Montana threatening Secession !

Originally posted by psylence1
To me it begins and ends here:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -Declaration of Independence

There is a legitimate argument that supports our being "reduced under absolute Despotism" or at least on our way, and one doesn't have to look very hard to establish a list of "abuses and usurpations". Perhaps Montana is one of the few states with the stones to let the federal government know that among other constitutional and fundementally accepted forms of recourse, they do have the right, in fact the duty, to throw off such a government.

Ok...Help me out here you guys...

Let's say that the people of the US decide to stand up and demand that those words in the Declaration is enforced and that the government is to be replaced.

Do you think that this is possible? I mean with the current people in office and current policies wouldn't all of the people be considered terrorists? I think the Pres. WOULD commit troops to deal with the issue and that seems like (to me) that it could get awful bloody.

The whole thing is really scarey deep down because of the strength the gov has now and the power over it's people. The current administration neither cares for or fears the people that put them there in the first place.
Absolute power is a scarey thing.
Very interesting times we are living in

reply to post by kaferwerks


I think that the vast majority of those troops would desert under those conditions, all while giving DC a one-finger salute. The government would be asking them to turn on their own families and friends in order to enforce a law that the vast majority of military personnel probably oppose.

Not gonna happen.

The reason that the government doesn't care what we think is simply because of the stupidity of the general public. They know that as long as they keep the local burger joint and porn shop open, as well as keeping American Idol on TV, the vast majority of people will gladly bend over and grab their ankles if the government tells them to. The technologies may have changed, but that's the way its always been, dating back to the first days of government thousands of years ago.

I think Montana don't really have to worry. Court system can only interpret the law. Anyway I do remember that there is right to own and carry fire in the Contitution. Unless they had change it. That is it still the same law.

Amazing!

Lets hope Montana sets the standard for other states!

reply to post by kennethmd


That's what this whole issue is about. The Supreme Court is set to hear a case in a month or two that will decide, once and for all, the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Some says its an individual right, some say its a right of the government.

Personally, I agree with you. I believe that the court's decision will come down in favor of the traditional, pro-individual-rights viewpoint.

The other interpretation makes no sense to me and would seem to open the other Amendments up to being invalidated as individual rights as well.

The blame should be put upon everyone in history who forced us to create such a large central government. Our framers of the constitution had a great idea. Think of how different the central government was back in the 17 and 1800s. It was very small; the real power lied in the state governments, and to a degree is still true today.

Blame the Nazis and Japan for our huge military. Up till WW1 and WW2 the U.S. was pretty much a neutral country with a small military relative to our size.

Thank those rail road, oil, and steel moguls for creating huge powerful corporations and monopolies in the early 1900s, forcing our federal government to get bigger in order to control these massive business entities. The fall of the stock market, bad credit, stock, and money decision by Americans, forced the Federal government to regulate are economy even more.

Canada never really had these problems, and they don’t have a big central government at all, its provinces are more like there own little countries with prime ministers.

I grew up near Boston in Middlesex county, a lot of revolutionary war history there and you can bet it was shoved down are throats in school. I'm proud of my ancestors who took the first stand against the British. Framingham MA, the town I grew up was the annual meeting spot for the national abolitionist movement during the civil war, and they sent 130 men to fight in the battles of Lexington and Concord during the Revolutionary War. These guys were the ones that practically invented guerrilla warfare, the only way they could stand up to the much more powerful British.

As you can see I'm very patriotic and love my country very much. The ancestors of my friends and family back east fought very hard not to long ago to have a great country. To many in the world the words "U.S.A" are as magical as the "Disney World" for a seven year old. Everyone may hate us but they all still would love to live hear.

reply to post by vor78

didn't that already happen once with the civil war?

reply to post by Nailer


Montana Secession? Good! It's time we got rid of those freaks! Only nut jobs live in Montana (well, California too) That will be the country that we'll deport our survivalists to.

reply to post by Shadow_Lord


The Civil War was, legally, a state's rights issue relating to the 10th Amendment and whether the Federal Government could override and eliminate laws enacted by the individual states. Obviously, this was heavily tied to the issue of individual slave ownership, but indirectly so, and as such was not technically an individual rights issue as this one is.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by kennethmd

 

I believe that the court's decision will come down in favor of the traditional, pro-individual-rights viewpoint.

Seeing as how just 2/3 years ago the Supreme Court decided that the police have no constitutional obligation to protect any of us it would stand to reason the same court would rule in favor of the individuals right to keep and bear arms.
www.foxnews.com...

[edit on 21-2-2008 by thisguyrighthere]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


That's true, but I'm basing it on a couple of other factors. One, the arguments made by the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights still exist and from those, it seems clear, at least in my opinion, that they intended for individuals to be able to own firearms.

But then there's the alternative that I hope this court is wise enough to realize. If the 'right of the people' is not referring to the individual in the 2nd amendment, then logically, it does not refer to the individual anywhere else in the Bill of Rights, either. A ruling in favor of the collectivist argument could potentially give the government a legal precedent to strip away the others as well.

