Montana Threatens to Secceed

[Johnny 5]

This is not some nutjob either . . . this is the Montana Secretary of State, the Senators and Congressmen.


Link (http://www.progunleaders.org/)

:eek:

Other states have shown interest in secceeding within the last ten years are Alaska, Texas, South Carolina, Hawaii, and Vermont. Only Montana and Vermont have passed resolutions and bills approving of the move.

Wow

[NastySlot]

Originally posted by Johnny 5
This is not some nutjob either . . . this is the Montana Secretary of State, the Senators and Congressmen.


Link (http://www.progunleaders.org/)

:eek:

Other states have shown interest in secceeding within the last ten years are Alaska, Texas, South Carolina, Hawaii, and Vermont. Only Montana and Vermont have passed resolutions and bills approving of the move.

Wow

to quote a line from my all time favorite movie...Tombstone....Curley Bill to Wyatt....."Well......Bye."

[bwdlionfan]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56914

[Phil C]

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!

:mad:

[DU_stud04]

Originally posted by Johnny 5
http://www.mysmartart.com/images/Johnny_5.jpg

[Adidas410s]

and that would add another country to the list of places that America has to bail out of debt...

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Phil C
IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!

:mad: They are not outlawing guns in montana or any other state. It is legal to won a gun in every state . If you agree that there is a limit to the 2nd amendment then it is just a question of where to draw the line. Idiots who think they need an assault weapon or radical guns have to understand that the 2nd amentment is still in effect even though you cant own an AK47.

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by Phil C
IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!

:mad:

What does that mean Phil?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by injuredinmelee
What does that mean Phil? Think about it. If you own a gun and guns are outlawed and you still keep your gun, you become an outlaw.:thinking:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Idiots who think they need an assault weapon or radical guns have to understand that the 2nd amentment is still in effect even though you cant own an AK47. I actually agree with you for the most part on this. My only question is who decides what is or is not an assault weapon?

[crzyjournalist03]

I don't see anywhwere where Montana is looking to seceed...that was an ammendment added after the civil war...I understand what they're saying about breach of contract, but who's going to take that case? Geez...I say we nuke Montana and be done with it if that's really how they feel.

[State_In_08]

Um... bye?

[Phil C]

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!

:mad:

What that means is that law abiding citizens will turn their guns in and will not have any guns. But criminals won't turn their sin so they will be the ones with guns.

[thewyliefan]

because everyone knows if there were more guns there would be less shootings!!!!!

[Phil C]

Originally posted by thewyliefan
because everyone knows if there were more guns there would be less shootings!!!!!

But it would be the outlaws (criminals) that would be doing most of the shooting if not all. The right to keep guns is guaranteed by the Constitution.

[BobcatBenny]

Looks like there is a possibility that I may be moving to Montana.

Remember the Alamo!

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I actually agree with you for the most part on this. My only question is who decides what is or is not an assault weapon?

There are probably a very few that would fall in a gray area, but for the most part it is pretty dang easy to distinguish an assalt rifle from a hunting rifle. Assault rifles sole purpose is to put as much lead in the air as fast as possible to do as much bodily harm as fast as possible. They are intended for military actions only, and private citizens have no business owning them imo.
Having said that, I have shot a few assault rifles before, and they are a lot of fun to shoot. I'm not opposed to some very stringent and special permitting that would allow collectors to own them.
Problem is, there are already thousands of them out there that are undocumented and unaccounted for.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by STANG RED
There are probably a very few that would fall in a gray area, but for the most part it is pretty dang easy to distinguish an assalt rifle from a hunting rifle. Assault rifles sole purpose is to put as much lead in the air as fast as possible to do as much bodily harm as fast as possible. They are intended for military actions only, and private citizens have no business owning them imo.
Having said that, I have shot a few assault rifles before, and they are a lot of fun to shoot. I'm not opposed to some very stringent and special permitting that would allow collectors to own them.
Problem is, there are already thousands of them out there that are undocumented and unaccounted for.

Very true.

[Johnny 5]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
I don't see anywhwere where Montana is looking to seceed...that was an ammendment added after the civil war...I understand what they're saying about breach of contract, but who's going to take that case? Geez...I say we nuke Montana and be done with it if that's really how they feel.

WHEREAS, when the Court determines in Heller whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the Court will establish precedent that will affect the State of Montana and the political rights of the citizens of Montana;

WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, a contract known as The Compact With The United States (Compact), found today as Article I of the Montana Constitution;

WHEREAS, with authority from Congress acting as agent for the several states, President Benjamin Harrison approved the Montana Constitution in 1889, which secured the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract;

WHEREAS, the wording of the Second Amendment and the Montana right to bear arms, now Article II, Section 12, exist today in form and wording identical to that agreed upon by the citizens of Montana and the United States in 1889 and unchanged since then; and

WHEREAS, a contract, compact or treaty must be implemented consistent with the terms and understandings in place at the time entered into.on

[BobcatBenny]

I just placed my order for an AK47 and an AR15.

You panzies will find out how much it sucks to be the unarmed individual under a government that is attempting to disarm its populous.

The British are coming! The British are coming!

[jason]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
.I say we nuke Montana and be done with it if that's really how they feel. we should use that technique on some other places...just nuke'em or leave so they can blow themselves up until there are none left....

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I actually agree with you for the most part on this. My only question is who decides what is or is not an assault weapon? a weapon that was designed to Kill people or any weapon designed to fire full auto. Hand guns being an exception. Background checks are needed so idiots who should not own a gun cant get one. I think its stupid to blindly say they have the right to bear arms and then resent the gov for infringing on the right. I think Hunting rifles are fine.. If you agree that someone should not be able to legaly own a howitzer or a missile of some sort you agree a line should be drawn. then it just becomes a question of where to draw the line at that point.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
a weapon that was designed to Kill people or any weapon designed to fire full auto. Hand guns being an exception. Background checks are needed so idiots who should not own a gun cant get one. I think its stupid to blindly say they have the right to bear arms and then resent the gov for infringing on the right. I think Hunting rifles are fine.. If you agree that someone should not be able to legaly own a howitzer or a missile of some sort you agree a line should be drawn. then it just becomes a question of where to draw the line at that point.


