Compromise NOT

[Lonecowboy]

President Obama is urging voters to tell their lawmakers they must compromise for the sake of the country.

Just like oldtimer has been using the compromise word here lately, it must have been in the last liberal talking point memo!

August 10, 2011
Tyranny v. Freedom
America is fighting three wars—two in the Middle East and one here at home. Sadly, we are losing the one on American soil. If you are a skimmer of the news, you may have missed the numerous subtle victories of tyranny over freedom and blissfully think tomorrow, next week, and next year will be just like yesterday. You are wrong. America is about to change because compromise and consensus are championed as the new ideal. Exactly when compromise, a submissive technique, became honorable is unknown, but it certainly wasn"t favored in colonial times. Our founders passionately understood the battle for liberty and never dreamed of compromising a little bit of freedom in exchange for just a little bit of tyranny. To the contrary, the tougher things became, the more patriots held to principle. America needed men of conviction then, and she desperately needs them again today.It appeared all was lost in December of 1776 when Tom penned the words, "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated". In American Crisis, Tom was making the point God didn"t say freedom would be easy, only worth it and his timely message forever changed world history.
Tom"s first paper, Common Sense, laid the groundwork for colonists to break free from the chains of British tyranny and he was one of the first patriots to take up arms in our War for Independence. As an aid to General Greene, Tom was with the Continental Army during their tough three month retreat through New Jersey, and into Pennsylvania the fall of 1776. From a force of 12,000 in August, by December, death, desertion and dysentery had shriveled Washington"s Army to a rag-tag cluster of 2500 starving and exhausted patriots. Colonists, who cheered every minuteman packing a musket to New York earlier that summer, now stood deathly quiet as Tom and these unrecognizable, emaciated soldiers staggered back to the west. The endless days in the mud and slop had rotted their leather boots and many wrapped their feet in burlap and rope to march in the snow and ice. It wasn"t easy being a patriot.
With a British victory nearly certain, many colonists began siding with the crown; in every war there is a winning side and they wanted on it. Had it not been for Tom, tyranny might have prevailed. Guided by the hand of God, Thomas Paine, using a drum head as a writing desk, penned the words of the American Crisis on December 23rd, 1776. Seeing Tom"s essay spark the passion for liberty in his emaciated soldiers, General
Washington bet all his chips on a Christmas Day surprise attack across the icy Delaware River. Fighting with divine inspiration, the starving American patriots overwhelmed the well fed, well equipped and highly disciplined Hessian forces. America was victorious because ordinary patriots—true uncompromising patriots—did extraordinary things and this brings me to my point.
Conviction to principle and one"s oath of office are nearly non-existent today in Washington. Last week, our US Congress further shackled us under a growing, tyrannical federal government when they raised the debt ceiling. By a vote of 74 to 26 in the US
Senate, and 269 to 161 in the US House, politicians have compromised away the very freedom gifted us by those 2500 starving American patriots on that Christmas Day in "76.
I"m a wordsmith, yet I can"t find the words to express my disgust. Every single Representative or Senator who supported this bill must be removed from office at the next election—every one of them. It won"t be easy, only worth it.
The restoration of our great American republic must begin with you, because it won"t begin with anyone else.

[/quote]

the Honorable Krayton Kerns, Montana State Representative
www.kraytonkerns.org

 

[Lonecowboy]

Bump for ot apparently he missed this message-


Hyothetical situation; Your 16 year old daughter is out on a date, do you want her to:

a) Have, use and follow the principles you have taught her?

b) Compromise?



Hint: there is no such thing as a little pregnant

(yes you can always pick another option, I just don't think murder is an acceptable option so didn't make it a choice, I am NOT pro choice on murdering an innocent baby.)

But there are absolutes!

 

[Anonymous]

I'll give you another hypothetical-- when you're the crew in a leaky ship - and the whole crew wants to steer and none want to man the bilge pumps- if you don't work out some type of compromise the ship soon sinks- and takes down the crew and all aboard....

 

[hypocritexposer]

I'll give you another hypothetical-- when you're the crew in a leaky ship - and the whole crew wants to steer and none want to man the bilge pumps- if you don't work out some type of compromise the ship soon sinks- and takes down the crew and all aboard....

except in this case (Debt ceiling debate), the compromise that the Dems. were looking for, was to add more water, not bail it out of the boat.

 

[Faster horses]

:lol2: :lol2: :nod: :tiphat:

 

[Anonymous]

I think I'll believe folks like Warren over folks like Krayton...Buffet has invested heavily in Montanas future- and believes in progressing rather than going backwards....

