Man pushing for guns in parks says it's for "protection"

[jpak]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Man-pushing-for-guns-in-parks-says-its-for-protection-128343568.html

PADUCAH — At Noble Park, there are rules about the playground, the lake and even the fish that swim in it.

But for new dad C.R. Pulley, there was one rule he just could not get past. It was posted at the park's entrance that weapons were not allowed.

<snip>

Pulley said he is not big on guns, just family protection. In fact, he only recently got his first gun after the birth of a son he calls "the light of my world."

He said he does not want other parents scared, just protected. Even still, he said it is protection he never wants to use.

<more>

dumbass

yup

[GreenStormCloud]

1. Criminal attack people in parks too. N/T

[WAFS]

2. Hopefully this one plays out in his favor. n/t

[DeadManInc]

3. If the park is so dangerous that you need a gun, why would

you want to take your kid there? I am all for legal gun ownership, but there are places that I don't want people carrying them.

[PavePusher]

5. Maybe... just maybe....

if the people in parks weren't legally required to be umarmed victims... they wouldn't be such risky places.

Allowing legally armed residents doesn't seem to have increased the risk in the places that have it...

[Atypical Liberal]

8. Why?

If the park is so dangerous that you need a gun, why would you want to take your kid there? I am all for legal gun ownership, but there are places that I don't want people carrying them.

If I can walk down main street carrying a concealed weapon, surrounded by hundreds of my fellow citizens, why is it somehow more dangerous for me to carry it in a park?

[DeadManInc]

65. I don't want you walking down the street carrying one either. You

could not do anything with it in a crowded place anyways. If you feel that inferior that you cannot be in public without one, you got issues.

[Atypical Liberal]

80. It's about preparedness, not feelings.

I don't want you walking down the street carrying one either.

Why not? Do you think CCW carriers are unsafe? Did you know that CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in crime - any kind of crime - than non CCW permit holders?


You could not do anything with it in a crowded place anyways.

Why not?

If you feel that inferior that you cannot be in public without one, you got issues.

It's not about feelings, it's about being prepared. The same way as people wear seatbelts, or have spare tires, or first aid kits, or insurance policies, or smoke detectors, etc. etc.

[DeadManInc]

88. if you want to carry a gun all the time become a cop, a lot of ccw guys

are rednecks, crowded space to many bystanders gun is useless, being prepered don't make me laugh

[Atypical Liberal]

89. Why should I have to be a cop?

if you want to carry a gun all the time become a cop

Why should I have to be a cop to carry a gun? It is now legally allowed in 49 states, and of the states that compile the data, the data clearly shows that CCW permit holders are many times less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm crime, than people without such permits.

What are you afraid of?

a lot of ccw guys are rednecks,

Geez, stereotype much? I suggest you look at the data.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=374332

The only real stereotype you can apply to CCW holders is "law abiding".

crowded space to many bystanders gun is useless,

How so? Did you know that CCW permit holders statistically cause less collateral damage than the police?

Generally when there is a bad guy it's pretty obvious who the bad guy is.

being prepered don't make me laugh

You shouldn't be laughing about something so serious.

I wear seatbelts. Not out of any fear or paranoia, but simply because it is prudent and easy to do so.

I carry a spare tire for the same reason.

I have smoke detectors for the same reason.

I have carbon monoxide detectors for the same reason.

I have first aid kits for the same reason.

I have fire extinguishers for the same reason.

I have insurance policies for the same reason.

All of these things represent tools that I can afford to buy in the unlikely chance I will need them, because the cost of having them and not needing them is far less than the cost of needing them and not having them.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

98. You know all this for a fact do you?

A lot of CCW guys are also doctors, lawyers, housewives, college students, etc.

Someone should not have to become a government employee to carry a tool. What you are essentially saying with that is, the lives of government agents are worth something but a citizen's life is not worth protecting.