But I use my howitzer for deer hunting

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
But I use my howitzer for deer hunting http://library.thinkquest.org/22588/howitzer.jpg LIKE THIS ONE:eek: . Believe it or not . People who advocate or who do not think there is a limit or that the second amendment should not keep them from owning ANY kind of armament believe it should be legal to own this kind of thing. Can you imagine some crackpot going off and shelling down town Sweetwater??:thinking: On second thought maybe just in Nolan county.:p Naw really though. If the second amendment didnt have a limit then you could own ANY kind of Armament legaly.
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/honest_john_02.jpg

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
http://library.thinkquest.org/22588/howitzer.jpg LIKE THIS ONE:eek: . Believe it or not . People who advocate or who do not think there is a limit or that the second amendment should not keep them from owning ANY kind of armament believe it should be legal to own this kind of thing. Can you imagine some crackpot going off and shelling down town Sweetwater??:thinking: On second thought maybe just in Nolan county.:p Naw really though. If the second amendment didnt have a limit then you could own ANY kind of Armament legaly.
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/archives/missiles/honest_john_02.jpg

It would take the Sweetwater/Snyder Rivalry to a NEW level

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
It would take the Sweetwater/Snyder Rivalry to a NEW level So are you pro or con?;)

[jason]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
It would take the Sweetwater/Snyder Rivalry to a NEW level yeah, but somehow sweetwater would screw up again and snyder would win...again.....

[icu812]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
a weapon that was designed to Kill people or any weapon designed to fire full auto

The whole point of owning a firearm is protection and I'm not worried about deer breaking into my home at night. What if the first Americans were only armed with hand guns and single shot riffles while the Government (Brittish) had machine guns and assault riffles?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by icu812
The whole point of owning a firearm is protection and I'm not worried about deer breaking into my home at night. What if the first Americans were only armed with hand guns and single shot riffles while the Government (Brittish) had machine guns and assault riffles? Well, if that were the case at least I'd have a friggin' clue as to what people with British accents are actually saying.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by icu812
The whole point of owning a firearm is protection and I'm not worried about deer breaking into my home at night. What if the first Americans were only armed with hand guns and single shot riffles while the Government (Brittish) had machine guns and assault riffles?


The First Americans did not have a standing Army to protect them

[BobcatBenny]

Not that Montana really has a welfare problem, but if they secede their welfare problem disapears along with their panzy problem. :D

[icu812]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
The First Americans did not have a standing Army to protect them

Yes they did they were called the Brittish.

[BobcatBenny]

I wonder if Britain, France, and Germany will immediately acknowledge and accept Montana's sovereignty?

Just like Kosovo.

And I wonder if the panzies they leave behind will get upset at Britain, France and Germany?

:thinking:

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
a weapon that was designed to Kill people or any weapon designed to fire full auto. Hand guns being an exception. Background checks are needed so idiots who should not own a gun cant get one. I think its stupid to blindly say they have the right to bear arms and then resent the gov for infringing on the right. I think Hunting rifles are fine.. If you agree that someone should not be able to legaly own a howitzer or a missile of some sort you agree a line should be drawn. then it just becomes a question of where to draw the line at that point.

At one time not too long agao, you could legally own a fully automatic rifle, all you had to do was buy a yearly license from the feds for about a grand.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by icu812
The whole point of owning a firearm is protection and I'm not worried about deer breaking into my home at night. What if the first Americans were only armed with hand guns and single shot riffles while the Government (Brittish) had machine guns and assault riffles?

I don't understand your logic here. The government does indeed have machine guns and assault rifles, while we as citizens are prohibited from owning at least machine guns and in many cases assault rifles. Am I missing something?

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
I wonder if Britain, France, and Germany will immediately acknowledge and accept Montana's sovereignty?

Just like Kosovo.

And I wonder if the panzies they leave behind will get upset at Britain, France and Germany?

:thinking:

Benny, Help me out here. What is a panzy?

[ronwx5x]

By the way, Great Britain, France, and Germany all have very stringent gun control.

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
What is a panzy?
http://thumb12.webshots.net/s/thumb3/3/93/33/39339333OvpQGG_th.jpg

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
By the way, Great Britain, France, and Germany all have very stringent gun control.
. . . And the citizens of Montana will not have gun control and be an instant nuclear power.

My point was I wonder if Montana would be held to a higher standard than Kosovo. Would our government and citizens like that?

To inform you what a panzy is, I think I will have to credit Clint Eastwood, before I get in trouble like Barack.

It goes something like this . . . Benny! You shot those unarmed men!

Well, they should have armed themselves before they tried to decorate their porch with my firearms! :D

[icu812]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I don't understand your logic here. The government does indeed have machine guns and assault rifles, while we as citizens are prohibited from owning at least machine guns and in many cases assault rifles. Am I missing something?

Yes we're rip for the picking :)

The point I'm trying to make is during the revolution both the citizens and their government (ie the Brittish) had similar weapons. If they would have only allowed the citizens to arm themselves with knives or bows & arrows there might not be a USA. I was trying to put it in modern terms by using hand guns/riffles vs. automatic weapons.

[Johnny 5]

Originally posted by icu812
Yes we're rip for the picking :)

The point I'm trying to make is during the revolution both the citizens and their government (ie the Brittish) had similar weapons. If they would have only allowed the citizens to arm themselves with knives or bows & arrows there might not be a USA. I was trying to put it in modern terms by using hand guns/riffles vs. automatic weapons.

How am I supposed to defend against a tank with my pistol?

[JR2004]

Originally posted by Johnny 5
How am I supposed to defend against a tank with my pistol?

Very carefully.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
http://thumb12.webshots.net/s/thumb3/3/93/33/39339333OvpQGG_th.jpg

No, that's a pansy.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by icu812
Yes we're rip for the picking :)

The point I'm trying to make is during the revolution both the citizens and their government (ie the Brittish) had similar weapons. If they would have only allowed the citizens to arm themselves with knives or bows & arrows there might not be a USA. I was trying to put it in modern terms by using hand guns/riffles vs. automatic weapons.

So are you advocating armed rebellion against our elected government?

By the way, the colonial "militia" had hardly any arms larger than a flintlock while the British had many, many cannons as well as state of the art equipment for their troops, yet the militia eventually won out.

[icu812]

Originally posted by Johnny 5
How am I supposed to defend against a tank with my pistol?

Um....you can't and that is exactly my point. Again, what I said in a previous post was: What if the first Americans were only armed with hand guns and single shot riffles while the Government (Brittish) had machine guns and assault riffles?

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." — Declaration of Independence

The point is well armed citizens are needed to ensure our freedom. That is the point of owning weapons (along with personal safety & hunting to a lessor extent).

[Johnny 5]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
So are you advocating armed rebellion against our elected government?

By the way, the colonial "militia" had hardly any arms larger than a flintlock while the British had many, many cannons as well as state of the art equipment for their troops, yet the militia eventually won out.

