Montana threatening Secession !, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 44 times


reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 01:12 AM by damajikninja
reply to post by TrueAmerican


EXCELLENT POST


This really adds some context to the thread topic. I agree that it doesn't look good for the rebellion after reading what you've presented. D.C. will likely be protected by the Supreme Court, which does nothing for Montana.

If, by some chance, the decision is made to allow guns in Washington, we can expect Montana to RUN to the courts to file their next appeal. We could also expect some fall-out from Homeland Security, Bush, and the media about how our Nation's capitol is SO unsecured.

Again, great post. You made me pull out the BIG THUMBS UP for that one! I look forward to adding the in-formal legal opinions of Alaska Bar staff.

[edit on 2/21/2008 by damajikninja]


reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 01:29 AM by kingkn8
reply to post by Nohup



While crop land may not be great, livestock is a huge industry. There is a lot of crop land as well. I doubt they move on due to industry. That is synical and un-founded. For the most part people of Montana love thier land. Two it would be trading the fire for the frying pan. I just don't see Montana making it. I don't see troops moving into Montana either.


reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 03:21 AM by TrueAmerican
reply to post by ColdWater



Infringed

infringe

Main Entry:
in·fringe Listen to the pronunciation of infringe
Pronunciation:
\in-ˈfrinj\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology:
Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
Date:
1513

transitive verb1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another nfringe a patent>2obsolete : defeat, frustrateintransitive verb: encroach —used with on or uponnfringe on our rights>
synonyms see trespass


defeat

Interesting word. Especially when you consider what we are talking about here.

Why is it one could not argue that because of the way that is worded, and especially in the context of the rest of the historic document, that the right to bear arms is absolute, and with no restrictions whatsoever? If they had meant to put more restrictions on it, they would have. The whole idea is that you, Mr. Federal or State Government, shall never have the advantage of force over the people, en masse. A civilian police force is one thing, but now we are in a situation where the government has not only regulated away the publics' ability to own anything other than a pee shooter, but is faced with an all powerful central command in possession of the greatest weapons in the history of mankind. And a willingness to use them on their sole authority, preemptively. So what ever happened to that ole piece of paper, eh?

If anything, the federal government should be protected by a contingent of militia sent and directed by the States. That authority to combine forces should only even be considered in the event of an invading force or national disaster.

You'd figure what they meant was for State militias to hold the real military power. Think about it. Right now we should really be sitting in a situation where State run militias hold, share and regulate all military technology.

The federal government should be really existing to help coordinate that role, and draw from it only in a time of extremely urgent need in the name of national defense of a real attack, by a foreign military, on the homeland. Foreign policy? The States decide. The federal government delivers the message.

[edit on 21-2-2008 by TrueAmerican]


reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 10:54 AM by ironman433
reply to post by bigfoot1212


california is as close to a police state as you can get already. could imagine if we suceeded what kind place this would become.
not only does our federal gov need an enima our state gov does too.
then our power hungry DA's and our nazi style law enforcment should be next. but as long as these idiot yuppie soccer mom starbuck's drinking perscription drug enduced morons can finance their late model gas guzzling S.U.V.'s and their million dollar cracker box homes they won't dare move a mussle to secure their constitutional right's...
so i beg you PLEASE don't wish for california to suceed ,it's bad enough here now..



reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 10:57 AM by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by ironman433



Californians got a bum deal with that state. It's too large and it's population is way to diverse. The rural areas will never feel the same as the urban areas do about the laws that govern the state.

Sure some yuppie in the city or a close suburb might think that banning barrel shrouds will keep her safe from all the angry brown people just waiting to rape her and her children but not too far away from that paranoia is a sensible rancher or farmer of just blue collar guy who likes shooting sports and just wants to be left alone. They'll never get along.

California needs to split apart.


reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 11:05 AM by ironman433
reply to post by thisguyrighthere


i must agree with you on that. you are 100% correct in you assertion and i thank you for that..
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week.
  Posted 2 days ago with 111 member flags
Blue Spheres Fall from the Sky in the UK
  Posted 14 days ago with 81 member flags
The Chinese have seen the dragon in the sky !!
  Posted 1 days ago with 66 member flags
Strange Sounds in Sky Explained by Scientists
  Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags
She Dialed 911. The Cop Who Came to Help Raped Her.
  Posted 4 days ago with 49 member flags
Anonymous: Revealing The Arcane Legal Trick Behind ACTA
  Posted 11 days ago with 42 member flags
Anonymous reveals Haditha massacre emails | RT
  Posted 6 days ago with 33 member flags