About Me

Name: Terry Gray
Location: Louisville, KY
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Stick it Obama

Posted by Terry Gray on Monday, May 11, 2009 11:07:16 PM
Subj: Fw: New MT Gun law
 
> Way to go Montana!!!!!!
> You can google….new Montana gun law for a check
>  Looks like we have a Constitutional challenge.
> 
> Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law Executive Summary 
> 
> The USA state of Montana has signed into power a
> revolutionary gun law. I mean REVOLUTIONARY. The State of
> Montana has defied the federal government and their gun
> laws.  This will prompt a showdown between the federal
> government and the State of Montana. The federal government
> fears citizens owning guns. They try to curtail what types
> of guns they can own. The gun control laws all have one
> common goal - confiscation of privately owned firearms.
> 
>  Montana has gone beyond drawing a line in the sand.  They
> have challenged the Federal Government. The fed
> now either takes them on and risks them saying the federal
> agents have no right to violate their state gun
> laws and arrest the federal agents that try to enforce the
> federal firearms acts. This will be a world-class event to
> watch.
> 
>  Montana could go to voting for secession from the union,
> which is really throwing the gauntlet in Obama's face.
> If the federal government does nothing they lose face. 
> 
> Gotta love it.
> 
>  Important Points -
>  If guns and ammunition are manufactured inside the State
> of Montana for sale and use inside that state then the
> federal firearms laws have no applicability since the
> federal government only has the power to control commerce
> across state lines.
> 
>  Montana has the law on their side. Since when did the USA
> start following their own laws especially the constitution
> of the USA, the very document that empowers the USA.
> 
>  Silencers made in Montana and sold in Montana would be
> fully legal and not registered. As a note silencers were
> first used before the 007 movies as a device to enable one
> to hunt without disturbing neighbors and scaring game. 
> 
> They were also useful as devices to control noise when
> practicing so as to not disturb the neighbors.
> 
>  Silencers work best with a bolt-action rifle. There is a
> long barrel and the chamber is closed tight so as to direct
> all the gases though the silencer at the tip of the barrel.
> Semi-auto pistols and revolvers do not really muffle the
> sound very well except on the silver screen.
> 
>  The revolvers bleed gas out with the sound all over the
> place. The semi-auto pistols bleed the gases out when the
> slide recoils back.
> 
>  Silencers are maybe nice for snipers picking off enemy
> soldiers even though they reduce velocity but not very
> practical for hit men shooting pistols in crowded places.
> Silencers were useful tools for gun enthusiasts and hunters.
> 
>  There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers,
> criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork
> required. So in a short period of time there would be
> millions and millions of unregistered untraceable guns in
> Montana. 
> 
> Way to go Montana!
>  Discussion- 
> Let us see what Obama does. If he hits Montana hard they
> will probably vote to secede from the USA. 
> 
>  The governor of Texas has already been refusing Federal
> money because he does not want to agree to the conditions
> that go with it and he has been saying secession is a right
> they have as sort of a threat. Things are no longer the same
> with the USA.
> 
>  Do not be deceived by Obama acting as if all is the same,
> it is not.
> 
>  Text of the New Law 
> HOUSE BILL NO. 246 INTRODUCED; BY J. BONIEK, BENNETT,
> BUTCHER, CURTISS, RANDALL, WARBURTON
> 
>  AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE
> COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE  UNITED STATES A
> FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND
> RETAINED IN MONTANA;  AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.
> BE IT ENACTED  BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
> 
>  Section 1. 
> Short title. [Sections 1 through 6] may be cited as the
> "Montana Firearms Freedom Act".
> 
>  Section 2.
>  Legislative declarations of authority. The legislature
> declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 6] is
> the following:
> 
>  (1) The 10th amendment to the United States Constitution
> guarantees to the states and their people all powers not
> granted to the federal government elsewhere in the
> constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana
> certain powers as they were understood at the time that
> Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of
> those powers is a matter of contract between the state and
> people of Montana and the United States as of the time that
> the compact with the United States was agreed upon and
> adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
> 
> (2)The ninth amendment to the United States constitution
> guarantees to the people rights not granted in the
> Constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain
> rights, as they were understood at the time that Montana was
> admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those rights
> is a matter of contract between the state and people
> of Montana and the United States as of the time that the
> compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted
> by Montana and the United States in 1889.
> 
> (3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the