It is our duty to do as such, if it is warrented

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
No, that's a pansy.
This should explain.

http://www.thehatchreport.com/commentary/panzer-vs-panzie-vs-pansy.html

Yes, the colonials did not have cannon initially, but they soon did. Even developed a Navy.

No one here is calling for insurrection, apparently Montana is willing to legally secede from a corrupt government.

But somehow I would think that the Federal government would assert it's perceived right of existence as a union over the state's right to secede . . . and bring armed violence against an otherwise law abiding state. That is a historical precedence. :thinking:

[icu812]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
So are you advocating armed rebellion against our elected government?

By the way, the colonial "militia" had hardly any arms larger than a flintlock while the British had many, many cannons as well as state of the art equipment for their troops, yet the militia eventually won out.

Of course not. I'm just making a point by going a little "over the top". I just don't believe in dissarming the public.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
This should explain.

http://www.thehatchreport.com/commentary/panzer-vs-panzie-vs-pansy.html

Yes, the colonials did not have cannon initially, but they soon did. Even developed a Navy.

No one here is calling for insurrection, apparently Montana is willing to legally secede from a corrupt government.

But somehow I would think that the Federal government would assert it's perceived right of existence as a union over the state's right to secede . . . and bring armed violence against an otherwise law abiding state. That is a historical precedence. :thinking:

What law abiding state would that be? Our constitution does not allow for secession, and historical precedence would show that to be something worth fighting for.

The colonials obtained cannon by taking them from the British. Good for them.

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
What law abiding state would that be? Our constitution does not allow for secession, and historical precedence would show that to be something worth fighting for.

The colonials obtained cannon by taking them from the British. Good for them.
Well, apparently the states rights vs. federal rights disagreement was not completely settled.

I have never taken Montana history, but I do know that Texas is legally allowed to secede from the union.

Maybe that was just round 1 of disagreement?

It still could be proven that Lincoln's position on the power of the Constitution was wrong. :thinking:

[old warrior]

Originally posted by crzyjournalist03
Geez...I say we nuke Montana and be done with it if that's really how they feel.

hey knucklehead, where do you think all of our nukes are?
if montana and north dakota were a seperate country they would be the 4th largest nuclear power in the world

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
They are not outlawing guns in montana or any other state. It is legal to won a gun in every state . If you agree that there is a limit to the 2nd amendment then it is just a question of where to draw the line. Idiots who think they need an assault weapon or radical guns have to understand that the 2nd amentment is still in effect even though you cant own an AK47. B_M....let me just start by saying...no offense, you seem like a decent guy....BUT...you seem to be GROSSLY uneducated in this realm. 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms...PERIOD. It was instituted w/ the intent of giving the people the power to defend themselves from all enemies both foreign and domestic...more specifically...to give the people the power to overthrow a corrupt gov. NOW...w/ that being said...I own assault rifles for no other reason than that I like to shoot them, its a hobby...outfitting them, etc. the whole "mine is cooler than yours" gig at the range....and thats it. BUT...you have to understand where the government stands on the "evil" assault rifles. It is NOT illegal to own an AK47 as you say, nor an AR15/M16 or the likes there of. The catch is whether it is fully auto or not. That would make it a class 3 weapon which requires MUCH paperwork, documentation, gov. red tape, etc....but still....it is not illegal to OWN one if you go through the proper channels and processes. The assault weapons ban...another perfect example...did not OUTLAW the weapons...it basically restricted the mag capacity, and use of flash suppressors and bayonet lugs...and thats it. Guns fitted w/ these options were called "pre-ban" weapons as they were built before the ban and still in circulation. But still..you could OWN one w/ all the goodies....they were just twice the price of a "post ban" or one built after the ban was put in place....SO...what did the assault weapons ban really accomplish? Nothing other than making certain weapons more expensive....if you want my take on that the gov. was in bed w/ the weapons manufacturers, but thats just my own conspiracy theory. Anyway...I guess my point is don't weigh in on something that you A: are obviously not educated on enough to give an "as a matter of fact" argument i.e. you lack facts and knowledge in your argument....and ..B: you are one of those people who fear what you don't understand and obviously wouldn't care if there were some sort of new "weapons ban"......some of us DO care...very much. So..don't tread into matters you don't understand or care about.

Fear the government that wants to take your guns....I for one am weary of a gov. that wants to disarm their citizens...makes me wonder what their intentions are after the disarming and the people have lost the ability to resist tyranny if it ever came to that fork in the road...it has once before...and its why we exist as America and Americans today.

Now that I've ranted....have a nice day everyone :)

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by icu812
Of course not. I'm just making a point by going a little "over the top". I just don't believe in dissarming the public.

And you would be right. People get confused over the fact that the bill of rights are all individual rights well after the revolutionary war was over. In fact many states would not ratify it at all until those rights, all individual rights were garaunteed. They did not want their government to do what the british tried to do, disarm the public.
The framers intended that the citizen would bear arms and in fact was expected to in case the need arose as it did in 1812 to fight an armed invasion or to stop a corrupt government. It was intended that the citizen would be reasonably well versed in firearms of the type the average soldier would carry in the field. Flintlocks, hatchets, bows, arrows, swords and spears were still in use. Today it would equate to assault rifles, pistols, hand grenades, bayonets, and other weapons carried in the field by the average soldier. It would not include cannon, missiles, etc although a bazooka or laws rocket could be argued since it could be carried by a single soldier.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Well, apparently the states rights vs. federal rights disagreement was not completely settled.

I have never taken Montana history, but I do know that Texas is legally allowed to secede from the union.

Maybe that was just round 1 of disagreement?

It still could be proven that Lincoln's position on the power of the Constitution was wrong. :thinking:

I do believe you are incorrect about Texas. The state reserved the right to be split into four states, however to my knowledge there was no provision allowing for secession. Prove me wrong and I will apologize.

As far as Lincoln's position being incorrect, most likely the only way to ever prove that would be another armed insurrection. Sure hope that does not come about!!!

By the way, this is fun!

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I do believe you are incorrect about Texas. The state reserved the right to be split into four states, however to my knowledge there was no provision allowing for secession. Prove me wrong and I will apologize.

As far as Lincoln's position being incorrect, most likely the only way to ever prove that would be another armed insurrection. Sure hope that does not come about!!!

By the way, this is fun!
Yes it is. Give me a minute on the right of secession so that you you can appologize.

And Geroge W. set an interesting precedent by upholding Kosovo's right to secede.

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I do believe you are incorrect about Texas. The state reserved the right to be split into four states, however to my knowledge there was no provision allowing for secession. Prove me wrong and I will apologize.