We need a compromise plan to get us out of 50+ years of building debt- both major spending cuts and tax reform/additional income....

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress," he wrote. "It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

Buffett to Congress: Don't 'coddle' me
By Aaron Smith @CNNMoney August 15, 2011: 9:20 AM ET




NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, saying he doesn't want to be "coddled" by Congress, says that wealthier Americans should pay higher taxes, and that higher taxes do not dampen job growth.

Buffett, chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA, Fortune 500), wrote in an op-ed piece published Monday in The New York Times that taxes should be raised on Americans who make at least $1 million per year.

"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," wrote Buffett, who has mentioned in past interviews that the rich should pay higher taxes.

The philanthropist said that his 2010 federal tax bill, including income and payroll taxes, was $6,938,744.

"That sounds like a lot of money," wrote the Omaha, Neb.-based billionaire. "But what I paid was only 17.4% of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office."

He added that some investment managers were taxed only 15% on billions of dollars in income. He compared that to the middle class, with its income tax bracket of up to 25%.


He said that 40 million jobs were created between 1980 and 2000, when the tax rate for the rich was higher than it is now. "You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation," he wrote.

Buffett proposed that Congress impose a higher tax rate on millionaires, and an even higher tax rate on those making at least $10 million per year.

"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress," he wrote. "It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."


Buffett, a Wall Street guru who has made billions during his 60 years of investing, has pledged to donate 99% of his wealth to charity.

In a recent interview with Fortune, Buffett said he still believes the United States is an AAA-rated nation, despite the recent Standard & Poor's downgrade of the credit rating. He said he also continuing to buy stocks, because recent market volatility has created lots of deals.

 

[Lonecowboy]

Bump for ot apparently he missed this message-


Hyothetical situation; Your 16 year old daughter is out on a date, do you want her to:

a) Have, use and follow the principles you have taught her?

b) Compromise?



Hint: there is no such thing as a little pregnant

(yes you can always pick another option, I just don't think murder is an acceptable option so didn't make it a choice, I am NOT pro choice on murdering an innocent baby.)

But there are absolutes!

Ot- couldn't answer this question HUH? tough choice- 50/50 chance of getting it right.
Here is a hint: If you truley love your daughter and have her best interest at heart, and have any sense at all you will pick a.
The same choice you would make if you truley love your country and have her best interest at heart and have any sense at all.

 

[Lonecowboy]

I'll give you another hypothetical-- when you're the crew in a leaky ship - and the whole crew wants to steer and none want to man the bilge pumps- if you don't work out some type of compromise the ship soon sinks- and takes down the crew and all aboard....

this is definatly a liberal hypothetical situation-

1- the crew has not already been taught principles, so therefore they know NOT what to do. they have no self discipline or common sense.

2-they have all been lazy, taken no personal responsibility, have NOT planned ahead, and have looked to someone else to do the needed maintenence to prevent the leak in the first place.

3- they have no real leader, no one they can respect, so in an emergency they all feel the need to take over

4- they all want to look important but none want to work

5- now they all need someone with a sense of principles, a sense of discipline and direction to come rescue them from the situation they have created.

6- should the rescue squad:

a- join them in a panic on the port side and help capsize the vessel?
b- join the in the center and help sink the vessel?
c- direct enough people to the starboard side to raise the hole in the ship up above the waterline so repairs can be made?

 

[Mike]

Buffett is a hack and a thief that knows how to manipulate the system. He backs Obama because Buckwheat will let him and his big corporate minions do just that.

 

[Lonecowboy]

oldtimer wrote:

I think I'll believe folks like Warren over folks like Krayton...Buffet has invested heavily in Montanas future- and believes in progressing rather than going backwards....

We need a compromise plan to get us out of 50+ years of building debt- both major spending cuts and tax reform/additional income....

when crossing the staked plains it was so flat travelers drove stakes into the ground so they could periodically look back and line up the stakes to make sure they were headed in the right direction and not just going in circles.
Looking back from time to time to see where you are headed is a good idea- you sugested yourself looking back 50+ years, Krayton was just looking back to another stake (235+ years) to see how they line up.

it also seems Krayon has a much bigger investment in Montana than warren Buffet. Buffet has invested $$$ Krayton has invested his life.

 

[hopalong]

He has not invested in oldtimer, Buffett has probably lined oldtimers pocket a few times in one way or another, and to oldtimer that is all that matters.