> states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United
> States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted
> by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state
> regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the
> manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms
> accessories, and ammunition.
> 
> (4) The Second Amendment to the United States constitution
> reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as
> that right was understood at the time that Montana was
> admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right
> is a matter of contract between the state and people of
> Montana and the United States as of the time that the
> compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted
> by Montana and the United States in 1889.
> 
> (5) Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution
> clearly secures to Montana citizens, and prohibits
> government interference with, the right of individual
> Montana citizens to keep and bear arms. This constitutional
> protection is unchanged from the 1889 Montana constitution,
> which was approved by Congress and the people of Montana,
> and the right exists, as it was understood at the time 
> that the compact with the United States was agreed upon
> and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.
> 
> Section 3.Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6],
> the following definitions apply:
>  (1)"Borders of Montana " means the boundaries of
> Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889
> Montana constitution.
> 
>  (2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are
> used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are
> not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including
> but not limited to telescopic or laser sights, magazines,
> flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks
> and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for
> target illumination.
>  (3)"Generic and insignificant parts" includes
> but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
>  (4)"Manufactured" means that a firearm, a
> firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from basic
> materials for functional usefulness, including but not
> limited to forging, casting, machining, or other processes
> for working materials.
> 
>  Section 4. Prohibitions.
> 
> A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that
> is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and
> that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to
> federal law or federal regulation, including registration,
> under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate
> commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items
> have not traveled in interstate commerce. 
> 
> This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or
> ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic
> materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion
> of any significant parts imported from another state. 
> Generic and insignificant parts that have other
> manufacturing or consumer product applications are not
> firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their
> importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a
> firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not
> subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to
> federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that
> basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood,
> are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and
> are not subject to congressional authority to regulate
> firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under
> interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms,
> firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of
> Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials
> does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms
> accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those
> materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into
> Montana from another state and that are subject to federal
> regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a
> firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce
> because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm
> in Montana.
> 
>  Section 5. Exceptions.  [Section 4] does not apply to:
>  (1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one
> person;
>  (2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2
> inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder
> propellant.
>  (3)ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an
> explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the
> firearm; or
> 
>  (4)a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with
> one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
> 
>  Section 6. Marketing of firearms.
> 
> A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana under [sections 1
> through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana "
> clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the
> receiver or frame.
> 
>  Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through
> 6] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title
> 30, and the provisions of Title 30 apply to [sections 1
> through 6].
> 
>  Section 8. Applicability.
> 
> [This act] applies to firearms, Firearms accessories, and
> ammunition that are manufactured, as defined in [section 3],
> and retained in Montana after October 1, 2009.
> 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Keeping Abreast of Things