As far as Lincoln's position being incorrect, most likely the only way to ever prove that would be another armed insurrection. Sure hope that does not come about!!!

By the way, this is fun!
Well, it was taught to me in 7th grade Texas History that Texas entered the Union by treaty and because of this maintains the right to secede. Which does not make it law, but this was also public school; the text book stated such and was approved by governing bodies.

And there are some that argue that Texas entered the Union on "equal footing" with other states, but time and time again Texas' unique standing as entering the Union by treaty has been proven.

Here is a link that I believe confirms that Texas did not enter as a state on "equal footing" to all the other states.

Texas Tidelands Controversy (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/TT/mgt2.html)

Here is what I believe to be the most interesting citation.

It was the new theory that federal "paramount rights" may be exercised to take oil and other property without ownership and without compensation that excited fears that the rule might be applied equally to lands beneath inland waters of all the states and eventually to private property. However, until after the presidential election of 1948, there was still hope that Texas's special title retained under the Annexation Agreement would be recognized by federal officials and that this state would not be sued. On the day he argued the California case, March 13, 1947, United States Attorney General Tom C. Clark handed to the press a statement saying that a decision in that case would not apply to Texas; that "as a Republic it owned all of the lands within its boundaries, including the marginal sea commonly called tidelands. This area was under the sovereignty of Texas during the Republic and was retained by it under the provisions of the Act of Admission." During the presidential campaign, President Truman said in Austin on September 20, 1948: "Texas is in a class by itself; it entered the Union by Treaty." Even former Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes, a champion of the fight against state ownership, said in a national television address, on October 14, 1948: "Parenthetically, Texas may have the legal right to its tidelands, because it came into the Union voluntarily and as an independent country."

Now as Texas History is undergoing revisionism by the ill informed and those that wish it to be not true is disseminated, Texas in fact does maintain a right to secede from the Union.

As of today Wikipedia which is not authoritative by any means at least has it correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas

On 29 December 1845, Texas was admitted to the U.S. as a constituent state of the Union. Texas was the only state to enter the United States by treaty instead of territorial annexation.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
Well, it was taught to me in 7th grade Texas History that Texas entered the Union by treaty and because of this maintains the right to secede. Which does not make it law, but this was also public school; the text book stated such and was approved by governing bodies.

And there are some that argue that Texas entered the Union on "equal footing" with other states, but time and time again Texas' unique standing as entering the Union by treaty has been proven.

Here is a link that I believe confirms that Texas did not enter as a state on "equal footing" to all the other states.

Texas Tidelands Controversy (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/TT/mgt2.html)

Here is what I believe to be the most interesting citation.

It was the new theory that federal "paramount rights" may be exercised to take oil and other property without ownership and without compensation that excited fears that the rule might be applied equally to lands beneath inland waters of all the states and eventually to private property. However, until after the presidential election of 1948, there was still hope that Texas's special title retained under the Annexation Agreement would be recognized by federal officials and that this state would not be sued. On the day he argued the California case, March 13, 1947, United States Attorney General Tom C. Clark handed to the press a statement saying that a decision in that case would not apply to Texas; that "as a Republic it owned all of the lands within its boundaries, including the marginal sea commonly called tidelands. This area was under the sovereignty of Texas during the Republic and was retained by it under the provisions of the Act of Admission." During the presidential campaign, President Truman said in Austin on September 20, 1948: "Texas is in a class by itself; it entered the Union by Treaty." Even former Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes, a champion of the fight against state ownership, said in a national television address, on October 14, 1948: "Parenthetically, Texas may have the legal right to its tidelands, because it came into the Union voluntarily and as an independent country."

Now as Texas History is undergoing revisionism by the ill informed and those that wish it to be not true is disseminated, Texas in fact does maintain a right to secede from the Union.

As of today Wikipedia which is not authoritative by any means at least has it correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas

On 29 December 1845, Texas was admitted to the U.S. as a constituent state of the Union. Texas was the only state to enter the United States by treaty instead of territorial annexation.

Here are a couple of links, one pro states rights, one neutral. Both state that Texas does not have an explicit right to seceede. One indicates an "implicit" right, but both agree that it was not part of the annexation agreement nor part of the Texas constitution. Also, neither leans toward Texas having entered the Union by treaty, rather by an act of Congress.

I was sort of right about the four states, it is actually four "other" states, indicating a total of five.

Sorry Benny, no apology yet.

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.asp Pro states rights

http://tafkac.org/politics/texas_secession_rights.html Neutral on states rights

[Johnny 5]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Here are a couple of links, one pro states rights, one neutral. Both state that Texas does not have an explicit right to seceede. One indicates an "implicit" right, but both agree that it was not part of the annexation agreement nor part of the Texas constitution. Also, neither leans toward Texas having entered the Union by treaty, rather by an act of Congress.

I was sort of right about the four states, it is actually four "other" states, indicating a total of five.

Sorry Benny, no apology yet.

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.asp Pro states rights

http://tafkac.org/politics/texas_secession_rights.html Neutral on states rights

I beg to differ.

Link (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543)

[Johnny 5]

From another site:


I can make a case for secession based on the 10th amendment. You know, the amendment that got tossed out the window in the ’30s, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution does not forbid the states to secede, nor does it empower Congress to wage war upon a state that secedes. Therefore, the 10th amendment implicitly authorizes states to secede.

The president does have power to suppress insurrections, but when a state votes to leave the Union in the same orderly manner in which it entered, it’s hardly an insurrection. Lincoln’s actions were entirely illegal

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Here are a couple of links, one pro states rights, one neutral. Both state that Texas does not have an explicit right to seceede. One indicates an "implicit" right, but both agree that it was not part of the annexation agreement nor part of the Texas constitution. Also, neither leans toward Texas having entered the Union by treaty, rather by an act of Congress.

I was sort of right about the four states, it is actually four "other" states, indicating a total of five.

Sorry Benny, no apology yet.

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.asp Pro states rights

http://tafkac.org/politics/texas_secession_rights.html Neutral on states rights
I really do not expect an apology, but it probably really doesn't matter. If the courts violate the Constitution of the United States; that action in reality would free all states to independence.

What is most amazing about your links is the fact that they underestimate the grit and guts of Texans. Even the waterdowned version that exists today.

It is not really that unlikely that a state will attempt secession again. And if your website is correct, that Americans are sissified, then that state will be successful.

Why? Because the gutless Federalists will not be willing to fight it out and preserve the Union this time around.