[PavePusher]

101. Some semblance of coherency would help your cause.

WTH are you trying to say?

[SteveM]

41. Does merely declaring "no-guns" make it so? nt

[oneshooter]

73. What places, and why? n/t

[Hoyt]

4. Sounds like BS to me. If dad can't protect son in crowded city park without a gun, I feel for kid.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. Worked real well on croweded Utoya, eh?

Sounds like BS to me. If dad can't protect son in crowded city park without a gun, I feel for kid.

That worked real well on the crowded island gun-free park of Utoya, eh?

[Butch350]

16. touché !

[Hoyt]

83. Dads weren't there. But if one had been with a gun -- I doubt it would have done any good.

Plus, Norway's people aren't calling for more guns. They know their current laws work, except for some nuts obsessed with guns.

[Atypical Liberal]

92. But there were adults there, and men with guns stopped the man in the end.

Dads weren't there. But if one had been with a gun -- I doubt it would have done any good.

Why do you doubt it would have done any good, when in the end it was people with guns who stopped the rampage?

Simple: You trust men from a government with guns, but not your fellow citizens.

Plus, Norway's people aren't calling for more guns.

I never said they were.

I simply pointed out that just being in a crowded park is no protection against someone bent on mayhem.

They know their current laws work, except for some nuts obsessed with guns.

That's an awfully big "except" there, Hoyt.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Depends heavily on the locale

In areas with a growing CCW population, the crime rates are falling much faster than those with repressive environments, like SoCal

[We_Have_A_Problem]

10. I often wonder...

what leads to the mentality to believe that criminals avoid certain family oriented areas and a person who chooses to use an effective tool is somehow less of a person.

[Hoyt]

14. What leads to the mentaility that some cowboy with guns can save the day in a crowded park?

[Spoonman]

15. To answer your question,

CRIMINALS, and people like you that refuse to accept that reality.

In one way you do have a point.

The cowboy might miss and hit some innocent bystander.

You would simply chastise the criminal, and that verbal thrashing would focus his/her attention on you, thus allowing me the opportunity to get a steady clear shot!

YOU better hope I draw quickly!

[Hoyt]

27. Don't really want anyone playing judge, jury, jesus, and executioner on my behalf.

If I thought guns in public were good for society, I'd carry one or like many here carry two. But I don't. Leave the things at home where you guys can play with them anyway you want.

Besides, the odds are so small of something happening, it is irrational to spend a bunch of time "preparing" for it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

28. Ok - so you dont want anyone doing it on your behalf

Fine. Don't worry - nobody will.

However, that does not mean you get to make decisions for others, or assume that they will be misused.

Essentially your entire argument comes down to "I don't care about the facts, I don't like it".

[Hoyt]

31. Essentially your argument is you are a responsible gun owner and it doesn't matter if others aren't.

As long as you've got yours, the heck with everyone else. Doesn't matter to you that 96% of population finds no reason to walk around in public with a gun or two strapped to your body.

[Glassunion]

34. You really should update that stat... 96% is quite a bit out of date.

[Hoyt]

49. So what percentage do you think totes? Gunners latest figures are 10 - 12M. That =

So I guess you are right -- closer to 97% don't need a friggin gun to venture into public.

[Glassunion]

58. Not really...

You would have to subtract from the total population all of those under 21 and those ineligible to purchase a firearm because of criminal or mental histories and protective orders.

The actual number is closer to 10%.

[Atypical Liberal]

94. Shit, less than half the country VOTES.

Does that mean we should all quit voting?

Just because most people are complacent doesn't mean everyone should be forced to be helpless.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

39. Ultimately?

Nope - doesn't matter one damn bit.

There are a lot of people who are irresponsible drivers. We do not ban cars.

A lot of people are irresponsible drinkers. We do not ban alcohol (we tried that with disastrous results)

A lot of people are irresponsible parents, yet we still allow sex.