All talk and no substance. Talk to his neighbors, not the ones at the waterhole he hangs out in buying friends :roll: :roll:

 

[Steve]

I'll give you another hypothetical-- when you're the crew in a leaky ship - and the whole crew wants to steer and none want to man the bilge pumps- if you don't work out some type of compromise the ship soon sinks- and takes down the crew and all aboard....

obviously you have never been on a leaky ship before... be it a boat, a ship or any other vessel.. staying afloat is almost always the TOP priority..


and in some situations that is not the best choice.. such as the military in the middle of a battle.. if a destroyer fails to protect the carrier, the war may be lost.. so most tin can sailors have a do or die attitude towards most battle..

And finally the titanic is a fine example of how the desire to stay the course and stay on a sinking ship killed many who could have been saved..

Had the Titanic just slowed a bit, closed a few doors, she might have made her voyage a huge success..

Obama has his hand on the throttle and is full steam ahead.. he doesn't care where the ship is going..or what it runs over.. as long as it is headed to his re-election..

Thankfully the tea party took the steam out of his boilers, the wind out of his sails.... so now we can take a few minutes to bail out the sinking ship and hopefully save her..

 

[Anonymous]

oldtimer wrote:

I think I'll believe folks like Warren over folks like Krayton...Buffet has invested heavily in Montanas future- and believes in progressing rather than going backwards....

We need a compromise plan to get us out of 50+ years of building debt- both major spending cuts and tax reform/additional income....

when crossing the staked plains it was so flat travelers drove stakes into the ground so they could periodically look back and line up the stakes to make sure they were headed in the right direction and not just going in circles.
Looking back from time to time to see where you are headed is a good idea- you sugested yourself looking back 50+ years, Krayton was just looking back to another stake (235+ years) to see how they line up.

it also seems Krayon has a much bigger investment in Montana than warren Buffet. Buffet has invested $$$ Krayton has invested his life.

Krayton was a huge disappointment...At a time when a big concern was the states and countries economy he took up much of the legislatures time introducing unpassable gun laws for the gun lobby that fills his election coffers- and trying to go back 50 years by changing laws on social issues...
He was trying to override a VOTER Passed Medical Marijuana law, trying to throw out the Mt Supreme Courts ruling that the Montana Constitutions individual privacy act gives a person the right to die with dignity, and supported the platform that called for making gay sex a criminal act- something that was thrown out years ago by the Supreme Court..

To me thats going backwards......

 

[Lonecowboy]

oldtimer wrote:

I think I'll believe folks like Warren over folks like Krayton...Buffet has invested heavily in Montanas future- and believes in progressing rather than going backwards....

We need a compromise plan to get us out of 50+ years of building debt- both major spending cuts and tax reform/additional income....

when crossing the staked plains it was so flat travelers drove stakes into the ground so they could periodically look back and line up the stakes to make sure they were headed in the right direction and not just going in circles.
Looking back from time to time to see where you are headed is a good idea- you sugested yourself looking back 50+ years, Krayton was just looking back to another stake (235+ years) to see how they line up.

it also seems Krayon has a much bigger investment in Montana than warren Buffet. Buffet has invested $$$ Krayton has invested his life.

Krayton was a huge disappointment...At a time when a big concern was the states and countries economy he took up much of the legislatures time introducing unpassable gun laws for the gun lobby that fills his election coffers- and trying to go back 50 years by changing laws on social issues...
He was trying to override a VOTER Passed Medical Marijuana law, trying to throw out the Mt Supreme Courts ruling that the Montana Constitutions individual privacy act gives a person the right to die with dignity, and supported the platform that called for making gay sex a criminal act- something that was thrown out years ago by the Supreme Court..

To me thats going backwards......

OK back those statements up with facts please
give us the House Bill numbers of the "unpassable gun laws" he sponsored
the names and ammounts of "gun lobby" contributions that "filled his election coffers"
what bills did he sponsor on medical marijuana, gays,etc. all the other things you mentioned.
anty up ot, show us facts, actual links to actual bills?????
not rhetoric- the actual bills Krayton sponsored, complete text, show us!

 

[Anonymous]

oldtimer wrote:



when crossing the staked plains it was so flat travelers drove stakes into the ground so they could periodically look back and line up the stakes to make sure they were headed in the right direction and not just going in circles.
Looking back from time to time to see where you are headed is a good idea- you sugested yourself looking back 50+ years, Krayton was just looking back to another stake (235+ years) to see how they line up.

it also seems Krayon has a much bigger investment in Montana than warren Buffet. Buffet has invested $$$ Krayton has invested his life.