[Johnny 5]

25 states have movements in them to secede. The number of members is growing

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by IHStangFan
B_M....let me just start by saying...no offense, you seem like a decent guy....BUT...you seem to be GROSSLY uneducated in this realm. 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms...PERIOD. It was instituted w/ the intent of giving the people the power to defend themselves from all enemies both foreign and domestic...more specifically...to give the people the power to overthrow a corrupt gov. NOW...w/ that being said...I own assault rifles for no other reason than that I like to shoot them, its a hobby...outfitting them, etc. the whole "mine is cooler than yours" gig at the range....and thats it. BUT...you have to understand where the government stands on the "evil" assault rifles. It is NOT illegal to own an AK47 as you say, nor an AR15/M16 or the likes there of. The catch is whether it is fully auto or not. That would make it a class 3 weapon which requires MUCH paperwork, documentation, gov. red tape, etc....but still....it is not illegal to OWN one if you go through the proper channels and processes. The assault weapons ban...another perfect example...did not OUTLAW the weapons...it basically restricted the mag capacity, and use of flash suppressors and bayonet lugs...and thats it. Guns fitted w/ these options were called "pre-ban" weapons as they were built before the ban and still in circulation. But still..you could OWN one w/ all the goodies....they were just twice the price of a "post ban" or one built after the ban was put in place....SO...what did the assault weapons ban really accomplish? Nothing other than making certain weapons more expensive....if you want my take on that the gov. was in bed w/ the weapons manufacturers, but thats just my own conspiracy theory. Anyway...I guess my point is don't weigh in on something that you A: are obviously not educated on enough to give an "as a matter of fact" argument i.e. you lack facts and knowledge in your argument....and ..B: you are one of those people who fear what you don't understand and obviously wouldn't care if there were some sort of new "weapons ban"......some of us DO care...very much. So..don't tread into matters you don't understand or care about.

Fear the government that wants to take your guns....I for one am weary of a gov. that wants to disarm their citizens...makes me wonder what their intentions are after the disarming and the people have lost the ability to resist tyranny if it ever came to that fork in the road...it has once before...and its why we exist as America and Americans today.

Now that I've ranted....have a nice day everyone :) NO I think your the one who is missing the point. I say if you advocate peoples unlimited 2nd Amendment rights( As you put them ) then nothing would prevent somone from owning a nuclear weapon. In that rational any crackpot could Nuke a city. we have enough people who lose thier mind and decide to kill many other people along with them selves. Right now the only thing that stands in the way of more crackpots killing folks with fully automatic assault rifles are the laws in place that hinder somone from getting them. If the Crackpots who killed the kids at columbine high school only had rifles and guns that had a smal amount of amunition then many more people would have been saved. Yes you may argue that someone can kill someone with a deer rifle as easy as an ak47 but there is a huge difference. When a deer rifle runs out of amo ( after 3-5 shots you have to stop to reload) with a ak47 you have 30 shots. much less time for folks to run while reloading. may kids lives would have been saved with strict laws regarding assault weapons.
According to your logic it would be leagal to get a nuclear weapon. thats nuts!

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
NO I think your the one who is missing the point. I say if you advocate peoples unlimited 2nd Amendment rights( As you put them ) then nothing would prevent somone from owning a nuclear weapon. In that rational any crackpot could Nuke a city. we have enough people who lose thier mind and decide to kill many other people along with them selves. Right now the only thing that stands in the way of more crackpots killing folks with fully automatic assault rifles are the laws in place that hinder somone from getting them. If the Crackpots who killed the kids at columbine high school only had rifles and guns that had a smal amount of amunition then many more people would have been saved. Yes you may argue that someone can kill someone with a deer rifle as easy as an ak47 but there is a huge difference. When a deer rifle runs out of amo ( after 3-5 shots you have to stop to reload) with a ak47 you have 30 shots. much less time for folks to run while reloading. may kids lives would have been saved with strict laws regarding assault weapons.
According to your logic it would be leagal to get a nuclear weapon. thats nuts! Lesson 1: NOT ALL ASSAULT RIFLES ARE FULLY AUTO. Now that we're past that, 5 shots or 500 whats the difference...it only takes one well placed round to kill....so basically your argument is magazine capacity makes one firearm more dangerous than another? Maybe if you're a crappy shot.....but do you REALLY think it matters? I mean, lets not take into account that a "full auto assault rifle" is off target after about the 3rd round exiting the barrel as its muzzle will climb if the trigger is held in the full auto position...or have you never fired a full auto weapon? Why do you think the military switched to a semi-auto M16 in place of the fully auto version after Vietnam? Answer...to produce a more accurate weapon. Full Auto weapons are useless other than supression fire and in heavier anti-equipment type of weapons where the recoil does not effect muzzle trajectory. I could argue that a .30-06 is more dangerous than an AR15/M16 in that its a much larger and more powerful caliber than the 5.56/.223 that the M16 fires. Apples to oranges my friend. If a person wants to kill, it's not the tool he uses that is the real danger, its the person himself. Why take the ability for us law abiding citizens to bear arms? Don't you think a more direct approach to solving this "problem" would be more stringent background checks, documentation, regulations on purchasing firearms, Parents paying more attention to their kids and restricting their access to firearms and just overall better parenting, and gun education for all? Call me crazy, but I just like to take an objective, educated approach, but thats just me.

PS....nukes? Come on man....seriously...there's a HUGE difference between a guy w/ an AK47 in his gunsafe and a guy w/ a nuke in his garage...the logistics of it alone are night and day....let alone the cost.

[BobcatBenny]

I am gonna go out on a limb here.

If an individual is able to refine and develop or obtain enough nuclear material . . . then they are able to successfully machine that material into a usable mass . . . and finally assemble it into a device, I will personally invite him/her over to my house for a beer. We will then step into my back yard and attempt to ignite that sucker. :rolleyes:

That is how much I believe in the right to bear arms.

I will even be willing to let you have a howitser.

I will also let you attempt to launch yourself into space if you are so inclined. I just will not invite you over for that one.

As a matter of fact, I wish most weed smoking hippie tree hugger types would attempt to launch themselves into outter space.

Panzies. :doh:

[sinton66]

Texas entered the Union from the status of an established independant nation (the only state in the union to do so). As such, it retained all the rights of an independant nation (another of those was the right to divide itself into four individual states if it wanted to). Regardless of any congressional action, prior to the Civil War, Texas had the right to seceed.

It's certainly possible that a valid argument could be made that Texas still has those rights. It would, of course, have to be settled in the Supreme Court or through insurrection.

The original framework intended for the federal government to be a loosely knit association of the states with the states retaining the majority of power (hence the constitutional requirement for ratification by the states for ammendments to the constitution and the federal president to be elected by the states).

So, yes, there is increasing pressure in this nation to return to the "states rights" platform. The numbers of people believing in this as a necessity continues to grow.

On the subject of guns, I've said this before and I'll say it again. The ONLY thing that has kept this nation as free as it is for as long as it has been is the private ownership of guns.

[charlesrixey]

secede?

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by charlesrixey
secede?
Montana's state officials have a resoultion that generally states that if the Supreme Court has a ruling that states the right to bear arms is not an individual right, the Supreme court would be dissolving the Constitution and thus the Union is disolved.

"I, Rixey, 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."

Based on that oath you and the President would be at war with the Supreme Court if it attempts to subvert the Constitution of the United States.

Think about it. :thinking:

If you are an officer, then you should have taken a slightly different oath.

[Phil C]

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!

This is so simple to understand. Think about it.

:mad:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Phil C
IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!

This is so simple to understand. Think about it.

:mad:

And of course, totally incorrect, since law enforcement would have guns. I'm bowing out of this discussion since I am well aware that it brings out emotional swagger and no one is going to be convinced to change his/her opinion by reading what we post. Continue if you wish, just remember we are all friends and not nut cases.

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
And of course, totally incorrect, since law enforcement would have guns. I'm bowing out of this discussion since I am well aware that it brings out emotional swagger and no one is going to be convinced to change his/her opinion by reading what we post. Continue if you wish, just remember we are all friends and not nut cases.

NUTS :D

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Phil C
But criminals won't turn their sin so they will be the ones with guns.

Phil...you just made my day!!

Was that a typo or just a clever play on words??

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
And of course, totally incorrect, since law enforcement would have guns. I'm bowing out of this discussion since I am well aware that it brings out emotional swagger and no one is going to be convinced to change his/her opinion by reading what we post. Continue if you wish, just remember we are all friends and not nut cases. so when someone breaks into your house, and has threatened you and your family's lives...you plan on saying "hold on..wait..time out....I need to call law inforcement to stop you, as they are the only people who can protect me now as I have forfieted my right to own weapons to defend myself"...

:rolleyes: :mad:

some of you sheeple amaze me w/ your lemming like atributes.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
And of course, totally incorrect, since law enforcement would have guns. I'm bowing out of this discussion since I am well aware that it brings out emotional swagger and no one is going to be convinced to change his/her opinion by reading what we post. Continue if you wish, just remember we are all friends and not nut cases.

Really? Street law enforcement officials in England (and other countries) are not allowed to carry guns. What makes you think that COULDN'T happen here? Besides, even most right thinking Police will tell you straight up that it's impossible for them to be everywhere when it's necessary. There just aren't enough of them. They do an excellant job with their current numbers and what they have to work with, no argument with that.

[waterboy]

Blame it ALL on California! Them dang liberals ain't nothing but fruits, nuts, and flakes out there in that weird state!:D j.k. ..... or am I?

Nobody will EVER convince me that taking away ANY particular type of gun will solve any kind of problem in this country. The problems in this country are much more deep-rooted than that. Taking away a particular type of gun would only be like a cosmetic change (I can't think of a particular analogy to liken it to). It is VERY NAIVE of anyone to think that taking away guns would solve any criminal problems in this country. The root of the problem IS THE DETERIORATION OF FAMILY VALUES AND MORALITY. Until parents start realizing that it is their responsibility to instill values and morals into their children, society will continue to deteriorate. Anyone NAIVE enough to think that taking away guns is gonna solve any problem is wearing blinders and not looking deep enough into the problem. Any fireman out there will tell you that you don't fight a fire by spraying water at the top of the flame; you fight a fire by spraying water at the BASE (ROOT) of the flame.

And YES, it IS TRUE that IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS. I don't know about all of you people out there that are for taking away my guns, but PROTECTING MY FAMILY is my TOP priority. Anyone who threatens my family's lives will die, and I will NEVER hand my guns over to the government or anyone else. As the saying goes, "they'll have to pry my guns out my cold, dead hands!"

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by waterboy
Blame it ALL on California! Them dang liberals ain't nothing but fruits, nuts, and flakes out there in that weird state!:D j.k. ..... or am I?

Nobody will EVER convince me that taking away ANY particular type of gun will solve any kind of problem in this country. The problems in this country are much more deep-rooted than that. Taking away a particular type of gun would only be like a cosmetic change (I can't think of a particular analogy to liken it to). It is VERY NAIVE of anyone to think that taking away guns would solve any criminal problems in this country. The root of the problem IS THE DETERIORATION OF FAMILY VALUES AND MORALITY. Until parents start realizing that it is their responsibility to instill values and morals into their children, society will continue to deteriorate. Anyone NAIVE enough to think that taking away guns is gonna solve any problem is wearing blinders and not looking deep enough into the problem. Any fireman out there will tell you that you don't fight a fire by spraying water at the top of the flame; you fight a fire by spraying water at the BASE (ROOT) of the flame.

And YES, it IS TRUE that IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS. I don't know about all of you people out there that are for taking away my guns, but PROTECTING MY FAMILY is my TOP priority. Anyone who threatens my family's lives will die, and I will NEVER hand my guns over to the government or anyone else. As the saying goes, "they'll have to pry my guns out my cold, dead hands!" they'd likely drop a smart bomb on you.
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l109/anniecatt/special%20days/JetSmiley.gif
lmao

[icu812]

"From my cold, dead, hands" - Charlton Heston

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4

[waterboy]

Originally posted by DDBooger
they'd likely drop a smart bomb on you.
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l109/anniecatt/special%20days/JetSmiley.gif
lmao
Yeah, you're probably right. They still ain't taking my guns without a fight, whether it be legal or not. Most of my guns have been passed down to me from family members who have passed away. There are too many guns out there in the hands of criminals, and law-abiding citizens for that matter, that are not registered. If they are not registered how will the government know who has guns or not? I can hide them if I have to.:D

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

I haven't read the entire contents of this thread, but I think many of you are missing the point of the federal government having too much power. I believe that many people, and not just in Montana, believe that the government has the right to say or decide what kind of "arms" that ordinary citizens can maintain. You have to take in the fact that the Constitution was written to be flexible and able to change with the times, as back then it was probably unheard of to have a fully automatic rifle. At the same time, however, with the Patriot Act and legislation of that sort being passed I can see why ordinary citizens would want these types of guns. If the government is going to use scare tactics to deprive American citizens of liberties and freedoms in the pursuit of "conquering terrorism," then I think that Montana may have the right idea in saying it's time to get your guns ready, because not doing so in my opinion would be un-American. I for one am not ready to step aside and hand over my freedoms to any government, especially our own.