I could go on, but I wont. Potential irresponsible behavior does not magically justify the restriction of the rights of the responsible.

[Hoyt]

50. But, we don't have to allow guns in public. Just because you can't go out without one or two,

doesn't mean the general public should put up with gun toters. We need to demand restrictions. We need to make sure people understand that there are lots of toters who think fast draw, hollow points, hi-cap mags, etc., are desirable at Chuck E Cheeze and on your kids' playgrounds.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

60. Excuse me?

WHY do you need restrictions? You are not giving any reasons other than your own fears and discomfort.

I don't give a rat's ass about someone's feelings when it comes to me having to protect myself. Really. I don't give a damn and never will.

Just because it makes you feel scared is not a reason to prevent people from carrying.

[Hoyt]

84. Laws don't allow swords, why should they allow folks to walk around with something more deadly

to compensate for whatever issues you have.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

95. Still not an answer to my question

and as far as swords, look for that to change too.

The 2nd Amendment is about ARMS, not guns - and last i checked, edged weapons are still arms.

You really don't get it do you? A free man does not require permission to be armed, and the government in this country is forbidden from making laws restricting ownership and carriage.

[Spoonman]

44. 96% horse shit

Feel free to provide your statistical source, it will be quite fun shredding it's validity!

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoyt]

85. According to you guys 2.6 to 3.9% carry (8 to 12 million). You do the math.

[SteveM]

45. Yet more straw:

"As long as you've got yours, the heck with everyone else."

Actually, most pro-2A folks here do not want the government to stand in the way of a citizen getting a gun. That someone would choose to not obtain one is a personal choice.

[Hoyt]

53. Yea, if you are in a militia.

Most people on this Web site are against guns, just like bombs. Most aren't vocal about it -- but could be persuaded.

[SteveM]

77. Therein are your problems --

Technically, most of us are in a militia. Regardless, we have an individual right to keep and bear arms. This is the way most constitutional scholars who have written on the subject of 2A see the Second. You don't, but your outlook is in a distinct minority.

"Most people on this Web site are against guns, just like bombs."

Actually, 2 errors here. A survey a few years ago, while not scientific, revealed that slightly over half of DUers (out of several hundred surveyed over some days) indicated they owned at least 1 gun; many more indicated that they were considering purchasing a gun. You are further in error by claiming those against guns are against them "...just like bombs." This is pure speculation. If you care to peruse these threads, most posters (pro/con alike) distinguish between your "bombs" and firearms. Except posters like you who repeat extreme unsupported speculations.

"Most aren't vocal about it -- but could be persuaded."

This is beyond speculation. If "most" aren't vocal in a major leftist Democratic site, where in Artemis' realm would they BE vocal?? You can certainly persuade all you want, knowing that this is a left-of-center Democratic site. Should be hog-heaven!

BTW: I don't know how HuffPo handles gun-control postings, now (used to have regularly-scheduled gun-control spiels there), but they were met by general derision by most who commented. But hope springs eternal!




:D

[Hoyt]

86. Like you said, not scientific. Besides, I don't care what you do in private with your guns. But

toting in public is different. Further, you get outside of the gungeon -- where those obsessed with guns post -- lots of folks indicate their distaste for the dang things.

[SteveM]

102. "Distaste" can be applied to many things and behaviors...

and is not the basis for social policy.

As far as science goes, whenever you post a poll "in the clear" before it goes to the "Guns," you can get a pretty good sample; perhaps the gun-control/prohibitionist outlook is really a rather recent "movement" of post-1960s centrist/center-liberals, not the kind of rank-and-file membership in DU.

"Obsession" can work both ways.

[rl6214]

37. Again asserting something you have no proof of

"I'd carry one or like many here carry two"

[Hoyt]

54. You have no proof you need a gun in public.

[Glassunion]

59. Only 18% of violent crime occurs inside an individual's home.

The rest occurs in public.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

61. It isnt up to me to prove I need one

The onus is upon you to justify why my rights take a back seat to your fears.