Krayton was a huge disappointment...At a time when a big concern was the states and countries economy he took up much of the legislatures time introducing unpassable gun laws for the gun lobby that fills his election coffers- and trying to go back 50 years by changing laws on social issues...
He was trying to override a VOTER Passed Medical Marijuana law, trying to throw out the Mt Supreme Courts ruling that the Montana Constitutions individual privacy act gives a person the right to die with dignity, and supported the platform that called for making gay sex a criminal act- something that was thrown out years ago by the Supreme Court..

To me thats going backwards......

OK back those statements up with facts please
give us the House Bill numbers of the "unpassable gun laws" he sponsored
the names and ammounts of "gun lobby" contributions that "filled his election coffers"
what bills did he sponsor on medical marijuana, gays,etc. all the other things you mentioned.
anty up ot, show us facts, actual links to actual bills?????
not rhetoric- the actual bills Krayton sponsored, complete text, show us!

Which of Kraytons gun laws passed?

 

[hopalong]

Come on oldtimer you were asked questions now you won't answer them but want to ask another question!!???
Answer up before the next series of questions start!
You do not seem to grasp how discussions are handled!!!
Is that how you handle your court room of course as a J.P. you probably never handle any REAL cases.

 

[Lonecowboy]

see ot this is how it's done, now it's your turn- show facts-Thanks to Krayton Kerns:

HOUSE BILL NO. 228

INTRODUCED BY K. KERNS, ANKNEY, ARNTZEN, BALYEAT, BENNETT, BLACK, BLASDEL, BONIEK, R. BROWN, T. BROWN, CAMPBELL, CURTISS, GALLUS, HAMLETT, HENDRICK, HINKLE, HOVEN, INGRAHAM, JACKSON, JONES, KOTTEL, MCGEE, MEHLHOFF, MILLER, MORE, RANDALL, ROUNDSTONE, SMITH, SONJU, VANCE, WARBURTON



AN ACT PRESERVING AND CLARIFYING LAWS RELATING TO THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS; AMENDING SECTIONS 45-3-103, 45-8-321, AND 46-6-502, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.



WHEREAS, the Legislature declares that:

(1) the right of Montanans to defend their lives and liberties, as provided in Article II, section 3, of the Montana Constitution, and their right to keep or bear arms in defense of their homes, persons, and property, as provided in Article II, section 12, of the Montana Constitution, are fundamental and may not be called into question;

(2) the use of firearms for self-defense is recognized within the right reserved to the individual people of Montana in Article II, section 12, of the Montana Constitution;

(3) self-defense is a natural right under section 1-2-104, MCA, and is included in sections 49-1-101 and 49-1-103, MCA;

(4) the lawful use of firearms for self-defense is not a crime or an offense against the people of the state;

(5) in a criminal case in which self-defense is asserted, the burden of proof is as provided in [section 10];

(6) in self-defense, the use of justifiable force discourages violent crime and prevents victimization; and

(7) the purpose of [sections 1 through 3] is to clarify and secure the ability of the people to protect themselves.



BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:



Section 1. No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.



Section 2. Openly carrying weapon -- display -- exemption. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.

(2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.

(3) This section does not limit the authority of the board of regents or other postsecondary institutions to regulate the carrying of weapons, as defined in 45-8-361(5)(b), on their campuses.



Section 3. Investigation of alleged offense involving claim of justifiable use of force. When an investigation is conducted by a peace officer of an incident that appears to have or is alleged to have involved justifiable use of force, the investigation must be conducted so as to disclose all evidence, including testimony concerning the alleged offense and that might support the apparent or alleged justifiable use of force.



Section 4. Section 45-3-103, MCA, is amended to read:

"45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that he the person reasonably believes that such conduct the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate such the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure. However, he

(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:

(1)(a) the entry is made or attempted in violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner and he the person reasonably believes that such the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon or offer of personal violence to him the person or another then in the occupied structure; or

(2)(b) he the person reasonably believes that such the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure."



Section 5. Firearm not to be destroyed. If a firearm possessed by a law enforcement agency was not purchased by the agency for agency use, if it is legal for a private person to own and possess the firearm, and if the legal owner cannot be determined by the agency, the agency may not destroy the firearm and shall sell the firearm to a licensed dealer. The proceeds of the sale must be deposited in the general fund of the governmental entity of which the agency is a part.



Section 6. Landlords and tenants -- no firearm prohibition allowed. A landlord or operator of a hotel or motel may not, by contract or otherwise, prevent a tenant or a guest of a tenant from possessing on the premises a firearm that it is legal for the tenant or guest to possess. A landlord or operator of a hotel or motel may prohibit the discharge of a firearm on the premises except in self-defense.



Section 7. Section 45-8-321, MCA, is amended to read:

"45-8-321. Permit to carry concealed weapon. (1) A county sheriff shall, within 60 days after the filing of an application, issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon to the applicant. The permit is valid for 4 years from the date of issuance. An applicant must be a United States citizen who is 18 years of age or older and who holds a valid Montana driver's license or other form of identification issued by the state that has a picture of the person identified. An applicant must have been a resident of the state for at least 6 months. Except as provided in subsection (2), this privilege may not be denied an applicant unless the applicant:

(a) is ineligible under Montana or federal law to own, possess, or receive a firearm;

(b) has been charged and is awaiting judgment in any state of a state or federal crime that is punishable by incarceration for 1 year or more;

(c) subject to the provisions of subsection (6), has been convicted in any state or federal court of:

(i) a crime punishable by more than 1 year of incarceration or,; or

(ii) regardless of the sentence that may be imposed, a crime that includes as an element of the crime an act, attempted act, or threat of intentional homicide, violence, bodily or serious bodily harm, unlawful restraint, sexual abuse, or sexual intercourse or contact without consent;

(d) has been convicted under 45-8-327 or 45-8-328, unless the applicant has been pardoned or 5 years have elapsed since the date of the conviction;

(e) has a warrant of any state or the federal government out for the applicant's arrest;

(f) has been adjudicated in a criminal or civil proceeding in any state or federal court to be an unlawful user of an intoxicating substance and is under a court order of imprisonment or other incarceration, probation, suspended or deferred imposition of sentence, treatment or education, or other conditions of release or is otherwise under state supervision;

(g) has been adjudicated in a criminal or civil proceeding in any state or federal court to be mentally ill, mentally defective, or mentally disabled and is still subject to a disposition order of that court; or

(h) was dishonorably discharged from the United States armed forces.

(2) The sheriff may deny an applicant a permit to carry a concealed weapon if the sheriff has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant is mentally ill, mentally defective, or mentally disabled or otherwise may be a threat to the peace and good order of the community to the extent that the applicant should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. At the time an application is denied, the sheriff shall, unless the applicant is the subject of an active criminal investigation, give the applicant a written statement of the reasonable cause upon which the denial is based.

(3) An applicant for a permit under this section must, as a condition to issuance of the permit, be required by the sheriff to demonstrate familiarity with a firearm by:

(a) completion of a hunter education or safety course approved or conducted by the department of fish, wildlife, and parks or a similar agency of another state;

(b) completion of a firearms safety or training course approved or conducted by the department of fish, wildlife, and parks, a similar agency of another state, a national firearms association, a law enforcement agency, an institution of higher education, or an organization that uses instructors certified by a national firearms association;

(c) completion of a law enforcement firearms safety or training course offered to or required of public or private law enforcement personnel and conducted or approved by a law enforcement agency;

(d) possession of a license from another state to carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise, that is granted by that state upon completion of a course described in subsections (3)(a) through (3)(c); or

(e) evidence that the applicant, during military service, was found to be qualified to operate firearms, including handguns.

(4) A photocopy of a certificate of completion of a course described in subsection (3), an affidavit from the entity or instructor that conducted the course attesting to completion of the course, or a copy of any other document that attests to completion of the course and can be verified through contact with the entity or instructor that conducted the course creates a presumption that the applicant has completed a course described in subsection (3).

(5) If the sheriff and applicant agree, the requirement in subsection (3) of demonstrating familiarity with a firearm may be satisfied by the applicant's passing, to the satisfaction of the sheriff or of any person or entity to which the sheriff delegates authority to give the test, a physical test in which the applicant demonstrates the applicant's familiarity with a firearm.

(6) A person, except a person referred to in subsection (1)(c)(ii), who has been convicted of a felony and whose rights have been restored pursuant to Article II, section 28, of the Montana constitution is entitled to issuance of a concealed weapons permit if otherwise eligible."



Section 8. Section 46-6-502, MCA, is amended to read:

"46-6-502. Arrest by private person. (1) A private person may arrest another when there is probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense and the existing circumstances require the person's immediate arrest. The private person may use reasonable force to detain the arrested person.

(2) A private person making an arrest shall immediately notify the nearest available law enforcement agency or peace officer and give custody of the person arrested to the officer or agency."



