentId":6802769,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"ryjoe"}
            • 2 votes
            #3.2 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:55 PM EDT
            {"commentId":6804928,"authorDomain":"usairborne-1975"}

            The Montana National Guard, as it is with every state, is Part of the U.S. Army and as close to federal troops any state should have within their borders. Don't believe it our National Guard (Montana) is in Iraq right now under commend of the U.S. Army CENTCOM.

            {"commentId":6804928,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"usairborne-1975"}
            • 1 vote
            #3.3 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:28 AM EDT
            {"commentId":6817134,"authorDomain":"evanw-1"}

            Metal Guitarist, there are a number of countries in the world that share your view about the liberal use of federal troops to exert the political will of the larger government. North Korea, Cuba, China, Venezuela come to mind. Perhaps you would be more comfortable residing in one of them.

            The broader issue here isn't about guns. Before you blindly pontificate about what should be done in (or, more accurately TO) Montana in your socialist view, perhaps you should go there. Walk the streets, talk to people, eat a good steak. Understand the fiercely independent, practical and self-sufficient mindset that characterizes many Montanans before you start advocating oppression by federal troops.

            But hey, please don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your perspective. By all means, don't let the fact that Montana, despite the widespread ownership of firearms, was FORTY-THIRD in the violent crime statistics in 2006 (FBI annual report showing crimes per 100,000 people) force you to re-evaluate your position or silence your blustering. Go ahead and base your statements on your ignorance if you wish. After all, free speech is also a protected right.

            {"commentId":6817134,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"evanw-1"}
            • 1 vote
            #3.4 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:40 PM EDT
            {"commentId":6856418,"authorDomain":"john-hale"}

            Amen! Moon Valley

            {"commentId":6856418,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"john-hale"}
            • 1 vote
            #3.5 - Sat May 2, 2009 11:30 PM EDT
            Reply
            {"commentId":6795226,"authorDomain":"phillip-black"}

            Yes. States should have the right to pass laws and decide what's best for their citizenry within the boundaries of the state that do not violate other states-rights. However, I don't think Montana or any other state can have their cake and eat it to... State Soverenty has to be balanced with Federal benefits. As much as Montana has the right to determine what happens in Montana and snub the US Govt, the Federal Government has the right to choose whether or not federal dollars and benefits should continue to go to Montana...

            {"commentId":6795226,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"phillip-black"}
            • 1 vote
            Reply#4 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:36 PM EDT
            {"commentId":6795468,"authorDomain":"jimrousch"}

            Again, the Civil War has already been decided-the advocates of states rights lost.

            {"commentId":6795468,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"jimrousch"}
            • 1 vote
            #4.1 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:44 PM EDT
            {"commentId":6802156,"authorDomain":"UltimateLibertarian"}

            You made a good point Phil. The Federal government can keep their cash. Perhaps if all states would 'go off the dole' from the Feds, there would be lower taxes, less government control of our lives and fewer entitlements for the lazy, resulting in an improved productivity by those who continue to milk government for every cent they can be given.

            {"commentId":6802156,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"UltimateLibertarian"}
            • 1 vote
            #4.2 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:23 PM EDT
            Reply
            {"commentId":6795367,"authorDomain":"timgard-1"}

            The gun control really has nothing to do with most weapons, it's the assault weapons that are the major problem. Most can be turn into full automatic with not much effort. You can train people all you want with rifles or hand guns, but when you come up against someone that is driven or highly agitated with a fully automatic AK-47, your hand gun is no match. Hence, North Hollywood Feb. 28, 1997.

            {"commentId":6795367,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"timgard-1"}
            • 4 votes
            Reply#5 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:40 PM EDT
            {"commentId":6800372,"authorDomain":"hilander001"}

            What RIGHTS afforded by the Federal Government? These are rights given by GOD not the Government. The Constitution wes written to control government not the opposit. You people need to learn to read and UNDERSTAND the meaning of the words. Have fun Goose Stepping. By the way, I used to be a gunsmith. none of what you call assault rifles are easily converted to select fire.

