A Modest Proposal..Montana Shooting Sports Association

Discussion in 'Politics' started by HozayBuck, May 1, 2010.

  1. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    The Firearms Freedom push was started by the Montana Shooting Sports Association. So far many states are looking at passing it into law, the Gov. Of Okla did veto the bill but I think it will be over ridden and I hope it costs him his job!


    A Modest Proposal
    ...
    From:
    Gary Marbut-MSSA <[email protected]>
    ...
    Add to Contacts
    To: [email protected]
    Dear MSSA Friends,

    I've been thinking more and more about the monopolistic federal regulation of the entire supply chain for new firearms, one issue addressed in MSSA v. Holder, our lawsuit to validate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

    I was moved to write about this in a short essay I've called A Modest Proposal. If you wish to read this, I've posted it at:
    A Modest Proposal

    Best wishes,

    Gary Marbut, president
    Montana Shooting Sports Association
    Montana Shooting Sports Association
    author, Gun Laws of Montana
    Gun Laws of Montana
     
  2. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    Makes a lot of sense to anyone except the brain-dead, anti gun, morons.
     

  3. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    can someone articulate the opposing view? I just can't wrap my brain around it
     
  4. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    I don't agree with this proposal at all. History has already shown that this type of regulation can go seriously wrong.

    It starts with the best intentions. But then who is to say what should be allowed and what shouldn't? And who is to say what books may or may not be added to the list? Then all of a sudden we have a banned book list of everything the head mofo in charge finds offensive. Next thing you know, they are burning stacks of "Catcher in the Rye" in the public square.

    God forbid you read a copy of the Koran at your local library. They'd probably send in a death squad and execute you right in front of the Harry Potter poster in aisle 2.

    Regulating books wouldn't have any effect either way. Most if not all of the "dangerous" information is already available on the internet. And good luck regulating that.

    Information should be free. Unregulated. Unfiltered. And in it's purest form. Not everyone who wants to read a chemistry book is bound to be a future terrorist. Why should every trip to the library require a background check?
     
  5. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    completely agree, but then you get into the argument of getting compensated for your creative work. Major crux of the journalism demise, hardworking americans are doing the work which their company turns around and gives away for free online

    a german guest at the hotel I work at was saying they have a government assisted news, but as you all I'm sure would agree, that would completely destroy ANY credibility it may have had as untouched by the whitehouse
     
  6. rhrobert

    rhrobert Happy in the hills

    449
    58
    hmmm, interesting.
     
  7. horseman09

    horseman09 Well-Known Member

    1,240
    4
    The author has a (tongue in cheek) point. He's obviously not serious, but can you imagine the screeching from the lefties if this proposal was actually serious and was introduced as legislation?! In very short order, the ObaMoa-ites and gang of followers would be protesting about the government gutting our sacred First Amendment Rights. They'd be carrying signs with slogans saying something like, "If books are outlawed, only outlaws will have books!" ROFLMAO Every argument they would make about the importance of our First Amendment Rights (and for the first time, the Lefties would be right); we have been making those same points about our Second Amendment Rights.
     
  8. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    Jeeezeee people, it was a simple reverse argument to the liberal gun grabbers... it's not meant as a real idea...

    I thought it was simple and easy to read and understand the point.. it's like saying to the media, ok you want my 2A rights taken away then as Journalist you need to lose your 1st A rights...watch the screaming...
     
  9. horseman09

    horseman09 Well-Known Member

    1,240
    4
    LOL Hozay, they are a little slow on the uptake on this one, ya think? :)
     
  10. rhrobert

    rhrobert Happy in the hills

    449
    58
    I knew that, I got the point, it was still an interesting message...but once you have to explain it, then, well, it kind of looses it's punch. lol
     
  11. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    It's like the old thing about Freedom, if it has to be explained they won't understand it... oh well..:surrender:
     
  12. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    I guess I should clarify why I didn't understand it (and by "it" I mean the Firearm Freedom Act - which states that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.)