Prove I don't need one and you MIGHT have an argument. Of course, then you'd have to prove why my lack of need somehow justifies disregarding my rights.

I have no NEED to worship the religion of my choice, or not to worship at all, but I absolutely have the right to so so.

[Hoyt]

66. It ought to be up to you, just like in Scandinavian countries. And very few can prove they need one.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

68. This isnt a scandanavian country.

Feel free to move to one if you prefer their methods.

Here in the US, I am under no obligation to justify my firearms ownership or my desire to carry to you, or anyone else. Unless you can present an objective reason why I should not own or carry one, then quite frankly, you're welcome to keep your opinion to yourself.

[Hoyt]

70. You can't carry a sword in most states, so why a friggin gun or two?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

96. Simple...

I have the right to do so and there isn't a thing you can do about it.

I know that just bothers the living snot out of you, but if you want the kind of restrictions you have stated, simply put Hoyt, you need to move.

Sucks for you, I know, but that is how it is.

[oneshooter]

74. You have no proof that I, and others, don't. n/t

[RSillsbee]

82. I've been the victim of an attempted mugging

that was stopped w/a gun.

All the proof I need

[SteveM]

43. More straw. The issue is self-defense, not law school, theology or criminology.

Another misconception: One shouldn't "play with guns," as you seem to be accusing others of. Further, odds are low my house your house will burn down (should you be a home-owner), but I bet you carry fire insurance. And you have hopefully "prepared" evacuation plans.

[Hoyt]

55. If you are so concerned about the odds -- do you carry a defibrillator, and the like.

[SteveM]

78. No defibrillators, Hoyt. And you don't know what I'm carrying. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

103. A defib is useless without a trained operator, and you can't defib yourself.

So lugging one around, they are much heavier than a gun, would be useless as there would likely not be an EMT handy when you needed it. You make some of the silliest comparisons.

[krispos42]

90. Self defense is not judicial.

it is self-defense. Nobody on the pro-gun side is claiming that self-defence shootings are due process of law. You can claim it all you want, but it doesn't make it true.



B. "the odds are so small..." argument. How many low-probability events do you protect yourself against on a routine, daily basis?

Seat belts? Locked doors? Smoke alarms? Fire extinguishers? GFI plugs? How often do you reach down into the dryer's exhaust opening to de-lint the innards?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. You tell me...

...nobody who carries believes they can "save the day".

They carry for the same reason people carry a cell phone - it is merely a tool for addressing specific issues.

Now, I've repeatedly explained why I carry and why a person may choose to. Could you perhaps enlighten us as to why you are so adamantly opposed to it, using actual logic and facts of course - not simply your unfounded fears and baseless assertions.

[Hoyt]

29. Simple, I've known a bunch of supposedly law-abiding toters who shouldn't even be able to own a gun.

They are often angry and scared people; often bigots; often hoping to play hero; vast majority are right wing, TBag types (many viewing their homes as compounds); use guns to intimidate or protect themselves when somebody tells them to stuff their obnoxious BS; often have large caches of weapons including so-called "assault weapons" -- I guess to shoot their neighbors if we have a catastrophe; and worse. Many hope to make money off their guns -- selling them to anyone with cash without background checks.

And there is plenty more, but the fact is guns in public are not good for society.

[Glassunion]

32. wrong spot...

[oneshooter]

35. Cite to proof, please. n/t

[Hoyt]

51. What proof would satisfy you that lots of vile people carry guns. Seems obvious to me.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

62. Oh I know lots of vile people do

We call them criminals for the most part.

[rl6214]

38. "Simple, I've known"

I call BS right there.