[Johnny 5]

SO what would yalls feelings on a Texas secession be?

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by Johnny 5
SO what would yalls feelings on a Texas secession be?
My feeling is that our State Representatives are not smart and tough like the Monatana Reps.

[Johnny 5]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
My feeling is that our State Representatives are not smart and tough like the Monatana Reps.

Agreed

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by IHStangFan
Lesson 1: NOT ALL ASSAULT RIFLES ARE FULLY AUTO. Now that we're past that, 5 shots or 500 whats the difference...it only takes one well placed round to kill....so basically your argument is magazine capacity makes one firearm more dangerous than another? Maybe if you're a crappy shot.....but do you REALLY think it matters? Heck yeah it maters. IF you have to stop to reload then folks can RUN!!!!!! If you have 30 round clip after 30 round clip then MORE PEOPLE DIE!! I would say THAT makes a HUGE difference.... Assault weapons were made to kill HUMANS... Not Deer. Limit weapons to hunting or self defense like a hand gun.:rolleyes:

[IHStangFan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Heck yeah it maters. IF you have to stop to reload then folks can RUN!!!!!! If you have 30 round clip after 30 round clip then MORE PEOPLE DIE!! I would say THAT makes a HUGE difference.... Assault weapons were made to kill HUMANS... Not Deer. Limit weapons to hunting or self defense like a hand gun.:rolleyes: LOL....."assault weapons are made to kill HUMANS". What do you think the gun, modern firearm, whatever you like to call it was conceived and invented to do? They aren't called WEAPONS for no reason. Just because one has a 30 round mag and one may only hold 5...doesn't mean one is any less dangerous than the other. In the right hands a "deer rifle" that might hold 5 shots can be deadly. Ask any US Marine Corps Sniper....I do believe their weapon of choice is the Remington Model 700 ADL/BDL in .308...which...is a "deer rifle" if I'm not mistaken. the .308 in a bolt action configuration allows for more accuracy, a better maximum effective range, and more knock down power. hmmm....

:rolleyes:

I'm done here. You and your uneducated, bias, paranoid gun-grabber ideals make me sick to my stomach.

Other than that...enjoy your evening.

[BobcatBenny]

Here is how a local government arms itself.

http://www.tacticaloperations.com/swatjun2001/photo2.jpg

Equipped with a sound suppressor instead of a muzzle break. Hmmm . . .

That trigger happy Barney Fife might just point that at you one of these days. :eek:

And supposedly according to the Geneva convention you are not supposed to use the 50 cal. BMG to directly target people.

However, apparently it is OK for police to shoot at the general public with it. :rolleyes:

[Johnny 5]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Limit weapons to hunting or self defense like a hand gun.:rolleyes:

How am I going to defend myself against a tank using only a handgun?

:thinking:




:doh:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by IHStangFan
LOL....."assault weapons are made to kill HUMANS". What do you think the gun, modern firearm, whatever you like to call it was conceived and invented to do? They aren't called WEAPONS for no reason. Just because one has a 30 round mag and one may only hold 5...doesn't mean one is any less dangerous than the other. In the right hands a "deer rifle" that might hold 5 shots can be deadly. Ask any US Marine Corps Sniper....I do believe their weapon of choice is the Remington Model 700 ADL/BDL in .308...which...is a "deer rifle" if I'm not mistaken. the .308 in a bolt action configuration allows for more accuracy, a better maximum effective range, and more knock down power. hmmm....

:rolleyes:

I'm done here. You and your uneducated, bias, paranoid gun-grabber ideals make me sick to my stomach.

Other than that...enjoy your evening. Your living in LA LA WORLD if you think a person armed with a gun that does not have to reload isnt more dangerous than a guy who does. Why do you think they make guns with 30-40 round clips of amo?? SO THEY CAN KILL MORE WITHOUT RELOADING? if it made no difference then the military would use good old hunting rifles...
OK lets get down to the nity grity. DO YOU BELIEVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO OWN ANY KIND OF ARMS YOU WANT TO OWN? DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A NUCLEAR MISSILE? remember now. A missile is an arm. as the second amendment put it. Lets just call you out on how radical you are. This whole thing is a hoot to me because you in a catch 22 situation. IF you say the 2nd amendment does not have any limitations then you agree an individual should have the right to own an Nuclear missile( that makes you a nutt). If you say a person should NOT be allowed to own a nuclear missile then you ARE SAYING THERE SHOULD BE A LIMIT TO WHAT KIND OF WEAPONS AN INDIVIDUAL CAN OWN also proving my point and contradicting the point you made. So either way your wrong. BUT you tell us where you stand. SHOULD I HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A NUCLEAR MISSILE OR NOT?

[BobcatBenny]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Your living in LA LA WORLD if you think a person armed with a gun that does not have to reload isnt more dangerous than a guy who does. Why do you think they make guns with 30-40 round clips of amo?? SO THEY CAN KILL MORE WITHOUT RELOADING? if it made no difference then the military would use good old hunting rifles...
OK lets get down to the nity grity. DO YOU BELIEVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO OWN ANY KIND OF ARMS YOU WANT TO OWN? DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A NUCLEAR MISSILE? remember now. A missile is an arm. as the second amendment put it. Lets just call you out on how radical you are. This whole thing is a hoot to me because you in a catch 22 situation. IF you say the 2nd amendment does not have any limitations then you agree an individual should have the right to own an Nuclear missile( that makes you a nutt). If you say a person should NOT be allowed to own a nuclear missile then you ARE SAYING THERE SHOULD BE A LIMIT TO WHAT KIND OF WEAPONS AN INDIVIDUAL CAN OWN also proving my point and contradicting the point you made. So either way your wrong. BUT you tell us where you stand. SHOULD I HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A NUCLEAR MISSILE OR NOT?
I have already stated in a previous post that I have no problem with you owning a nuclear weapon. And I am not a complete nut. I doubt seriously that you could obtain one. But if you are the first to get one come on over and take me up on my offer.

Besides you probably already own a weapon that could be considered a weapon of mass destruction. It is called a car. Drive it into a crowd. Old people do all the time.

And there are absolutely zero restrictions on who can own a car.

You can even produce poison gas with household bathroom products. Many a dumb bachelor have injured themselves by attempting to pour bleach into their toilet.

Perhaps you will want to start regulating who can own a car, boat, plane, truck, buy chlorine and ammonia, diesel fuel, gasoline, sulpher, salt peter, carbon, toluene, etc., etc. ?