Section 9. Justifiable use of force -- burden of proof. In a criminal trial, when the defendant has offered evidence of justifiable use of force, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not justified.



Section 10. Codification instruction. (1) [Sections 1 through 3] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 45, chapter 3, part 1, and the provisions of Title 45, chapter 3, part 1, apply to [sections 1 through 3].

(2) [Section 5] is intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 46, chapter 5, part 3, and the provisions of Title 46, chapter 5, part 3, apply to [section 5].

(3) [Section 6] is intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 70, chapter 24, part 1, and the provisions of Title 70, chapter 24, part 1, apply to [section 6].

(4) [Section 9] is intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 46, chapter 16, part 1, and the provisions of Title 46, chapter 16, part 1, apply to [section 9].



Section 11. Effective date. [This act] is effective on passage and approval.

- END -

 

[Anonymous]

Don't think it changed much for gun law- mostly clarifying the definition of self defense...
Even Krayton admitted that his sucking up to the gun lobby was pretty much a failure... Definitely wasted a lot of the Legislatures time that could have been spent working on economic issues- while Kern was catering to one special interest group....

Few gun rights measures still alive in Montana Legislature



HELENA — The number of gun rights bills likely to clear the Montana Legislature appears to be dwindling significantly, as the session enters its final days, dealing a blow to gun-rights advocates who seem unable to capitalize on having a Republican majority.

With the GOP holding one of the largest legislative majorities in years, this session presented a key opening for conservative lawmakers that often favor more lenient gun measures.

But the gun-rights supporters seem to be unable to seize the moment. Most of the measures have been stopped.

The representative that carried a large number of the gun bills before the Legislature, Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel, described the session as a failure for the cause, now that most of the measures are likely dead.



Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_87aa142a-6200-11e0-98e6-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1V8GqEfau

 

[hopalong]

Don't think it changed much for gun law- mostly clarifying the definition of self defense...
Even Krayton admitted that his sucking up to the gun lobby was pretty much a failure... Definitely wasted a lot of the Legislatures time that could have been spent working on economic issues- while Kern was catering to one special interest group....

Few gun rights measures still alive in Montana Legislature



HELENA — The number of gun rights bills likely to clear the Montana Legislature appears to be dwindling significantly, as the session enters its final days, dealing a blow to gun-rights advocates who seem unable to capitalize on having a Republican majority.

With the GOP holding one of the largest legislative majorities in years, this session presented a key opening for conservative lawmakers that often favor more lenient gun measures.

But the gun-rights supporters seem to be unable to seize the moment. Most of the measures have been stopped.

The representative that carried a large number of the gun bills before the Legislature, Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel, described the session as a failure for the cause, now that most of the measures are likely dead.



Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_87aa142a-6200-11e0-98e6-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1V8GqEfau

No argument just BLATHER from the fat man giving us all a treat at his expense

 

[Lonecowboy]

oldtimer wrote:



when crossing the staked plains it was so flat travelers drove stakes into the ground so they could periodically look back and line up the stakes to make sure they were headed in the right direction and not just going in circles.
Looking back from time to time to see where you are headed is a good idea- you sugested yourself looking back 50+ years, Krayton was just looking back to another stake (235+ years) to see how they line up.

it also seems Krayon has a much bigger investment in Montana than warren Buffet. Buffet has invested $$$ Krayton has invested his life.

Krayton was a huge disappointment...At a time when a big concern was the states and countries economy he took up much of the legislatures time introducing unpassable gun laws for the gun lobby that fills his election coffers- and trying to go back 50 years by changing laws on social issues...
He was trying to override a VOTER Passed Medical Marijuana law, trying to throw out the Mt Supreme Courts ruling that the Montana Constitutions individual privacy act gives a person the right to die with dignity, and supported the platform that called for making gay sex a criminal act- something that was thrown out years ago by the Supreme Court..

To me thats going backwards......

OK back those statements up with facts pleasegive us the House Bill numbers of the "unpassable gun laws" he sponsored
the names and ammounts of "gun lobby" contributions that "filled his election coffers"what bills did he sponsor on medical marijuana, gays,etc. all the other things you mentioned.
anty up ot, show us facts, actual links to actual bills?????
not rhetoric- the actual bills Krayton sponsored, complete text, show us![/quote]

So are you going to bring any facts to back up your statements or can we all just assume you lied again?? The burden of proof is in your court- do you have any FACTS to back it up? If not it sounds like a slander case to me.