[Hoyt]

56. I'm telling you it's true. You just don't want to admit it.

[oneshooter]

76. It is as true as the "Picture of a cowboy with 2 pistols sticking out" that you claim you have

But have failed to show proof of. Whats wrong, couldn't reach far enough up your ass to get it?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

40. I sincerely doubt you know anyone like that...

...even if you DID, other than the "intimidation", nothing you mentioned is illegal or even irresponsible.

You and I may not agree with their political views, but that doesn't mean they cannot hold them.

Selling your own property is perfectly legal, and background checks are not only not required on private sales, but are in fact impossible to do. A private individual has no legal way to access the background check system.

Being a bigot, while silly, is still legal.

Being angry and scared is perfectly legal (look in the mirror)

"Assault weapons" are perfectly legal.

Owning multiple weapons is perfectly legal, and quite normal.

Basically what you're saying is, you've met maybe one person who thinks that way and you've extrapolated that to include every gun owner. Not a very scientific process...

[Hoyt]

48. Yea sure, angry and scared gun toters are OK in public. That, my friend, is why I'm against guns in

public. Too many of you think it's OK to be walking around with a chip on you shoulder and a gun or two strapped to your leg.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

97. Thing is Hoyt....

...you're just ASSUMING they are angry and scared. You are projecting your own feelings onto others and then holding them responsible for your fantasies.

That isn't how things work here in the US. Just because you're afraid doesn't give you the right to say others are doing something wrong.

[SteveM]

46. "law-abiding...shouldn't even be able to own a gun." Law based on your outlook?

My goodness. So everyone has to pass the Rules According to Hoyt in order to exercise their 2A rights? Keep your personal opinions to yourself when formulating social policy. As you well know, the rates of crime involving legal concealed-carry are extraordinarily low; lower, perhaps, than the community of folks who do NOT carry.

But facts be damned, eh?

[spin]

47. You do seem to know a lot of strange people. I know a lot of people with carry permits ...

They included retired police officers and police officers, doctors, nurses, EMTs, engineers, technicians, bankers, small business owners, restaurant and bar owners, cab drivers, truck drivers, housewives, a locksmith and a carpenter.

Most are conservative and Republicans but a few are liberal Democrats. Most are not overly religious if religious at all. Some are wealthy, most would be considered members of the upper or lower middle class and a few might be considered poor.

Unlike you, I haven't found people with carry permits to be "angry and scared." Most that I know are well adjusted members of society and are employed in jobs that require a good deal of responsibility and training or college education.

I've met some who were prone to tell politically incorrect jokes that I considered racist but they would go out of their way on the range to help a member of a minority group to learn how to shoot a handgun. At the indoor range I used to shoot at we had a long table where many of the regular shooters would gather to talk before and after shooting. The popular topics were news, computers and politics and of course we would joke about these topics. We didn't sit around discussing firearms all that often but if someone wanted opinions on what type of weapon to purchase or how to shoot more accurately we all would spend some time giving advice. A few of the regulars were Black or Hispanic and were made to feel welcome in our conversations.

Many of the regular shooters did indeed have what you would consider large caches of weapons and indeed many did own so called "assault weapons" including semi-auto "black" rifles. Most became interested in these weapons during the period of time that the assault weapons ban existed. All the negative publicity about "assault weapons" got a few curious enough to buy one of these crippled clones of a true military assault rifle and they were amazed at how accurate and versatile these weapons are. Their praise of these weapons caused a lot of other regular shooters to buy one. Oddly enough, I never joined the craze. At the time, I had little reason to own a high capacity semi-auto rifle nor do I now. I may buy one if we move into a more rural area and use it for target shooting and possibly to hunt wild hog (which are very tasty but can be a pain in the ass and need population control.)

However, I would not call the firearms these people own a cache but a collection. Many of the shooters that I know accumulated their firearms over many years. Some bought firearms as an investment.

I do remember one time an individual who appeared to be a member of a militia showed up and discussed some radical ideas. We made him feel somewhat foolish and he never returned.