The gun grabbers are playing with fire while sitting in a tub of gasoline by framing their argument in this manner. At least IMO.

reply to post by ironman433


i'm not begging for any state to secede. any yes i know cali is pretty much a police state- i have friends who do/ have lived there. people would probably flee (except the mexicans) if they became their own country. i was just stating that they would be a very rich country immediately. until everyone left and/or the massive earthquake slides it into the ocean of course lol

You can blame Iraq and bigger World Problems on the U.S. Federal Government. Maybe the people in Montana who want to succeed really just need to move to a different State and have a little change in there lives. As Americans this whole country belongs to us, and instead of living in one place all our lives we should move around and experience how different the people and places really are in our own country, giving us a greater respect for our country as a whole and the uniqueness from the States we came from.

Every State is different with different people, ways and culture. Give the States more power to tailor the laws to suit there own residents.

Many of my friends from Boston could care less about guns. Many of my friends in Washington grew up hunting and keeping guns for protection in the woods against, bears, mountain lions, and crazy drunk rednecks. Though with guns come lots of accidents. I never thought about getting a gun until I went four wheeling in the woods of Washington where everyone has guns, and by the looks of some of those local yokels, I would feel more comfortable with a gun myself.

I drove through Montana three times, a painfully long trek, and I would go crazy myself if I lived in such a big empty for any length of time.


[edit on 21-2-2008 by jojoKnowsBest]

cali also isn't the only state to have only a few large cities deem the laws to be imposed on the rest of the state. ny is a perfect example. ny is a huge state with many rural areas but because of nyc you can't afford to live in them because of the taxes. nyc is the real capital of ny not albany.and forget about handguns. go to oswego sometime- land is dirt cheap and people are losing their homes because of taxes and no jobs. if it wasn't for the 3 colleges and the tourism from fishing they would fold up.

Paging John Titor...

Seriously, I can imagine Montana seceding. I can imagine Alberta seceding from Canada.

I also can imagine Montana and Alberta forming a sort of confederation...

Everyone knows the Federal USA and Canada are broken. One can't help wonder how all the pieces will fall out or if fascist military power will effect a Union of North America.

( By the way, Long Live the Kingdom of Hawaii !!! )

[edit on 21/2/08 by Pellevoisin]

reply to post by jojoKnowsBest


I'm afraid that wouldn't go far enough. There are states like California so huge and diverse the people in San Fran and San Diego and LA don't want guns but all the ranchers do. Look at New York and how NYC bullies the entire state. New York state is mostly agricultural and very sparsely populated. NYC is an overstuffed chicken coup packed on an island. They have little to nothing in common with their neighbors in Boonville or Buffalo.

Same goes for Chicago in Illinois, Seattle in Washington, even Omaha in Nebraska which is evident in their "gun-free" mall.

A more complete solution would be to separate the cities from the state. Dig some giant moats around them all and cut off their legislative and executive influence on the rest of their respective state.

ty thisguy that was my point exactly
and ny'ers move here and try and bring their city life with them and impose it on us and lobby our gov't to suit what they want or are used to.
you don't like it here?go the f### back to ny and pay those taxes instead of raising mine and stop telling me how to act how you want me too. philly is another good one- about 10 years ago pa went from our ccw permit being for the entire state except for cities of the first class- to anywhere in the state- caused an uproar in philly. also i believe pa and va are the only 2 states to enact a law saying it is the citizens RIGHT to hunt and fish. i know there was a court battle over it but eventually we won

Don't expect to here too much about this in the MSM. Just ask the Lakota Sioux Nation.

The Native American Lakota Sioux tribe has declared independence from the US unilaterally, citing a string of broken treaties dating back to the 19th century.

Source--ISN Security Watch

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration declared a dual global campaign, a war against terror and a US-led effort to promote democracy around the world. The latter campaign has resonated within the US, with secessionist movements agitating for the values that Washington proclaims abroad: from American Indians through secessionist movements in the two most recent states added to the Union, Alaska and Hawaii, all the way to one of the original 13 colonies, Vermont.

Source-- ISN Security Watch
Being that the Native Americans have been systematically diluted and separated to prevent these sort of actions, in a court of law, their argument should prevail. These days all sorts of people live on these lands and now can join the Natives in reclaiming them and bringing back the original law of the land.
No one had to tell the Lakota that they were free before the white man showed up

reply to post by bigfoot1212





Hells yes brother. They can't stay in their cities and leave well enough alone. They have to head out to rural areas and buy up all the "pretty land" to the point that the water runs out, the growing land gets all built up on, the taxes push the last of the blue collars and farmers out...

The richie riches in the cities ruined their places with all of this uppity crap and attracting all of the bums with their socialist ideas to the point that they "need" to flee to a rural area. The get to the rural area and mess the economies all up that the once successful now ruined rural folks are forced into the cities to work service jobs just to get by.

I wish the rural people would pick up their shotguns and start driving the Ted Turners back to where they came from before they destroy the last few quiet, small, still incorporated and agricultural areas left.

They really need to be stopped. Every time I see Ted Turners picture I want to smash his face with a rock for what he's been doing.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I see your point; maybe more power should go to the city and town governments. Maybe the problem with California is that it’s too big itself and should be broken down into smaller states like New England is. You can commute 45 minutes to work in Boston while living tax free in New Hampshire, which also has extremely lax gun laws. California is bigger then some entire countries.