    What I meant was I didn't understand the opposing view to this; is it that firearm regulation should be federally regulated simply because that's how it's always been done? i.e. preventing "gangster weapons" from coming into the hands of...well...gangsters?

    If that's the case then it seems like of course it's not going to be 100% effective. They're going to find a way, it's human intuition to bend the rules to the nth degree. Think of a child who tests the boundaries of their parents discipline. Find where it bends, find where it's broken, and find where the parents won't even know it's happening.

    But then should we give up trying to discipline the child because they found a loophole? Obviously not.

    You may chagrin at my analogy of the fed acting as ma' and pa' to it's citizens. You may instead say, "let the state regulate, they're the real parents"

    To this I would say, sure, that makes sense. But how much communication is there between states? Jurisdiction lies within their borders, whereas the fed's jurisdiction...well that's another story, but you can see how there might be limitations in a state-only regulated system.

    These laws are not to prevent the average citizen from owning a gun. We still have our second amendment rights. You can wax poetic all day long about how guns are getting the raw deal while "harmful" books still line the shelves, but that is not an analogy that really works.

    It might make more sense to argue for firearm deregulation in light of recent marijuana deregulation, but I fail to see how you can connect what the author sees as "common knowledge that books, and many other publications, may foster bad behavior, even criminal behavior, and wrong beliefs."

    I get it though, it's sarcasm, trust me chief I understand sarcasm. But for your first sentence to be so off base it's baffling.

    guns have the potential to kill people instantly
    books have the potential to sway emotion and create ideas that has the potential for someone to attempt to kill someone (maybe)

    In the wrong hands (i.e. criminally insane, negligent, underage) a gun can end an innocent persons life
    In the wrong hands a book could be used to bludgeon someone to death, but it wouldn't be easy and certainly not instant

    We should regulate who can purchase a gun because of their potential to harm, maim, and kill innocent people very quickly (see: average police response time)
    We should regulate who can purchase a book because they have things we don't like in them

    I'm not saying I disagree with state regulation. I'm saying this argument doesn't make sense. It doesn't follow logically because it assumes a false premise, that being people find information in books harmful in the same way a gun can be harmful
     
  13. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16

    Kogneto...just set the gun part aside, now think "States Rights"... now think about how our Founding Fathers set things up so the Government was to be limited in it's powers, think about this, who says the millions of acres of so called "National Forest" in Montana belongs to the Federal Government? the Gov say's it, does that make it true? the Fed was limited in it's powers for a reason, that reason was swamped in the early part of the 20th century.

    If a State and the people living within it's borders want to make gay marriage legal then it's that states business, if that gay couple decides to move say from CA to MT and it's not legal in MT then they aren't married by MT law, nobody says they can't stay in CA, nobody says they can't be together in MT, they're simply not a married couple in MT. by their free choice of moving to MT.

    If I want a rifle built in MT for me to use in MT and it will not leave MT then who's business is it? it's between me and the state of MT, IF I decide to take it out of MT to say CA then I'm breaking CA law, BUT, what if ID says sure Hozay Buck, your rifle is ok to hunt with here in ID... why should the Federal Government have a say about it? if I break a law then shame on me, if I end up in jail, shame on me...BUT, the Fed Gov should have no say about what I do in my home state, when I leave there I have to obey the laws of the states I drive thru... it's my choice.... for instance, when I travel I only drive thru the states that accept my MT CCW , by not driving thru states that don't allow me to carry I don't spend my money in that state, and believe me , I'm a vindictive SOB, before I do drive thru such a state, I fill my fuel tanks, I buy whatever I want for snacks etc, I don't stop and I don't spend...this is called freedom of choice, it's called voting with my dollars !! do they care? nope !! do I care ? Nope!!

    I know your apparently very well educated Kogneto, and I know I'm not, but I will refer you to the boiling frog analogy ... I chose to jump from the cool water, anybody else who so desires can stay in the slowly warming water until it's too late.