Of course, it is possible that the shooters I know, shoot on a regular basis whereas the people you describe merely own firearms and rarely shoot. It surprises me that you could know so many odd people with firearms.

[oneshooter]

75. Didn't he ask "not simply your unfounded fears and baseless assertions.

You do know what that means don't you?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rl6214]

36. Of course you have that picture of a cowboy in a park, right?

[SteveM]

42. Straw man. The issue is self-defense, not cowboys "saving the day." nt

[Hoyt]

57. Believe it or not -- most people can and do defend themselves without a gun in public.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

63. So what?

Most people also don't ride a motorcycle, but that doesn't justify making them illegal.

Most people are not gay, but we don't make homosexuality illegal.

Most people can and do make it through a day without eating {insert food of choice here} but we don't make that food illegal.

Most people in the US are Christian, but that doesn't mean we tell the Jewish to keep their religion behind closed doors.

Just because most people do or do not act a certain way does not make actions to the contrary illegal, or even wrong. It simply makes them different.

Sorry you don't like it Hoyt, but so far you have presented nothing to bolster your position other than your own fears.

[Hoyt]

67. Love it when one who can't walk out of the house without a gun or two talks about others' fears.

Laws in many states prohibit carrying a sword(even in Texas); knife over 5.5 inches; hoax bombs; buy fireworks; clubs etc. Why not the same for the small percentage who just can't walk down a city street without a gun?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

69. You still havent answered a thing...

...you just keep making the same tired emotion-based claims.

Give it up Hoyt. You're wrong, you have no facts to support your position, and your entire argument consists of projecting your ignorance and fear onto others.

[SteveM]

79. That's fine. I'm well over 60, and if I need to defend myself against...

a violent attack, at home or elsewhere, I have the option to use a gun; all the better to take on some young punk(s).

[Hoyt]

87. You seem to have a fear of young people -- not a good reason to pack. I'm over 60 too.

And, I'll be damned if I'm going to pack a gun in public.

I hope you have someone who will take your guns -- and the keys -- from you when the time comes.

[beevul]

91. Likewise you and your keyboard.

Perhaps that time is drawing close, eh?

[SteveM]

100. Again, you miss the point with your accusation...

"...not a good reason to pack."

This makes an accusation which is not only untrue, but proscribes a reason (thereby) not to pack.

I don't fear young people; they are around me everyday. And I don't fear my age. The practical outlook is most thugs are quite young, and I fall into a vulnerable class. You can take whatever measure you want.

When the time comes, I will make that decision. Just as my Dad did in his early 80s.

[Atypical Liberal]

93. Turns out that some "cowboys" with guns did save the day on Utoya.

What leads to the mentaility that some cowboy with guns can save the day in a crowded park?

Turns out that some "cowboys" with guns did save the day on the crowded park of Utoya.

If those "cowboys" can do it, why can't any CCW permit holder do it?

[GreenStormCloud]

104. Because it has already happened in other locales.

With the increaswe in the number of armed citizens we are seeing more examples of such citizens stopping attacks on others.

[ileus]

6. Safety first, victim later...gun free is not the answer.

[MrDiaz]

11. Criminals

Do not care where they will commit their next crime, may it be at a bank, a street corner, the local grocery store, home, park, theme park, it simply does not matter, a gun is a tool of defense, nobody who legally carries one especially around their children would ever want to be forced to use this tool, but if the situation calls for it, then you MUST be able to protect yourself, and your family.

[MrDiaz]

12. lol

If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words, do cars kill people, and does a spoon make people fat? If not please prove me wrong and explain the difference please? Looking forward to responding a bit later. But I doubt i will get a reasonable logical answer.

[MrDiaz]

64. lol since i posted this

over 50 posts ago, i still don't have any logical response to my question from a anti-gun-nut. Gee i wonder why... because there isn't any. a gun is just a tool, like a car is a tool to transport you, and a pencil is a tool to write words, and of course spoons make people fat. lmfao.