As it turns out you are the one living a deluded life. I would prefer it if you would go nuts (as you call it) and arm yourself.

Be educated and know that you live in a dangerous world.

[sinton66]

Okay BM, here's a poser for ya. What type of weapon do military snipers use? Auto or bolt action? Who's more deadly, a trained sniper or a national guarder with an auto? It's not just about how much lead you can throw, it's more about how accurately it's thrown.

[Johnny 5]

Good post Bobcat

[JR2004]

Originally posted by Johnny 5
SO what would yalls feelings on a Texas secession be?

Well native Texans have a pretty independent nature and we already act like we're our own country. Let's go for it! :)

[themsu97]

Dangit guys, you have gone and used logic again and messed BM up...

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BobcatBenny
I have already stated in a previous post that I have no problem with you owning a nuclear weapon. And I am not a complete nut. I doubt seriously that you could obtain one. But if you are the first to get one come on over and take me up on my offer.

Besides you probably already own a weapon that could be considered a weapon of mass destruction. It is called a car. Drive it into a crowd. Old people do all the time.

And there are absolutely zero restrictions on who can own a car.

You can even produce poison gas with household bathroom products. Many a dumb bachelor have injured themselves by attempting to pour bleach into their toilet.

Perhaps you will want to start regulating who can own a car, boat, plane, truck, buy chlorine and ammonia, diesel fuel, gasoline, sulpher, salt peter, carbon, toluene, etc., etc. ?

As it turns out you are the one living a deluded life. I would prefer it if you would go nuts (as you call it) and arm yourself.

Be educated and know that you live in a dangerous world. This is to you and sinton66.
thanks for showing how radical you can be. The fact that you think it is ok for any person to own a nuclear weapon shows how radical you really are and proves my point. Funny IF someone could get a nuclear weapon (BTW, the only thing preventing that is that it is ilegal to buy or sell one) they would buy it and use it. Columbine Shootings would be the very least of our worries. Hundreds of thousands would die if what you wanted to happen came to pass. SO according to you we would all be safer if ordinary people had the right to own ANY kind of weapon they wanted....:rolleyes: BTW Cars, Boats,Planes,Trucks and so on and so forth are not produced for the reason of killing humans.
Dont worry guys people will never own such weapons as Howitwers, or Nuclear Missiles because Reasonable people are still out there and out number the braindead redneck gunhappy goons. Enjoy the good old asault rifles while you have them. I support them going from door to door to get them from you or any one who has them. Having it pryed from cold dead fingers is just might what has to happen.;) . But you live by the sword you die by the sword.:rolleyes:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by sinton66
Okay BM, here's a poser for ya. What type of weapon do military snipers use? Auto or bolt action? Who's more deadly, a trained sniper or a national guarder with an auto? It's not just about how much lead you can throw, it's more about how accurately it's thrown. Good lord. So everyone is a trained sniper...:rolleyes: Look even you can imagine some idiot who has very little training who goes out and buys an ak47 with 3-30 round clips who decides to go into the local school and kill as many people as he can... I know it is far fetched because It has NEVER EVER happend in this country :rolleyes: . But just pretend for me for just a few seconds that could happen. He would be able to kill dozens of people who would not have time to get away from him..... NOW imagine that he cant get his hads on an AK47 at a local gun show or gun shop.... He has to resort to using the good old 306 deer rifle bolt action He shoots 5 shots and has to stop shooting periodicaly to (RELOAD)..... Time to RUN!!!.... REALLY FOLKS your going to sit there and argu that the good old 306 bolt action rifle is as deadly killing machine as an AK47 with multiple clips of amo???? IF thats your positition then you should tell the US Army and Marines they are needlessly spending millions of dollars when they could save big bucks by going back to the good old Lee Enfiled Rifles of WWI...

[themsu97]

why do you keep referring to Columbine?

those two kids had issues and learned to make bombs from the internet... so do you want to ban that use as well?

people will kill no matter what they have access to... John Wayne Gacy, Ted bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, these people sound familiar?

Liberals, such as that wack job Geraldo, make a big issue out of the guns when the fact is that guns do not cause any damage...

I have one that sits in my parents closet that has yet to hurt anybody... but if an idiot grabs it and uses to hurt someone, well then there you go...

some people want to blame things other than the people themselves and that is where the problem is...

who really thinks they could own a nuclear weapon?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by themsu97

who really thinks they could own a nuclear weapon? DO you belive it should be legal to own a nuclear weapon? YES or NO???? in other words do you believe the second amendment is unlimited in every way and alows us to own ANY kind of weapon we can get our hands on???

[themsu97]

is that the best you can do?

extremes... wow...

sure, let someone own a nuclear weapon...
while they are at it, let them build a satellite as well...

I guess this makes me as much of an extremist as you are...

btw, did you read where this is the coldest winter since 1966 and that the ice caps are back? just wondering...

I also know that there are a lot of things not mentioned in the Constitution that the gov't does anyway ( like federal funding for education),
so, what do you really believe?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by themsu97
is that the best you can do?

extremes... wow...

sure, let someone own a nuclear weapon...
Thanks. you answered my question. Wonder If you put the same question to everyone what the answer would be. 99.5% would say NO!! But there are always folks out there who are extreemist.. Im an extreemist because I think an indivdualy should not be able to own a Nuclear weapon, Tank, 50Cal machine gun or guns like a 9mm Uzi or AK47.... OK.... IF you say so..I can protect my house with my 12 guage shotgun or my 1911 .45 just fine.

[themsu97]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Black_Magic
[ But there are always folks out there who are extreemist.. Im an extreemist because I think an indivdualy should be able to own a Nuclear weapon, Tank, 50Cal machine gun or guns like a 9mm Uzi or AK47....

I like the way you edit and answer only questions you know how... sort of like asking rhetorical questions...

like how long have you been an idiot?

but I like the way you answered the questions...

and as stated, I do not even have a gun in my house, I own one, but it stays locked at my parents house...

[Black_Magic]

...
I try to stay on topic.:rolleyes: I know you may want to debate why you have such a small jock too but Id rather just not talk about insignificant things. SO.. I stick to the good old topic at hand .. 2nd amendment. If you want to start a discusion about Global warming then start a new thread.:rolleyes: So You really think that if it were legal to own a nuclear weapon nobody would be able to get there hands on one??? You call me an idiot??:clap: thats a hoot after saying that.

[pirate4state]

Congratulations on successfully having another thread closed black_magic.

Sometimes it's best to step away from the computer.