It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Let me ask all you wonderful people out there.
Was the second amendment established so you can have guns for hunting?
Or was it for you to throw off the constraints of a tyrannical govt whether foreign or domestic?
Aaaaaaaaaactually. . . . .
I'm a big proponent of a peaceful divorce. Not a single bullet needed.
You tell them to go pound, and secede. You hammer out a divorce agreement, like all divorces have.
The "leaving" party pays X amount toward the current debt as it stands today, and no more. You pay a certain amount for the military (like a contract for protection) and you have to keep making payments to SS. . .gotta keep that promise to the seniors.
Now, all your federal income taxes (if any) would go to the "new" red nation or the local state. You don't ask the feds for drilling permission, if you can build a nuke plant. . . no more EPA at the federal level (states have their own). . . .no more NLRB. . . . . . .none of it.
No more union extortion, communities take their schools back under their control. . . . . . states can decide what if any welfare is offered. . . . no more obamacare nonsense. . .
Nothing. . . . .
A divorce, without a single shot fired. No one dies. . . . no one gets hurt. We mutually agree to part ways. . .
If someone finds themselves living in a "red" state nation, and they want to move, they're welcome to move to the 'blue" state nation if they want.
My guess is, the "red" nation would have the military, and the "blue" states would probably end up paying us for defense. . .because they'd squander it. . . . .and would you want to rely on the democrats for defense? Not me. . . .
Odds are, the blue states would come begging for reconciliation within 5 years because they'd be broke, under water, banana republics with junk money, and too many people looking for handouts.
Because, without the productive people in our society (which you know they would move to the "red nation"). . .the liberals have no money to spend. . . . .and that's just a fact.
All the productive people would leave the "blue" nation and move to the red nation. The people looking for large hand outs would move to blue nations because they know their gravy train would come to an end in the "red" nation. . .. .
Each time I've proposed this on Mother Jones (because the lefty haters there want a divorce just like we do). . .they disappear when I point all of this out. . . .
go ahead. . .lets divorce. No skin off my nose. . . . .and when I go on and on and on. . . . .about all the freedom we'll have witih a life without liberals. . . .suddenly, they're not so interested anymore.
Without us, they can't exist. But, we can exist just fine without them. And that's the point that kept coming through in our conversations. . .and why they would just drop the entire subject. (grin)
They need us, but we have no need of them at all. . . .(very nasty grin). . .so you best not offer a chance for divorce. . . .because we will definately use it. (grin)
Ya wanna know how I'd start the divorce? (And make no mistake, I don't ever think it would come to fuition because I think the democrats would cave when they realized it was serious)
Ok, 30 of 50 governors, republican. got it?
You have 30 of 50 governors call a meeting about "divorce." Serious. You call a meeting to discuss sovereign rights, about states' rights. . . . .you call a meeting (very publically) to openly discuss refusing Federal laws . . . . . .and to discuss how to "divorce."
It's not to "secede" . . . .you're going to recreate the united states, without the "federal parasite" and the over bloated bureacracy. You're going to discuss a peaceful divorce.
The reason I say it has to be governors? The congressmen and senators have a vested interest in not seeing a divorce. They lose their individual power. The 30 governors would have to decide if they were going to "call home" the federal representatives, or cut them lose and hold new elections for new people. . . . .meaning, their congressmen and senators would represent no one if they refused to listen to their home states.
Believe me. . . .it wouldn't ever go all the way through. Because like I said, we can live just fine without the liberal progressives. They cannot exist without us to take from. they are the parasites.
As soon as you make that point clear - that we're not obligated to stay married, stay in an "abusive" marriage with the federal government. . . . . .there's only so much the federal government could do when 30 of 50 of your "partners" have their hand on the door knob ready to walk out of the room.
who are you going to be left with? California, vermont, Oregon, Illinois, New York, and some others? Good luck paying your bills with 20 out of the 50 states. . . . .
The other 30 would form a new, "more perfect union". . .that understood the the concept of limited federal government.
They'd keep their own money, they'd keep their own laws, they'd make their own decisions, they'd have a new SCOTUS, and Obama could keep his "wise latina" SCOTUS. . . . .
The new united states would negotiate their own "trade" deals. . . . .seperate from the garbage that this current government is trying to shaft us with. . . .
California thinks they're the only state with a temperate climate and black dirt? Wronggggggggg. . . . .
We can grow our own food. .. .drill for our own oil. . . .imagine that. . .we could just give Obama and Salazar the finger. . . .and laugh.
The "new" nation would work with Canada, and would then work toward energy independence. Obama can keep making payments to the UN for "his" government, but not ours.
You see, this is why it would never go all the way through. . . . . .
there are too many "red" states that would gladly get rid of the "blue" states and the ridiculous behavior. . . . .there are tons of people that would move just for the chance to be successful in the red nation. . . .keep more of their money - a shot at the "american dream". . . . . . .
Leaving the blue nation with just Michael Moore, Bill Gates, and Buffett. . . . . . .let them pay the bills. . . . .
It would never go all the way through, like I said.
Because, we don't need liberals, but they need us to sponge off of to pay for their levaithan ideas. And it wouldn't take them long to realize their "cash cow" was about to walk out the door. . . .and they would be left with nothing.
What is the Second Amendment for?
1) so you can have hunting rifles?
2) So you can throw off the constraints of a Tyrannical govt whether foreign of Domestic?
You see the right to bear arms was done so that the people could at any
time their govt got to big for their britches throw them down and put
those in place that will do the right thing.
The Ninth amendment is supposed to protect us from them limiting or taking away
any right that was originally given the second being one of those. But
we have sat back and let them take away our right to have the arms
necessary to fight against them and limited us to small arms. And
believe it or not whether approved by congress and the house any law
passed that limited or took away any rights listed Like freedom of
religion in public places or limited arms are illegal and violate the
Our President, Representitives, Congressmen and Senators have violated their
oath to protect the constitution and the Bill of Rights and are all
criminals that need to be put down and replaced by the people. But we
can't do it without the heads of our military and police
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
We're actually making a pretty formal effort out of that over the coming days on another thread. There is a surprising number of people willing to give some time to the effort too.
Beezzer's Court on the 2nd Amendment
Plenty of room for lots of discussions of course. I just mention it as something a bunch of us are hoping puts some solid material from both sides into one spot with.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ChesterJohn
There are many (along with government and media) that would wish to see the 2nd annulled.
They (government/media/pundits) have already put the relevance of the 2nd on trial.
We're just formalizing it.
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ChesterJohn
The sad part is, I don't think that the majority of "the people" care anymore.