[Hangingon]

13. Just a guy lawfully seeking a needed change.

[ZombieHorde]

18. He should move to Montana if wants to carry firearms.

From Wikipedia...

Montana has some of the most permissive gun laws in the United States. It is unique in having no state-level prohibited possessor statute, although the state preemption statute allows local governments to prohibit firearms possession among felons and mental incompetents.

Montana is a "shall issue" state for concealed carry. The county sheriff shall issue a concealed weapons permit to a qualified applicant within 60 days. Concealed carry is not allowed in government buildings, financial institutions, or any place where alcoholic beverages are served. Carrying a concealed weapon while intoxicated is prohibited. No weapons, concealed or otherwise, are allowed in school buildings. Montana recognizes concealed carry permits issued by most but not all other states. Concealed carry without a permit is generally allowed outside city, town, or logging camp limits. Under Montana law a permit is necessary only when the weapon is " wholly or partially covered by the clothing or wearing apparel ", therefore it is legal to carry and/or keep a firearm inside a vehicle without a permit ( as long as it is not concealed on the person ) it is also legal to carry a firearm in a backpack, purse or briefcase without a permit. Open carry is also generally permitted.

Montana has state preemption of most firearms laws. Local units of government may not prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer, ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon. However, local governments may restrict the firing of guns, or the carrying of firearms at public assemblies or in public buildings or parks.

Montana has a number of restrictions on lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, dealers, or trade associations. Such lawsuits may be filed by the state, but not by local governments.

Montana House Bill 246, the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, was signed into law by Governor Brian Schweitzer on April 15, 2009, and became effective October 1, 2009. This legislation declares that certain firearms and firearms accessories manufactured, sold, and kept within the state of Montana are exempt from federal firearms laws, since they cannot be regulated as interstate commerce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#Montana

Yet our gun homicides are 2.31/100,000, as opposed to Californa's 4.82/100,000.

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

[MrDiaz]

19. Yea

and you should to move to the UK if you don't want guns.

[ZombieHorde]

20. I live in Montana.

If I moved to the UK, it would be for the food and healthcare, not for decreasing my gun rights.

Moving to a different country is very different than moving to a different state. A state will allow pretty much any US resident to live there, but another country has immigration laws which are generally aren't as open. Additionally, the cost of moving from one state to another is usually much less than the cost of moving from the US to the UK.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. For the food?

My, you are an odd one, Zombie. :)

[PavePusher]

71. Hey, there's some great food in Britian....

Mostly via India, the West Indys, Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Greece....

:hide:

[oneshooter]

81. Yea, but I got grilled pork ribs, Greek salad, Grilled vegatables, ice tea and cold watermelon ! n

[MrDiaz]

25. Point well taken

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Or Washington State.

Seattle's former mayor got his ass handed to him over this. State Pre-emption and all that.

Made my life less complex.

[ileus]

23. Sounds like they still have a little work to do....

financial institutions, or any place where alcoholic beverages are served.



Mainly these two...

[iverglas]

26. "'Yet our gun homicides are 2.31/100,000, as opposed to Californa's 4.82/100,000."

I'm sure you also have bluer skies.

Could you explain the reason for that statement in your post?

[Glassunion]

30. Actually, the sky is bluer.

Been to both, and the sky is definitely bluer in Montana. CA has a lot of smog.

[ZombieHorde]

33. The gun laws in California are more strict than the gun laws in Montana,

yet Montana has fewer gun related homicides per 100,000 people. I don't think restricting gun rights lowers gun violence. I think population, education, and income inequality are more important factors than gun laws.

[WAFS]

99. One word: Vermont. n/t

[PavePusher]

72. "It's definitional." n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Had a look at KY state law... Looks like the local ban is illegal per state law.

I recall you posting garbage in support of Seattle's Mayor, when he tried to violate state law to ban guns in parks.

Is that the case here? Any KY residents know for sure?