            {"commentId":6800372,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"hilander001"}
              #5.1 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:00 PM EDT
              {"commentId":6803092,"authorDomain":"cmoore-21"}

              You watch too much hollywood movies. The problem isn't the gun its with the people who commit CRIMES! How about we support more harsh punishment in this country and maybe start Lawyer Control, we may get more accomplished than gun control.

              {"commentId":6803092,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"cmoore-21"}
                #5.2 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:16 AM EDT
                {"commentId":6807727,"authorDomain":"stevec-6"}

                I think if you knew the facts you would not be believing the media hype that is placed on "assault weapons". millitary look like weapons are used very rarely in crimes. Most are common weapons used by many time convicted career criminals. Keep the hardened criminals in prison and you will see gun crimes drop drastically.

                {"commentId":6807727,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"stevec-6"}
                  #5.3 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:47 AM EDT
                  Reply
                  {"commentId":6795446,"authorDomain":"rbrannon9"}

                  What's that? The 10th Amendment? Really? States have rights over the federal government?

                  From reading the constitution I think this might be what the founding fathers had in mind.

                  Ric

                  {"commentId":6795446,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"rbrannon9"}
                    Reply#6 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:43 PM EDT
                    {"commentId":6797049,"authorDomain":"carolyn62058"}

                    I hope that Montana, Alaska and Texas can assert their rights as states and triumph over the power hungry national government in Washington. I really do not care what the issue is--the whole idea of having states is to allow people who share common values to live together in peace.

                    States should be able to make such choices on social issues. If a state in the US were allowed to totally ban abortion, I would move there because I do not want to pay taxes to a state that used the funds to kill the innocent. If a state voted to require its citizens to train to use guns and to own them--I think I would make a conscious choice to move there--it would be safer and I need more practice.

                    If other states made the opposite choices -- that is okay with me so long as they did not infringe on my rights within my state.  That is how the Union was originally designed to operate by the founders. Read "The Debate on the Constitution--Part 1 & Part 2" copyrighted in 1993 by Literary Classics of the United States, NY, NY. The words of the founders are clear--I guess it is the eyes of the judges and US Senators and Congressmen that are not!

                    {"commentId":6797049,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"carolyn62058"}
                      Reply#7 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:40 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":6808054,"authorDomain":"mudman7"}

                      "Well Maam...That was very well said and I agree completely!"

                      {"commentId":6808054,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"mudman7"}
                        #7.1 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:02 AM EDT
                        Reply
                        {"commentId":6798128,"authorDomain":"AlexBard"}

                        Yes, well, the Confederacy tried that with slavery...another social problem, asserting states rights...and lost. Where do states rights stop? In Switzerland, there were fewer than ten handgun deaths last year. There were 15,000 such deaths in this country, 5,000 involving children, and why? Because this country is addicted to the gun culture and the cowboy mystique. There are more people killed by their own own guns than bad guys killed by those who buy them for protection, and virtually every child killed is killed by a gun found in their own homes or in the home of a neighbor or relative. Madness! If you don't believe me, look it up...some place other than the NRA website.

                        {"commentId":6798128,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"AlexBard"}
                          Reply#8 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:24 PM EDT
                          {"commentId":6800646,"authorDomain":"floyd8143"}

                          IN Switzerland, EVERY ONE is armed. Mostly with a REAL Assult weapon.

                          {"commentId":6800646,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"floyd8143"}
                            #8.1 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:13 PM EDT
                            {"commentId":6803035,"authorDomain":"cmoore-21"}

                            Wake up the real problem to kids dying is parents who shouldn't be parents. The gun is just a tool, nothing more. The parents of the kids that are responsible need to be held ACOUNTABLE for their actions. That is the problem with our society today, no ACCOUNTABILITY!