Posted by Terry Gray on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:27:38 PM
I wrote this in December 2003.

KEEPING ABREAST OF THINGs

When I heard the Louisville city attorney in the adult bar issue say that the constitution doesn’t guarantee freedom of nudity, I was shocked.  Will we now have to come up with a way to dress babies in the womb just before delivery?  Will the city of Louisville petition God and demand that babies be clothed?

 

I thought the city attorney’s statement was the stupidest thing since screen doors on submarines.  Adult clubs need this city attorney fighting against them.  Nothing beats dueling with an unarmed man.

 

Dogs and cats have more freedom than we do.  I cannot believe that they are allowed to go nude – and no cover charge!  I guess it’s all a trade off however when one considers that patrons of adult bars (as opposed to kid bars) aren’t handed pooper-scoopers when they enter.  At least by gosh we have that under control!

 

It seems to me that the term “adult” entertainment pretty much sums up an idea of reaching the age of decision.

 

I laugh when I think about what ordinances and politicians have done to adult bars.  I cry when I think of all of the deprived politicians that enjoy a good show now and then.  Well, at least Patton kept his antics semi-private.  Bill Clinton didn’t flaunt his but did it on our time and in our office.  For some reason, I find openness more appealing.  Hiding behind a big desk or in a motel room just makes things seem kind of sleazy to me. 

 

For the powers that be, wherever they are, to stick a time restriction on a taxpaying woman and limiting her right to show her body to a crowd of taxpaying Americans at a legal, taxpaying club just doesn’t sound right.  But they aren’t denying them the right to do that; they are denying the club owners the right to open their businesses according to business demand.  That, in turn, denies the dancers the right to dance and the patrons the right to go where they want to go in this “free” society.

 

What about the guys (and gals) that work 2nd shift?  This dumb restriction denies them the right to partake of an entertainment that the rest of us can enjoy.  That ain’t right.

 

Now don’t hand me this malarkey that government regulates businesses all the time.  Just because they do it doesn’t mean it’s right.  This is the same precedent that is used all the time to snatch something away from us, and it has to stop.  Murders happen all the time, but we don’t accept them.

 

“You’ll be arrested if you are open between the hours of 1 A.M. and 11 A.M. Monday through Friday and 1 A.M. and 1 P.M. on weekends.”  Some retail stores are open 24 hours and bars without breasts are open until 4 A.M.  HBO shows adult movies all night, and pay-per-view shows them most anytime you want them.  Video stores with the ominous “back room” can sell adult videos any time their doors are open.

 

Adult clubs being close to churches and schools is a prime consideration for regulating the hours of adult clubs.  Is there a public night school that I don’t know about?  Are we now forcing kids to make homeroom by midnight?  It seems that the law would have been better applied if adult clubs were made to close from 7 A.M. to 9 A.M. and 2 P.M. to 4 P.M. on weekdays and 9 A.M. to 1 P.M. on Sundays to accommodate church goers.  But I don’t agree with that either.  Good Christians know that girls have breasts and men like to look at them.

 

But I digress.  We really shouldn’t equate church goers with Christians.  Christians, for the most part will tell you that they don’t agree with you, but they will allow you your own sins and say a little prayer.  They leave you alone.

 

The second consideration for limiting the hours for adult clubs is the crime factor.  This is all mumbo-jumbo statistics that don’t stand up under close scrutiny.  However, any of the stats that do hold water do so for a very good reason; adult clubs have been forced by zoning to locate to areas that are higher in crime in the first place.  Ah, what a fine bit of politicking this is.  Make adult clubs open in high crime areas and then blame the crime on adult clubs.

 

Frankly, I’m getting sick of the do-gooders out there telling me what is best for me.  I don’t go to adult clubs, but I want the option of doing so.  Some early morning, I may have a hankering to cruise over to Breasts Galore and take in a show.  I don’t eat breakfast, so I’d like the option of a menu substitution.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Attacks

Posted by Terry Gray on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:17:29 PM

PERSONAL ASSAULTS

 

My editor and I banter from time to time on some of my writing and my tactics.  She has given me subtle, constructive criticism and sometimes not so subtle, concerning my enthusiastic and robust commentaries about issues.  Her criticisms concern my personal attacks on those that would take my freedom.

 

When I make a personal attack or remark about a person and his issues, I am motivated to do this on many levels.  What are the reasons that we like or dislike someone?  What attracts us to people or repels us from them?  I think for the most part we all would agree that it is their outlook on things.  We typically do not associate with people that entertain ideologies far removed from our own.

