Montana & Arizona

[jbs2014]

As an outsider who is looking at USA or DSA(devided states of america) I find this disturbing. You call people who dont agree with your views as enemys?
Be carefull how you talk about others since it will shape others view not only about them, but also obout you.

"Be carefull how you talk about others since it will shape others view not only about them, but also obout you."

No I don't think I will.

This thread is about the Montana and Arizona Senate races. Try to keep on topic

 

[jbs2014]

Well, the new Montana governor is from New Jersey. I cannot see how this is going to expand firearms freedom and grow reasonably priced hunting, land access and public land access.

You'll need to shoot a mile to hit that elk on a square of public land that you can't access. Then rent a helicopter to go get it. That would be fine for Greg....think about that!

....and yes, Bullock was an ***!

You bring up a good point. I have not seen any peer-reviewed studies to verify this, but it is my suspicion that hunters and firearms owners gave Gianforte the win, or helped significantly. So that said we need to make sure that our voices are heard regarding hunting, public land access, and firearms freedom in Montana. Keep the governor honest and stay involved in Montana politics to the extent that you can.

And I also concur with your final point, Bullock is a subhuman pile of filth.

 

[Hugnot]

Well, the new Montana governor is from New Jersey. I cannot see how this is going to expand firearms freedom and grow reasonably priced hunting, land access and public land access.

You'll need to shoot a mile to hit that elk on a square of public land that you can't access. Then rent a helicopter to go get it. That would be fine for Greg....think about that!

....and yes, Bullock was an ***!

Going back far enough, we are all from places else where or far away, whether it be New Jersey or some distant foreign land; an exception would be Native Americans. I can see how Governor Gianforte would expand our gun rights by resisting condemnation of various types of fire arms as being "not needed for hunting deers". I believe Governor Gianforte would not veto legislation to allow constitutional carry within Montana by law abiding citizens and this would include all laws and regulations pertaining to firearms. I can see Governor Gianforte resisting Chuck S & Nancy P, both anti gun rights politicians, in any decision, under the governor's prerogative, that would be made at the state level such as appointing a senator or congressional representative.

I believe any assertion that Governor Gianforte would arbitrarily limit access to hunting lands is false and only provided to recruit resistance to prevent his successful election to the governor's office. I can see Governor Gianforte protecting individual and/or taxpayer's property rights. I can see Governor Gianforte encouraging cooperation between hunters/fishers and Montana Parks & Wildlife to enlarge land access within Montana.

Governor Gianforte is a graduate of Stevens Institute of Technology, EE degree and MS, first rate school; Governor Gianforte has has a successful business record in Montana. These are positive attributes not grounds for condemnation as being some outsider.

 

[david g ranes]

Isn't their ability to do so a result of the constitution? We allow people to accomplish this by giving them the right to vote. By giving them the right to vote, we give them the right to make new laws and change old laws. We even give them the ability to change the constitution. Was this the intended purpose of our forefathers or a simple oversight? If this was the intended purpose then are they really our enemy? Are they really the enemy of freedom loving people or are they just a different faction of freedom loving people exercising their constitutional rights to support their beliefs?

I find it disturbing that our neighbors are called the enemy because they don't think the same we do or vote the way we want them to. Maybe its because my family and friends range from the most liberal to the most conservative and I would defend every one of them with my life. I guess I was just raised wrong.

What are you going to defend them with a kitchen fork and a butter knife. David

 

[JimFromTN]

What are you going to defend them with a kitchen fork and a butter knife. David

Are you suggesting we toss out the constitution or does the constitution only apply to some people?

 

[jbs2014]

Mark Kelley just avoids any mention of his motives to make semi auto rifles go away. He claims to be independent of party. We know better.

Depending on how the elections go for the state legislature, Arizona may want to start getting involved with the "Second Ammendment Sancuary County" movement.

It would be a shame if AZ ended up like Virginia.