                            {"commentId":6803035,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"cmoore-21"}
                              #8.2 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:12 AM EDT
                              {"commentId":6803100,"authorDomain":"bob--ddy"}

                              Your response is out of touch with what is really happening in Switzerland, not surprising.

                              Men that are part of the Switzerland Militia are given weapons as part of their training and are required to retain these weapons at the residence. When on duty they carry their weapons from their homes to the duty stations. ALL weapons are registered, have a long waiting period and require training.

                              While gun deaths are low, Switzerland is still putting stronger regulations on guns and ammunition.

                              {"commentId":6803100,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"bob--ddy"}
                                #8.3 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:16 AM EDT
                                {"commentId":7036436,"authorDomain":"DaveGoin"}

                                If you call 16-21 year old gang banging crack dealers children. That figure is made up by outfits like the Brady bunch to put fear into ignorant people. And the one about more people killed by their own guns than protected is even more laughable. If you actually extrapolated these ridiculous statistics there should really be no one left alive. I learned to hunt when I was five, as did everyone I know. Other than the odd one killing themselves on purpose I don't know any one who died by their own gun. If they are too stupid to handle them correctly then perhaps that is just Darwin at work. If you don't like guns then go live in a state full of liberals.

                                {"commentId":7036436,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"DaveGoin"}
                                  #8.4 - Tue May 12, 2009 4:11 PM EDT
                                  Reply
                                  {"commentId":6800512,"authorDomain":"rockne1865"}

                                  I believe that the second amendment gives all Americans the unassailable right to keep and carry arms.

                                  That means No city, No state, No fed laws regulating arms.

                                  We now have laws that put people in jail longer for having a gun, then for unlawfully using one.

                                  {"commentId":6800512,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"rockne1865"}
                                    Reply#9 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:07 PM EDT
                                    {"commentId":6803239,"authorDomain":"bob--ddy"}

                                    So how do you define arms? It really can be defined to mean almost any type of weapon (hand grenades, RPG's, land mines, bombs....). I really have a hard time understanding why hand guns and automatic weapons are so sacred to the gun lobby, if they truly wanted to make sure all people have the right to "Keep & Carry" arms then they should be going after the really big stuff. The bottom line is that the gun industry is making huge dollars off the sale of hand guns and automatic weapons. It's all about money... and for the folks that are concerned about their liberties being taken away, you all better check what happened over the last 8 years, you have all been a sleep at the switch.

                                    {"commentId":6803239,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"bob--ddy"}
                                      #9.1 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:26 AM EDT
                                      {"commentId":7036979,"authorDomain":"DaveGoin"}

                                      A cannon in the front room is a bit of a nuisance and quick target acquisition is very difficult. Seems like someone trots out this asinine old canard every time the subject comes up.

                                      It comes down to people who know nothing about guns and obviously less about freedom,(real Freedom, Liberty, not freedom from responsibility), who are very uncomfortable around honest, independant people who don't need or want government "help" and as such don't feel the need to be controlled or that the government. These rights are derived from our creator not some magistrate. It vis government that needs to be kept on a leash. Guns are very good business these days, especially since the election of the Messiah.

                                      {"commentId":7036979,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"DaveGoin"}
                                        #9.2 - Tue May 12, 2009 4:29 PM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        {"commentId":6801003,"authorDomain":"usairborne-1975"}

                                        We are not as populated here in Montana as where some of these commentators are from. In some areas the nearest Police Department is 90 minutes away. If you have a bad guy in your house that's a longtime to wait for help.

                                        {"commentId":6801003,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"usairborne-1975"}
                                          Reply#10 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:29 PM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          {"commentId":6801278,"authorDomain":"rjtgreenbay"}

                                          Some people (lingard0 really know nothing about guns. The term "assault weapon" was coined by the people that pushed the ineffective and obsolete Clinton Gun Ban to make inroads on gun control by scaring the soccer mom voting bloc. These so called assault weapons are not easily converted into full auto, they are less powerful than any deer hunting weapon and alot less accurate. Just because a rifle has a certain "look" to it or a certain name or color to it, doesn't make it any more dangerous, or restricted either by our 2nd amendment.