 

I also use my “attacks” as a heads-up for the person saying things that expose his ideologies that are so far removed from my own.  When this person sees his name in print, he will read what I wrote.  He may hate what I write and may hate me for writing it, but he will read it.  While he is fuming and hating me, there may be one word or statement that I wrote that sticks in his head.  In a few days, weeks, months or years he may come to challenge himself on the way he feels because of what I wrote, or he may just continue to hate me.  But what have I lost?  This person may say, “I hate that guy and I will never agree with anything he says.”  That person probably will never agree with anything that anyone says that is contrary to his beliefs anyway.  But on the other hand, someday I may be thanked for opening up the person to a new perspective.

 

In this day of political correctness, I find too much caution.  People become fearful of saying what they mean.  Our country fights an open-ended war on terrorism that challenges my freedom.  I will speak out against that, but more important is my stance on the way the war is being fought directly against those that would attack us.  We play by politically correct rules where foreign combatants are concerned while removing our politically correct Constitution from the play book when it comes to our citizens.  Our government can expect to win neither war, because our enemies do not play from the same book, and our citizens will eventually say enough.

 

Through this entire little tirade my point is this; I do not play by the book.  When you attack my freedom or the underlying principles of my freedoms, don’t expect courtesy.  You may hate me, and that is okay, because, if I have “attacked” you, I obviously don’t like you either!    

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ARCHIVE - SMOKING IN HOMES

Posted by Terry Gray on Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:20:51 PM
I wrote this in 2004 for my piece in the Jefferson Review called "Terry's Tidbits"

THE BEST OR WORST OF TERRY’S TIDBITS – By Terry Gray
SMOKING IN HOMES. October, 2004

Ever since fanatic anti-smoking groups began their nonsense, they have assured us all that they do not want to eradicate tobacco or come into our homes. Those fighting the bans called them liars and justifiably so. They have lied about most everything else when pursuing their oppressive legislation, and freedom fighters have seen their ilk before. We know these fanatics.

I’ve told you why they don’t want to kill tobacco; they make too much money from it. But when it comes to legislating where one may smoke, they are all over the place. The Ontario Medical Association now says, “The OMA is recommending government turn its attention to raising awareness around the issue and, possibly, instituting a ban on smoking in any homes, vehicles or facilities that offer childcare services.”

This isn’t about smoking around kids, however. This is about smoking in homes where kids live or visit and cars in which kids ride, even if kids aren’t present when someone is smoking. “The reason, (sic) is that cigarettes release gaseous chemicals in smoke that condense on surfaces, and are then re-released later.”

Tobacco smoke is magical, don’t you know? It lies in wait in the form of a solid and then suddenly turns to gas when kids are around and pounces on them. That sounds like a fool’s mission. Since tobacco smoke is so crafty, it would seem that while in the gaseous state it would fly around seeking out children rather lying dormant and waiting for children to come to it.

The OMA is talking about home businesses for the most part and, for right now, only those home businesses that serve children. However, this is just another brick in the oppression highway.

“This report will lead the way in taking action against SHS in spaces that children should feel safe and protected,” said Dr. John Rapin, President of the OMA.” Coming soon to a home near you.

Cigarette smoke doesn’t just get on surfaces in buildings; it also gets on smokers’ clothes. We smokers are walking arsenals of tobacco toxins. Our lungs serve as conveyors of death, and our clothes are like the bandages of lepers. Egads!

Those “No Smoking” signs that you see plastered all over everything may very likely change to “No Smokers” if the nannies have their way. “Smokers’ elevator in the rear.” “Smokers must report immediately to the biohazard room for detox before being admitted to other areas of this building.” “No valet service for smokers, sorry.”

I smoke, and there is a brownish film on my car windows when I’m cleaning them. There is no doubt in my mind that the film is solidified tobacco smoke. In the hopes of getting rid of this film, I invited some kids to go for a ride with me. I expected to hear some evil sound like that of a demon awakening while the solid poison altered itself to a gaseous state and attacked. However, it was very anti-climatic. The film didn’t move, the kids didn’t cough, and I’m stuck with a bottle of Windex and a shop rag. I thought I was on to something.