 

[david g ranes]

The constitution has been here longer than any of us has been alive no it shouldn't be gotten rid of and it definitely shouldn't be changed to suit a bunch over paid idiots that think they are better than every body else especially when they can't manage their own lives without drugs booze rings in their nose and think they are a good role model for our children they get rid of the radicals it would be a piece full world and no one would need shot or get shot. David

 

[Hugnot]

Isn't their ability to do so a result of the constitution? We allow people to accomplish this by giving them the right to vote. By giving them the right to vote, we give them the right to make new laws and change old laws. We even give them the ability to change the constitution. Was this the intended purpose of our forefathers or a simple oversight? If this was the intended purpose then are they really our enemy? Are they really the enemy of freedom loving people or are they just a different faction of freedom loving people exercising their constitutional rights to support their beliefs?

I find it disturbing that our neighbors are called the enemy because they don't think the same we do or vote the way we want them to. Maybe its because my family and friends range from the most liberal to the most conservative and I would defend every one of them with my life. I guess I was just raised wrong.

Hey Jim:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

This is the oath of office that I was required to recite upon acceptance to the U.S. Navy as a commissioned officer. Observe - against all enemies, foreign and domestic - this would include those violating first & second amendments.

I view the continual effort by social media to arbitrarily block & restrict opposing viewpoints as a violation of the 1st amendment. I also view the continual efforts of anti-gun politicians to nibble away or infringe on gun rights as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I view both groups as enemies of the Constitution of the United States and the oath that I took still stands. Plain & simple - I believe changes to the Constitution would require a constitutional convention with ratification of 2/3's of congress & 3/4 of states - not endless nibbling and social engineering to deny rights without due process.

Vote Republican.

Edit: I also believe I have an obligation to conform to long standing and tested common sense regulations pertaining to firearm and component storage safety and to report violations of such to maintain public safety whether it be in my Montana neighborhood or some distant location. Like don't encourage the anti gun people by doing stupid stuff - the anti's seem to thrive on "let no crisis go to waste".

 

[JimFromTN]

The constitution has been here longer than any of us has been alive no it shouldn't be gotten rid of and it definitely shouldn't be changed to suit a bunch over paid idiots that think they are better than every body else especially when they can't manage their own lives without drugs booze rings in their nose and think they are a good role model for our children they get rid of the radicals it would be a piece full world and no one would need shot or get shot. David

Then I guess it is well within their constitutional rights to do what they are doing and they are just as freedom loving as you. The difference is in the freedoms that each side values. As for radicals, they exist on both sides and if they were all gotten rid of, it would be a peaceful world. America was great when both sides worked together.

 

[david g ranes]

Then I guess it is well within their constitutional rights to do what they are doing and they are just as freedom loving as you. The difference is in the freedoms that each side values. As for radicals, they exist on both sides and if they were all gotten rid of, it would be a peaceful world. America was great when both sides worked together.

That's true but when you have people that have enough power to legalize heroin and meth how do you get rid of them I'm not ruining society with my opinion but they sure are and they are a waste of oxygen but that's what the world has become the good lord needs to start over maybe it would be better next time. David

 

[JimFromTN]

Hey Jim:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

This is the oath of office that I was required to recite upon acceptance to the U.S. Navy as a commissioned officer. Observe - against all enemies, foreign and domestic - this would include those violating first & second amendments.

I view the continual effort by social media to arbitrarily block & restrict opposing viewpoints as a violation of the 1st amendment. I also view the continual efforts of anti-gun politicians to nibble away or infringe on gun rights as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I view both groups as enemies of the Constitution of the United States and the oath that I took still stands. Plain & simple - I believe changes to the Constitution would require a a constitutional convention with ratification of 2/3's of congress & 3/4 of states - not endless nibbling and social engineering.

Vote Republican.

Edit: I also believe I have an obligation to conform to long standing and tested common sense regulations pertaining to firearm and component storage safety.

Social media is privately owned and therefore the 1st amendment does not apply. This website does not allow you to say whatever you want because its their right. Also, there are plenty of as far right as you want to go social media outlets that people can express their opinions on. If you don't like facebook or twitter, create a right wing facebook and twitter. There isn't anything preventing it.

As for gun rights being nibbled away, no new gun laws have been passed in the last 25 years with the exception of the ban on bump stocks which was bipartisan and supported by the NRA. Background checks was also supported by the republicans and the NRA. The problem with the 2nd amendment is that its too generic. It didn't prevent the restrictions on fully automatic weapons or the ban on the manufacture and importation of automatic weapons signed by Reagan. If the 2nd amendment is about the citizenry being able to overthrow the government then we should be allowed to own grenade launchers and miniguns. The politicians of today are no different than Reagan and Bush signing gun control legislation.

The only people talking about ratifying the constitution are conservatives. They want to get rid of the 17th amendment.

The people who you mentioned as your enemies are well within their constitutional rights whether we like it or not.

The fact that you don't want them to be able exercise those constitutional rights means you failed your oath in that you won't defend the constitution for them.

 

[JimFromTN]

That's true but when you have people that have enough power to legalize heroin and meth how do you get rid of them I'm not ruining society with my opinion but they sure are and they are a waste of oxygen but that's what the world has become the good lord needs to start over maybe it would be better next time. David

You have to vote them out. Thats the constitution.

 

[Hugnot]

Social media is privately owned and therefore the 1st amendment does not apply. This website does not allow you to say whatever you want because its their right. Also, there are plenty of as far right as you want to go social media outlets that people can express their opinions on. If you don't like facebook or twitter, create a right wing facebook and twitter. There isn't anything preventing it.

As for gun rights being nibbled away, no new gun laws have been passed in the last 25 years with the exception of the ban on bump stocks which was bipartisan and supported by the NRA. Background checks was also supported by the republicans and the NRA. The problem with the 2nd amendment is that its too generic. It didn't prevent the restrictions on fully automatic weapons or the ban on the manufacture and importation of automatic weapons signed by Reagan. If the 2nd amendment is about the citizenry being able to overthrow the government then we should be allowed to own grenade launchers and miniguns. The politicians of today are no different than Reagan and Bush signing gun control legislation.

The only people talking about ratifying the constitution are conservatives. They want to get rid of the 17th amendment.

The people who you mentioned as your enemies are well within their constitutional rights whether we like it or not.

The fact that you don't want them to be able exercise those constitutional rights means you failed your oath in that you won't defend the constitution for them.

Hey Jim:

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. P

www.whitehouse.gov

This would include Twitter & Facebook and even this worthy forum. Things are changing - private but publishing items for public viewing sort of like a newspaper. Any body may sign into a private social media and read it. Should the media stuff be entirely private require a membership & pass word to allow viewing.

As for nibbling away on gun rights - take a look at California with magazine restrictions that have been overruled by court order -2nd amendment? Is the California AG going to nibble away at that decision. Then there is Massachusetts, a gradual strangling of gun rights including bans on AR rifles, shotguns having pistol grips and magazines holding more than a certain amount of cartridges. Want to own a fully automatic weapon, just have a background check and pay a huge amount of tax $ except for certain states that ban machine guns. Violate the law and be punished like jail, fines, & loss of gun rights. Flint locks or AR15's - both contemporary weapons found in households to be used by "well regulated militias".

It seems that the liberal politicians want to ignore any requirement for constitutional ratification - like just do it.

17th Amendment - it would retain the conservative Montana Senator Daines should the Montana legislature go Democrat and conversely retain the self professed Montana value, but liberal, Jon Tester as senator under a Republican state legislature. This gives the people of the state the right to elect their senator. I don't see much conservative opposition to the 17th amendment - it would block conservative & moderate senate candidates from running for office in rabidly liberal states like California - like why bother. Things change, like fortunately in Montana where the libs were tossed out. The 17th Amendment puts more power to people and diminishes the "nobility" status of the U.S. Senate.

Who me - violating my oath of office? I don't have any authority to prevent any body from speaking or voting their choice but when they act without authority to deny my rights, they are violating my rights - an example would be the Missoula city council decision to ban private transfers inside city boundaries that was over ruled by the Republican AG then the Montana Supreme Court. When I did have authority to perform my responsibilities, I was extremely cautious to be in compliance with existing regulations and not to violate any person's rights - not lurch into some feel good stuff.

 

[david g ranes]

You have to vote them out. Thats the constitution.

You can't vote them out when their leftest ways are being pushed out of our schools or they would teach history the way it happened not the way the socialist the way they are teaching hitler took the guns England took the guns every country that has allowed it to happen has turned into what the American society is falling for when you have a few states that control the vote you are going with their beliefs whether you want to or not David