                                          {"commentId":6801278,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"rjtgreenbay"}
                                            Reply#11 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:42 PM EDT
                                            {"commentId":6801410,"authorDomain":"oilfield"}

                                            It is way past due for the states to stand up against the know-it-all federal government.

                                            {"commentId":6801410,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"oilfield"}
                                              Reply#12 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:49 PM EDT
                                              {"commentId":6801762,"authorDomain":"gary-levon"}

                                              Maybe what is going on here is that the people of Montana are pointing out that the Federal Govt. and ALL OF THE PEOPLE working for it work for the people of The United States of America, not the other way around. Maybe it is a silly way of pointing out the facts of life to the people who "run" our country but it is a idea whose time has come. I support any American expressing opinon in a lawful manner, what is presently going on at all levels of "our govt" is enough to make any thinking person sick.

                                              {"commentId":6801762,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"gary-levon"}
                                                Reply#13 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:05 PM EDT
                                                {"commentId":6802117,"authorDomain":"michael-51"}

                                                Making guns illegal would do no good.  Meth is illegal and criminals still obtain it.  You take the guns away from upstanding citizens, and you leave an unarmed country.  I received a college scholarship for what, Rifle Competition.  Proper training at an early age and proper handling and storage of a gun is the responsibility of every owner. 

                                                As for states rights and the Civil War rhetoric.  The civil war was about states rights, and suceding from the union.  The states have the right to dictate their own laws.  Just like Federal imposed speed limits, if a state wants highway money from the Feds, then they must comply with federal limits, same with schools, drugs, medicine, etc...  If Montana can stand on it's own.  Which I believe it and any other state can, economically, then they have the right to dictate their own legislation, with the knowledge that the Feds will no longer subsidize them. 

                                                Since FDR and the 1930's the Fed has held this carrot out in front of the states, making the states lose their soverenty, and follow federal guidelines.  Meanwhile our Federal taxes are throught the roof, so that these states receiving the money, can pay back the special interest that got the officials elected in the first place. 

                                                Montana is just the first of many, who are going to finally stand up to the Feds as over 40 of the states are currently bailing out corporations in a few others. 

                                                {"commentId":6802117,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"michael-51"}
                                                  Reply#14 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:21 PM EDT
                                                  {"commentId":6802810,"authorDomain":"guitarken"}

                                                  States are not "sovereign" states. States are provinces of the United States of America, where we have federal laws and a supreme court to clarify them when necessary. There is no King of Montana - there is no President of Texas. Anyone in Montana who is qualified has rights to own guns - one or many. What federal government does is to regulate their flow and use. If Montana declared that murder and rape are legal, that stealing other's properties is the law of nature and therefor, the law of Montana..if shooting anyone on-sight who is not from Montana, not white or not english speaking, were written into law in this "sovereign" state, some people most likely would move there, I imagine. Fine, just lock the gate on the way in.

                                                  {"commentId":6802810,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"guitarken"}
                                                    Reply#15 - Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:57 PM EDT
                                                    {"commentId":7037352,"authorDomain":"DaveGoin"}

                                                    Unbelievable! Enacting law to defend a state's residents constitutionally guaranteed rights against socialist encroachment upon those rights suddenly spins off into legalizing murder and mayhem.

                                                    These things have happened and do happen today in the wonderful world of North Korea, Cuba, China et al. All good socialist states with very fine gun control laws. I doubt that would ever happen here but what is easy to see is how Europe is menaced by radicals, and thugs and their populace is helpless. In England is is against the law to protect yourselve with your fists if the poor criminal gets hurt. If liberals are such cowards as to not want to defend themselves then fine but don't make the rest of us crawl as well.