I would like to point out that the OMA does not provide any hard statistical data. They do acknowledge various “studies” but they provide no details. Further, all the studies that they do cite are studies that have been funded by other nannies, like – Louis Gleeson; Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco (OCAT), Michael Perly; (OCAT), Ontario Medical Association, Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Conference on Tobacco and Health, Physicians for a Tobacco-Free Canada, EPA, and Stan Glantz. Glantz has admitted that he has filed falsified reports. Go figure

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NEW SCARE?

Posted by Terry Gray on Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:16:50 PM
So there are 20 cases of the new swine flu in the U.S.  The media and the government are acting like we are all going to die.  I guess this is just one more fear tactic to take our minds off our socialist/fascist president and his socialization of America.  Really, who cares about socialism when one's very survival is in jeopardy?  Isn't this similar to how Bush pushed through Homeland Security and The Patriot Act, those homegrown sisters to the Gestapo and the KGB?

Speaking of Homeland Security and the "pandemic".  Janet Napolitano is warning us that this could be bad.  We may all get sick or die.  She says that we really don't know much about the flu but Mexico is seeing fatalities from it.  Napolitano is the Homeland Security director who wants to open our borders with Mexico.  It would seem to me that our borders are too open now and the swine are bring the flu with them.

Hey Napolitano, get a clue.  It's coming from Mexico.  How hard can than that be to figure out?  This is yet one more reason to say no to more Mexicans.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Eminent Domain and Guns

Posted by Terry Gray on Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:43:30 AM
An article in the April 25, 2009 Louisville Courier Journal is about the Mayor of Jeffersonville Indiana, Tom Galligan, and his attempt to take a local water company via eminent domain.

"If someone is making a profit from water utility, I don't know why a municipality can't take it and invest those profits in its own community," the mayor said. Legislators "want us to provide all the services but they want to restrict how we can get revenue."

Can you believe this? 

On the first anniversary of Kelo, President Bush issued an executive order that strengthened property rights and protections against eminent domain.  Section I states that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".  Shouldn't this also apply to local governments?

This got me thinking about the Obama regime and its propensity of seizing businesses like banks and auto makers, effectively nationalizing those industries and opening the door to further seizure and nationalization.  What if they decided to use simpleton-socialist Mayor Galligan's mentality and seized gun manufacturers?  At the point they could simply shut the down and stop the manufacture of guns and ammo, side stepping the 2nd amendment - own guns if you can find them.

Look out folks, it's coming.  And for those of you who are proponents of socialism, remember, Hitler was a socialist.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Prisoner Again

Posted by Terry Gray on Friday, April 24, 2009 8:59:21 PM
For those of you who come to Louisville for the Derby, we are like any other town during a big shindig.  We love the attention and the money that comes to town but we have to work too.  

What you don't see is our crooked mayor hiding the homeless, the city sweeping its garbage under the rug, and the residents being put out royally.

All Derby week there are events that draw attention and participation from all over the world.  Saturday, April 25 this year (tomorrow), the mini marathon begins at six a.m.  Every street in the south end is barricaded and residents cannot leave their blocks. Runners have precedence over our roads.  There are many people who need to go to work who cannot get out.  There are deliveries that can't happen.  If there is a fire no one knows what would happen.  Would the race be halted to allow fire trucks access to the neighborhood where the house or business is burning?

One year I expect that something dire is going to occur and someone is going to die because the city too busy putting events to provide the services for which we pay taxes.

Mayor "Happy Pants" Abramson, why don't you move the mini marathon to your neighborhood one year so your east end rich folks can't leave their streets?  We don't want your damn mini marathon here bud.  And so we are clear, if something happens to one of my family and I need to get out, there will be some mashed runners to scrape off the roads.  

How about you join the race?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »