If Heller goes bad- Montana may secede???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow...do you really believe that

With an incident like that anything is possible, but for a full on control-freak dictator who has (lets have some fun) the greater part of the world under their control (yes you realize I am talking about stuff that would be found in the Bible, Revelations to be exact) they would not hesitate, I'm not saying the the Apocalypse will begin if Montana Succeeds. But I just think to never underestimate a ticked off Government. Look at people of Arab descent after 9/11.

Figure on the UP of Michigan joining in too, the whole state might join in as well (at least I want it too).
 
Fella's;

Never let it be said that I don't know how to throw gasoline on a perfectly good fire.

Based in Great Falls Montana, about 4 flying crow miles from Malmstrom AFB, is an entire wing of MANG (Montana Air National Guard) F16 aircraft. The wing is operable in all currently inventoried mission profiles.

900F

P.S. Malmstom's runway is not an active runway.
 
I'm in on that one.... we don't have much use for the feds up here. If the states stand up we would have the revolution we need.... results without fighting in the streets. The people would be insulated from the feds. If the feds were then cut-off the action would be felt. If they are no longer able to steal our money and bribe the state with it they're no longer in control.



newusmap2.gif
 
Fella's;

Never let it be said that I don't know how to throw gasoline on a perfectly good fire.

Based in Great Falls Montana, about 4 flying crow miles from Malmstrom AFB, is an entire wing of MANG (Montana Air National Guard) F16 aircraft. The wing is operable in all currently inventoried mission profiles.

Let the USG come. we'll hold em' at the mountain passes.:D
 
But I just think to never underestimate a ticked off Government.

There's always the possibility of a declaration of a war on drugs, terror or
whatever, then "black lists" and thai-style adjudication of alleged perps:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/23/wthai123.xml

Nothing new in history, guys, and the 20th century wasn't the only example
of how socialist governments worked. This is pretty much how any power
mad government works, be it one that sends out the oprichniki in old
Russia or the red coats...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprichniki

Yeah, the more things change the more they remain the same ;)
 
Who says States don't have the right to succeed? Last I checked the Government doesn't give rights. People are born with rights. Government is given powers. When it abuses those powers and cannot be controlled any longer the people always have the right to replace the current government. That doesn't mean the current government will go away easily.

Up until Lincoln it was a given that the States who had voluntarily joined the Union could withdraw if they desired.


http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543

Do States Have a Right of Secession?
by Walter Williams (April 19, 2002)

Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let's look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty." The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go." DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments.

Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.

DiLorenzo does a yeoman's job in documenting Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.


Editor's Comment: Secession is not protection against establishing a government to prevent the abolishment of slavery. The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the "self-determination" of "peoples," but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.
 
Editor's Comment: Secession is not protection against establishing a government to prevent the abolishment of slavery. The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the "self-determination" of "peoples," but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.
The US Constitution did not frame a federal government with the purpose of protecting individual rights, but rather the purpose was to protect the self-determination of peoples. The way the editor seems to spin it, if the US assumed undelegated powers and made itself the "protector of rights" then there was no reason to secede, but if the US honored the Constitution and protected the States' sovereignty, then there was reason to secede??
 
Looks like the US can ask the Canadians to intervene if push comes to shove
over Montana:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d&k=14984

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S....

I have a "Proud Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" membership card
in my wallet. :D
 
It seems that every so often some in Montana threaten to disobey the law, and not ever surrender. After a few weeks of standoff they do surrender.

All this secession stuff is pure rhetoric without much real substance. It's pure smoke without any fire.

I recently talked to a person from Canada. She mentioned the period when Quebec was going to secede from Canade. The end result was that if that took place there would be no support of any kind from Canada, and they would be on their own. That stopped the talk of secession. They wanted to secede, but still have the benefits that Canada provided.

If Montana were to be allowed to secede without any benefits from the US government I think it would not be an option acceptable to Montana.

Best,
Jerry
 
Folks, if Montana leaves the union, and other states follow, it won't be a simple "this state on our side, that state on their side" situation. There are a lot more things to consider, and almost all of them fall under "identity conflict" one way or another. It would not be pretty.

For instance, let's use the states of South Dakota and New York as examples (as they're two states I at least know a little about). South Dakota has a fairly large cultural divide along the Missouri River; it seems like the West has more social identity with states like Montana and Wyoming, whereas the East has more identity with the states to the East - Minnesota, specifically. There's also a bigger "city" preference, what with the state's biggest city (Sioux Falls) being at the far SE corner of the state. (I believe the same holds roughly true for Nebraska, though as they're wholely on the western shore of the Missouri, it's a stronger "western" social pull.

Now, New York: very, very divided geographically. I imagine it's much the same for states like Pennsylvania, which have the whole "coastal metropolis" running through it. There is a lot of resentment and disdain in both the cities and rural areas for each other, and a complete lack of cul

And then you start getting into the South, and you've got further social conflicts. The inner cities are another dimension in addition to the city elites, and then you've got the "Mexican" problem in the southern half/costal parts of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. If states start pulling away from the union, those areas will likely say (in the case of the inner cities) either "leave us alone, we're not with you" to any 'major' interest, or say (in the case of the Mexican-occupied areas "this is our's now".

And in every area where there is a drastic social divide in a fairly small area, there will be such contents. Denver, CO, I imagine, would prefer to be a part of California or something like that, but CO as a whole, I believe, would opt for union with TX/MT/WY and what have you. So there'd probably be fighting there, as well.

Granted, that'd be "worst case scenario" I think. But if states start pulling away, sides will be called and the choice will not necessarily be binary. (Remember, there were a lot of areas during the Civil War where there was such community conflicts based solely on ideological/religious terms, and there were areas that were simply staging areas for one side or the other, but not firmly aligned.)
 
I think the Canadian military is a joke.

In what way? The Canadians I've worked with in the military are some of the sharpest, most professional soldiers and airmen I've known. You've obviously never had the opportunity to serve with them. Now, as far as Canada's foreign policy goes, well, let's just say that you can't blame the ladies and gentlemen in the ranks for that any more than you can blame our folks for our foreign policy.

Oh, and if anyone here is a vet of the Princess Pat Regiment, hi Picklie... ;)
 
Despite all the lights on the WOPR going off over the "Montana Secession
and Canadian Intervention" scenario, the Canadian military is quite small.
The new agreement is probably for the US military to more easily intervene
in Canada. I think something about protecting pipelines was mentioned.

BTW, Canadians have helped out big time in Afghanistan, though I don't
recall seeing any in Iraq. Quite frankly the average THRer probably has more
in common with rural Canadians than the consumers living in the US urban
coastal areas.
 
"identity conflict"
This is much bigger than many recognize.
The whole "red vs. blue" thing about election outcomes starkly demonstrates the radical philosophical polarization between urban vs. rural areas. Look at any by-precinct map of election results, and you'll see the transition from "blue" to "red" STRONGLY correlates to the transition from urban to rural - ANYWHERE. Montana being so rural, the "red" view dominates ... but the same views are largely held throughout rural regions of "blue" strongholds like NY and CA.
The threat of Montana seceding (as with the South during the late unpleasantness) is facilitated by the fact that there is a simple geographic border involved. Nonetheless, given the impetus involved, methinks we would see an echoing cry spread thru the "red" regions, as a dismayed and would-be-disarmed minority agrees with the sentiment and stops cooperating with the majority-emplaced rulers. That there is not a sharp, simple line dividing the two philosophical areas geographically has been one major reason there hasn't been a more overt disagreement.

The other thing stopping this, as noted in Quebec's near-secession (final vote was 49.9% to 50.1%, a close call for my English-speaking Montreal-raised wife) is the reality of the symbiotic relationship. IIRC, Montana has a notably high rate of welfare checks from the feds. That it is landlocked between what would be a suddenly very unfriendly country, and a socialistic small economy, would just make things worse as it tried to get along on its own.

I don't expect secession to happen.
I do, however, appreciate this threat - along with the brief detailing the history of the Revolution - as a reminder to SCOTUS & others that government functions only because of general cooperation, which can quickly be brought to a halt by a minority.
 
Interesting thread - I'm glad it hasn't gotten closed yet.

As far as the hostile threat on three sides goes, I didn't consider the states that Montana is surrounded by so you do have a point there.
Still, you'd still have a handful of states that have some pretty low population density that were basically surrounded (some would call that a target rich environment though).
IMO, it would be impossible to totally control that with military action because the populations of those states would most likely make excellent guerilla fighters. But it would be possible to make life for the folks in those areas really miserable.

Don't get the idea that it would be some massive, glorious, patriotic uprising. It would most likely work out to be a bad thing for the entire nation. But at least it would probably get our troops out of Iraq. They'd be needed to "secure our borders".

But once again, I do have a whole lot of respect for these guys for stepping up and making it known that they're not OK with a negative Heller decison. I'm not either and I'm glad there are politicians out there who still respect the constitution. It's enough to make me consider moving out there.
How exactly does one earn money in Montana?
(Nevermind, that would be another thread.)


I also wonder if this couldn't prompt action from other states or at least sew the seeds of a "what if" in the minds of many in those states (rural and urban both) who value their freedoms.
Anyone with a real understanding of the BOR, gunowner or not, doesn't like the idea of the gov't. arbitrarily deciding that one of their very clearly enumerated rights is nonexistent, whether it's the second ammendment or any other.

I'm really impressed that Montana is willing to stand up and say "Hey buttface, wait just a minute there! This is OUR country too!"
 
Nonetheless, given the impetus involved, methinks we would see an echoing cry spread thru the "red" regions, as a dismayed and would-be-disarmed minority agrees with the sentiment and stops cooperating with the majority-emplaced rulers. That there is not a sharp, simple line dividing the two philosophical areas geographically has been one major reason there hasn't been a more overt disagreement.

Very well put. When it comes to "rulers" getting and maintaining power,
there's a lot that the majority will put up with and as long as that majority is
placated (not by expensive force, but cheap patronage).

The die hard believers in the Bill of Rights (and mainly the 2A) have become
an extremely small minority even in the so-called red states. I know there's
a lot of seething anger out there about what has happened in this country
and how it has been stolen and sold out, but quite frankly it's not just the
majority of the populace buying into the "chicken in every pot" BS --you
find that division within extended families and housholds.

Look at the current presidential race. All one of them would have to do is
promise vouchers for 42" plasma TVs for every household and they'd be in.
[Countdown to voucher announcement on CNN in 4..3..2..1..]

Seriously, look in our own extended families, shooting clubs, etc where we
have some people who are EBR collectors (yes, I am) and others who think
no one should have anything more than a bolt action and/or over-under.

Don't get me wrong, I love hearing Montana have the discordant voice among
the family herd of the USA. I think them digging their heels in over the BoR,
2A, etc. strengthens the negotiating position for those of us in other states.
 
Gunnerpalace said:
.....................Figure on the UP of Michigan joining in too, the whole state might join in as well (at least I want it too).
Fat chance of MI standing up to tyrrany. Hell, we export it. Look at our US senators. "We" voted them in, and Levin is going to be re-elected.
 
Titan, you are wrong as to the cause of Secession. You were also wrong about the start of the war.

PM sent as this OT.

Interesting thread - I'm glad it hasn't gotten closed yet.

No way this thread should be closed. This is straight to the heart of the matter once all of the rest has been pulled away.

Anyone with a real understanding of the BOR, gunowner or not, doesn't like the idea of the gov't. arbitrarily deciding that one of their very clearly enumerated rights is nonexistent, whether it's the second ammendment or any other.

The US Constitution did not frame a federal government with the purpose of protecting individual rights, but rather the purpose was to protect the self-determination of peoples. The way the editor seems to spin it, if the US assumed undelegated powers and made itself the "protector of rights" then there was no reason to secede, but if the US honored the Constitution and protected the States' sovereignty, then there was reason to secede??

Well, let's play Devil's advocate for a minute and give this some thought. Suppose that the Court in it's infinite wisdom rules that it is a collectivist "state" right and not an indiviual freedom as it says in the ammedment.

Even the anti's can not argue that a "State" is not a "State" if we are indeed the "United States of America". So they lose even if they win...

Because if the courts take the collectivist view.... Well that means that Montanna is excersing Ammedment II of the contract are they not? They are ensuring their freedoms.... through the use of arms if neccessary.

And there you have it... in a nutshell.

All this secession stuff is pure rhetoric without much real substance. It's pure smoke without any fire.

I recently talked to a person from Canada. She mentioned the period when Quebec was going to secede from Canade. The end result was that if that took place there would be no support of any kind from Canada, and they would be on their own. That stopped the talk of secession. They wanted to secede, but still have the benefits that Canada provided.

If Montana were to be allowed to secede without any benefits from the US government I think it would not be an option acceptable to Montana.

Why? Something you may be overlooking is immigration. Many of the Marines and Soldiers here are pricing land in MT on the internet already. Interesting when you consider the fact that they are supposed to be here defending America. Maybe they see something to this whole Consitution thing after all.

If MT secceeds they may draw a crowd. A crowd of people who are angry and upset with the way the government has acted in the past 40 years and especially the last six. Maybe these people would bring resources and like to move somewhere with a less oppresive tax code and no insane social engineering state. Just a guess and speculation but I wouldn't be surprised.

Invasion from Canada? Not to MT. They are smart enough to only go to warm places like Florida...
 
I lived for one year in Glasgow MT while working for KLTZ-1240AM. Best place on earth if you hate trees or just prefer a lot of sun. I'd move back, though I'd much prefer Whitefish or Kalispell, great state though no matter where you hang your hat........
 
If MT secceeds they may draw a crowd. A crowd of people who are angry and upset with the way the government has acted in the past 40 years and especially the last six. Maybe these people would bring resources and like to move somewhere with a less oppresive tax code and no insane social engineering state.

I could also see the Feds doing a "Marielita" and releasing every felon and nutcase willing to "emigrate".
 
I could also see the Feds doing a "Marielita" and releasing every felon and nutcase willing to "emigrate".

Hmmm.... they would have to be pretty selective. 60% of the US prison population is African American compared to .4% of population of MT.
 
Just stopping in to note something for those of you who seem a little too intrigued by the idea of another civil war, this one with nukes:

If you are a loser now, you will still be a loser if there is another civil war. Chaos and bloodshed will not improve your sorry lot in life. You will not miraculously ascend to wealth and power if you are not wealthy and powerful now. Your life will not be better during any such war and most likely won't be better following such a war; if you even survive.
Ask some of the people who live in areas where there is civil war or insurgency right now how swell it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top