                                                    {"commentId":7037352,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"DaveGoin"}
                                                      #15.1 - Tue May 12, 2009 4:43 PM EDT
                                                      {"commentId":7290239,"authorDomain":"wolfy1"}

                                                      You can't "make" rape and murder legal. You can only "make" them illegal. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to own a gun, it says the government can't pass a law to take away a right that already existed before our country was established.

                                                      Where it is legal to carry a weapon crime goes down. Over 1 million times a year the use or threat of use of a gun protects innocent people from becoming victims of thugs that don't pay attention to the law.

                                                      {"commentId":7290239,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"wolfy1"}
                                                        #15.2 - Tue May 26, 2009 4:26 PM EDT
                                                        Reply
                                                        {"commentId":6802884,"authorDomain":"cmoore-21"}

                                                        The root cause of gun violence isn't the gun. It is the people who use the gun to commit "violence". Whether they use a gun, knife, club, hammer, ect. it still is V-I-O-L-E-N-C-E. Wake up people! To fix violence you have to start at the root cause of the problem, the people. If the people of this country are not struggling with problems such as, not having a job, not having money, then there is no need for violence. How about we applaude Montana for helping Montana by helping American businesses, who will employ American workers. I bet the people who make those guns in Montana won't cause any crimes. Why don't we try to do more to keep the good paying jobs here instead of sending to China! If you take a mans job away from him then he has to do whatever it takes to support his family.

                                                        {"commentId":6802884,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"cmoore-21"}
                                                          Reply#16 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:02 AM EDT
                                                          {"commentId":6803103,"authorDomain":"ryjoe"}

                                                          Go to the web site below. Find out what True Patriots are doing in NH. They drew the line in the sand with the Fed Gov't, and about 27 other states are in the process of following that lead. In short; it tells the Fed Gov't not to dictate to the state. The State dictates to the Fed. Gov't. They work for the "We The People" not the other way around. I'm from PA, and I'll back Montana all the way with their point of view. "We the People", are the well armed Militia the constitution speaks of, and the true reason the U.S. has never been invaded. Even the Japanese War Minister, said "we have awaken a sleeping giant", and he knew they had lost the war as soon as Pearl Harbor was bombed. He knew they couldn't invade the US as most of the citizens were armed, and knew how to use them. I taught my grandson how to use his first Deer Rifle, Marlin 30-30, that I bought for him. He is good, and the only time he'd use it against anyone, is for self defense, and I feel this is true for all responsible hunters. Montana: Hold the high ground.

                                                          {"commentId":6803103,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"ryjoe"}
                                                            Reply#17 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:16 AM EDT
                                                            {"commentId":6803108,"authorDomain":"cmoore-21"}

                                                            Wait a minute I want to start a new movement, LAWYER CONTROL. That would save more lives than anything. Lets get rid of the scum bags that protect the people who commit crimes against society!

                                                            {"commentId":6803108,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"cmoore-21"}
                                                              Reply#18 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:17 AM EDT
                                                              {"commentId":6803964,"authorDomain":"weedseed1"}

                                                              just remember history, hitler used the gun registry to track all the guns down in germany, poland, and france. And the great Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Japanese Navy of ww2 said You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. lets keep it that way.

                                                              {"commentId":6803964,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"weedseed1"}
                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              Reply#19 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:23 AM EDT
                                                              {"commentId":6804280,"authorDomain":"garedee"}

                                                              Absolutely! The more gun control we have, the more "control" the government has, period. It seems some just can't get enough regulation and control by the federal government. Some who favor such control should wake up and smell the coffee -- while we still can!

                                                              {"commentId":6804280,"threadId":"566609","contentId":"2751812","authorDomain":"garedee"}
                                                                Reply#20 - Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:53 AM EDT
                                                                Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 4
                                                                {"canLink":false,"threadId":"566609","isPrivate":false}
                                                                Leave a Comment:
                                                                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.