    Plain and simple, the Federal Government has far exceeded it's authority and will only get more and more heavy handed as time goes by.

    In my life time I've seen it go from the Cops politely knocking on the door to kicking it in , in the middle of the night. Our police look like Nazi Storm Troopers, they act like Nazi Storm Troopers , they are trained to be NST's and in so doing have become Jack Booted Thugs.
    As I said, I can't argue with you on a philosophical level, but I can and will debate you all day long on a plain ol country boy level of common sense..

    Now if your one who is comfortable with the FedGov looking over your shoulder 24/7 by all means go live in one of the socialist states which unfortunately we have too many of... I choose to live free from all the FedGov regulations so I will vote to oppose the further growth of the Fed and will vote to break the chains the Fed has over our lives..and ya I live on my DAV and SS checks, but if it gets them out of my life then they can have it and I'll go work again...

    I'm not saying we have it bad, but we ain't far from it...

    I'll leave you with a humorous story...

    Years ago the Fed Gov and the state of MT were up in arms over a "religious" group in the state called "the Church Universal and Triumphant" or "CUT" as we called it..

    Well the witch hunters were up in arms, the state was up in arms dittio the Feds .. all screaming..CULT!! Save the Kids !!! etc etc... well after a while I wrote a letter to the local paper, I won't go into it but the main paragraph was... sorta this

    "This is America, we all have the right to worship or not as we so desire, it's a free country, If these people or any other people wish to get naked and slather their body's with oil and roll around in bread crumbs and then dance naked in the moon light while praying to the Great Shake and bake God then it's their right, their business so maybe everybody else should butt out"...

    It was a great letter!! I was proud!...:D

    Anyway, that's my POV on the whole issue... States Rights! MY rights...God Bless America and above all Remember the Alamo!!!!
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2010
  14. bunkerbob

    bunkerbob Supporting Member

    1,733
    6
    OMG! here we go again with the naked in the moonlight thing...hope your'e happy Naekid.:D
     
  15. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    Right !! it's those damn North of the border types...as if we don't have enough problems to the south!!... at least the illegals keep their cloths on!!!
     
  16. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    :gaah:
    Books and their content are far more dangerous than firearms. With a book you can learn how to build a firearm, or a bomb, or a virus or bacteria or even the formula for poison gas. You can learn hundreds if not thousands of ways to kill in epic proportions. Books kindle thought or inspire hatred and anger. Books motivate people to action. Don't ever say books are not every bit as dangerous as guns.

    There are two things dictators fear: A free press and an armed citizenry.

    The First Amendment exists because the founders of this nation recognized that the flow of information was a key ingredient to being a free people. They recognized that an oppressive government must restrict the press in all it's forms to maintain their power.

    They also realized that an oppressive governement would quickly move to disarm it citizens.

    The parent analogy is seriously flawed. First, the government is not our "parent." NOT EVEN CLOSE! The government does not provide for it's citizens. It takes from them. The government exists to serve the people. The people DO NOT exist to serve the government. The "parent" analogy belongs to kings and dictators who see themselves as overseers of the people and it belongs to slaves and serfs who bow before their masters.

    It's stupid to regulate "things." You stated this already by pointing out that people will find ways to get the things they want even if they must do it illegally. So, is it illegal for "gangsters to have "machine guns?" Yes, 'cause "daddy" (the Feds) said they can't have them! Do "gangsters" HAVE "machine guns?" Yep! So the misinformed enact more gun laws, defining the difference between "good" guns and "bad" guns believing that if good people can't buy "bad" guns then the world will be a happy place once again! How stupid can they be?

    Regarding guns or books the government has NO right or authority to infringe on our rights of free speech or our right to bear arms. The Bill of Rights spells that out specifically. That's why they must use the commerce clause to make gun control laws. It's an end run around the Constitution and BOR. And the people of this nation have allowed it to happen. Shame on every person who voted for any representative who ever voted for gun control of any kind. :gaah:
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2010
  17. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    hm you make some really good points, :surrender: