Titan6
member
Indeed. Put that tea back on those ships....
I am thinking that there would only be a war if the federal government started one.
If Heller goes bad- Montana may secede???
- Thread starter evan price
- Start date
- Status
Indeed. Put that tea back on those ships....
I am thinking that there would only be a war if the federal government started one.
Joe Demko
Member
The Boston Tea Party has nothing in common with seccession from the union and possible use of nukes.
Titan6
member
Sure it did. The 13 states seceded from the British Empire and it most certainly was the begining of an insurgency that was long and miserable and went on for years. And resulted in a new nation that is still the most free on Earth.
Since the state government can not even get to the Nukes if they wanted to that point is pretty much moot.
Since the state government can not even get to the Nukes if they wanted to that point is pretty much moot.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
It's not about the promise of a rose garden. It's about the promise that no one will tell you what you can plant.
That needs clarification. If it's a defense or an insurgency or revolution BY THE PEOPLE, then it's most likely righteous. If it's dueling factions fighting for control over a land and people, then you are right on. That is why the people should never be disarmed. I wonder how bad it would be in Darfur if the people there were as well armed as we are here...
Woody
"It is up to We the People to decide if and when we shall revolt. It is not up to those in government to prevent it. It is up to those in government to see that revolution never becomes necessary." B.E.Wood
Joe Demko
Member
The authors of the American Revolution i.e. The Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly successful, influential, wealthy men before the Revolution. By fomenting revolution they were, in fact, risking their success and wealth. The Founding Fathers were men of drive and ambition who would have been successful no matter what.
In contrast, the overwhelming majority of those who get excited discussing the possibility of revolution now (only with nukes!) strike me as being not terribly successful in life, if they are not in fact just basement-dwelling beardoes. I run into them on the web. I've met them at gun shows. There are even a few at my gun club. They see their present lack of success in life as being the fault of the system. A revolution, they think, will will sweep all that away and they will_somehow_be different people leading different and better lives.
If the basement dwelling beardo shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it; but I've seen very few modern day equivalents of The Founding Fathers calling for a new revolution. Wait...that's wrong. I haven't seen any.
In contrast, the overwhelming majority of those who get excited discussing the possibility of revolution now (only with nukes!) strike me as being not terribly successful in life, if they are not in fact just basement-dwelling beardoes. I run into them on the web. I've met them at gun shows. There are even a few at my gun club. They see their present lack of success in life as being the fault of the system. A revolution, they think, will will sweep all that away and they will_somehow_be different people leading different and better lives.
If the basement dwelling beardo shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it; but I've seen very few modern day equivalents of The Founding Fathers calling for a new revolution. Wait...that's wrong. I haven't seen any.
Titan6
member
Yes, yes... I understand
The Montanna State Legislature:
The Montanna State Legislature:
Joe Demko
Member
The Montana State Legislature, or a portion of it, hasn't done much but posture for the media yet, have they? Get back to me when they do something like refuse all federal monies.
wuchak
Member
The US has supported the right of Kosovo to become independent. The question will be, if Montana decides to break away, how they will be able to do the about face on the world stage and say that it's ok when people decide they want self determination elsewhere but not here in the US.
We are not the most free on earth. In fact we have the highest percentage of our population in prison of any nation on earth and the rates are stunningly high when compared to other countries.
http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/prison_populaton.htm
We are not the most free on earth. In fact we have the highest percentage of our population in prison of any nation on earth and the rates are stunningly high when compared to other countries.
http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/prison_populaton.htm
Titan6
member
You lost me. Which country on your list was more free than the US? China or Mexico? England or Japan? Feel free to move to the nation of your choice on your list. Drop us a line and let us know how that goes...
Because we have more guns do we have more crime? Clearly that is the reason we have more prisoners, because we have so many more guns than the rest of the world or maybe you are creating a false dichotomy here? Unless you are saying these people that were arrested, tried and convicted in a court of law were all innocent....
Now that is actually a very sensible thing to say. I too am curious how that will turn out. Will they be willing to take a star off of the flag to prove how much in favor of self determination they are? I am thinking no they are not...
After all if MT leaves because they want more freedom what does that say about the US?
Wineoceros
member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
- Messages
- 230
You're treating two very different meanings for the word "free" as though they were the same. They're not.
How odd that you refer to imprisonment "rates" while linking to a bar chart representing absolute numbers, and not rates.
Titan6
member
That would be sometime after Heller would it not? I most certainly will.
Libertyteeth
Member
Here is some more coverage:
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080225/NATION/757685551/1002
Montanans insist on gun rights
By Valerie Richardson
February 25, 2008
Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Court rules in the D.C. gun ban case that the right to keep and bear arms protects only state-run militias like the National Guard, then the federal government will have breached Montana's statehood contract.
Nobody is raising flags for the Republic of Montana, but nobody is kidding, either. So far, 39 elected Montana officials have signed a resolution declaring that a court ruling of the Second Amendment is a right of states and not of individuals would violate Montana's compact.
"The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract," Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a Feb. 15 letter to The Washington Times.
The resolution also was signed by Rep. Denny Rehberg, Montana's lone Republican congressman, and state Sen. Roy Brown, who is running to unseat Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat. ...<snip>
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080225/NATION/757685551/1002
Montanans insist on gun rights
By Valerie Richardson
February 25, 2008
Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Court rules in the D.C. gun ban case that the right to keep and bear arms protects only state-run militias like the National Guard, then the federal government will have breached Montana's statehood contract.
Nobody is raising flags for the Republic of Montana, but nobody is kidding, either. So far, 39 elected Montana officials have signed a resolution declaring that a court ruling of the Second Amendment is a right of states and not of individuals would violate Montana's compact.
"The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract," Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a Feb. 15 letter to The Washington Times.
The resolution also was signed by Rep. Denny Rehberg, Montana's lone Republican congressman, and state Sen. Roy Brown, who is running to unseat Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat. ...<snip>
AntiqueCollector
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 842
The people who actually fought the war and who were behind events that lead to it were not in general the wealthy. In fact, significant numbers of the wealthy supported the British. Revolutions can come from two directions: the bottom up, or the top down, or sometimes, a combination thereof. The American Revolution was a combination.
As for success...everyone has his/her own ideas about success. I find the fact I'm getting the remote "homestead" of sorts I've wanted so long, to be success. But I suppose someone with your definition would say I'm a failure because I'm not rich...
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
[deleted by poster]
Joe Demko
Member
If Montana were allowed to seccede (note the use of the subjunctive tense) without bloodshed, I suspect it would still not be without price. Such toys as are on military installations there are the property of the US government. I strongly doubt that Montana would simply be allowed to keep keep them. That would include toys currently in the possession of the Montana National Guard. Nukes? No way in Heaven or on earth will those belong to anybody but the Feds. Sophisticated aircraft? Ditto. Sophisticated armored vehicles? Ditto. They might consider more trouble than its worth to retrieve a bunch of small arms, trucks, and hummers. Wouldn't surprise me if the new Sovereign Nation of Montana gets presented with a bill for all that stuff, though.
Again, even if we presume bloodless seccession, the natural resources for which Montana is famous are largely the property of US corporations. They aren't likely to decide you can just have them gratis.
I can easily see Montana being a second third world nation sharing a border with the US. The world isn't what it was in 1776. Montana might be self-sufficient in a scraping along sort of way absent recognition and cooperation from both the US and Canada. You know what, though? I don't see the governments of the US and Canada having too much love for the new nation of Montana.
Happily, all this is just internet gassing over some posturing by a state legislature. They get their moment in the spotlight, some of the denizens of the undernet get to indulge their erotic fantasies of being Heroes of the Revolution, and things will be resolved with neither secession nor bloodshed.
Again, even if we presume bloodless seccession, the natural resources for which Montana is famous are largely the property of US corporations. They aren't likely to decide you can just have them gratis.
I can easily see Montana being a second third world nation sharing a border with the US. The world isn't what it was in 1776. Montana might be self-sufficient in a scraping along sort of way absent recognition and cooperation from both the US and Canada. You know what, though? I don't see the governments of the US and Canada having too much love for the new nation of Montana.
Happily, all this is just internet gassing over some posturing by a state legislature. They get their moment in the spotlight, some of the denizens of the undernet get to indulge their erotic fantasies of being Heroes of the Revolution, and things will be resolved with neither secession nor bloodshed.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
How many modern day "revolutionaries" are even really prepared to actually fight a civil war? Somehow I get the idea that the majority of people on this thread talking about secession and revolution are the kind that will let others do the fighting for them. Just having a tricked out AR and a reloading press in your basement isn't going to cut it. That can of Skoal in your pocket, beer in the fridge and extra 50+ lbs on your waist might be find and dandy now, but they will be whooping your ### when you're trying to run from a Bradley column in the wood someplace.
General Geoff
Member
Yeah, and if such a bill is presented, Montana could request seventy years' worth of their citizens' income taxes back.
Thernlund
Member
Montana isn't seceding. Never will secede. End of story. The most you'll ever see from Montana as a result of any conflicting Heller ruling is lots of money thrown at lawyers and a great deal of time spent in court.
I would go as far as to say that most (probably all) of the people on this board will never see anything even close to real secession in their lifetime. We'll deplete the worlds oil caches and walk on Mars first.
Am I the only one that finds the notion of secession silly? It could happen, but none of us will ever see it. ESPECIALLY over Heller.
-T.
I would go as far as to say that most (probably all) of the people on this board will never see anything even close to real secession in their lifetime. We'll deplete the worlds oil caches and walk on Mars first.
Am I the only one that finds the notion of secession silly? It could happen, but none of us will ever see it. ESPECIALLY over Heller.
-T.
Joe Demko
Member
That would be a trivial sum for the feds to repay, if they decided to do so.
But let's consider which side is in a better position to collect on their bill? Which side is better able to freeze or sieze the other's assets? Which side is in a better position to put the screws to the other in the mart of international commerce? Which side is better able to enforce trade embargoes on the other?
General Geoff
Member
The hearts of the people can change drastically, in a short time, in this day and age. I don't discount anything from happening or not happening in my lifetime.
Joe Demko, neither would be in a particularly good position. The US could probably manhandle their way into Montana to reclaim what they perceive as theirs, but it would not bode well for the administration that does it.
Joe Demko, neither would be in a particularly good position. The US could probably manhandle their way into Montana to reclaim what they perceive as theirs, but it would not bode well for the administration that does it.
Thernlund
Member
Except for being very embarrassing, Montana's secession would present no significant issues for the rest of the country. That is, nothing that couldn't be gotten around.
On the other hand, after the trade embargo Montana would be begging to come back. There is no other "U.S." out there that will come to the aid of lil' ol' Montana. Especially given that politically they'd have to go through the U.S. government to render said aid. And physically go through an ally. As well, nobody wants to make an enemy of the 800-lb gorilla that is the U.S. by aiding what would certainly be seen as a rouge state.
There can be no amiable secession. Therefore, there can be no succession.
-T.
On the other hand, after the trade embargo Montana would be begging to come back. There is no other "U.S." out there that will come to the aid of lil' ol' Montana. Especially given that politically they'd have to go through the U.S. government to render said aid. And physically go through an ally. As well, nobody wants to make an enemy of the 800-lb gorilla that is the U.S. by aiding what would certainly be seen as a rouge state.
There can be no amiable secession. Therefore, there can be no succession.
-T.
hitbackfirst
Member
While I agree that the likelihood of Montana seceding over an unfavorable decision in Heller v. DC is extremely remote, I believe the larger question here is how long will the citizens of the United States endure a Federal Government that has so far overstepped its bounds as to be unrecognizable as that which was set up in the Constitution? It seems quite possible that we may have waited too long already. Technology, for the most part, works against revolutionaries as it is expensive, difficult to obtain, and generally requires a well-organized operation to fund and operate it. The 1860's were well suited to a revolution and even then the revolutionaries lost. The one thing that could work in the favor of those seeking independence is the US Government's current unwillingness to engage in full-scale warfare. The limited rules of engagement under which our military currently operates would prohibit the military from retaliating against civilians for the actions of the "guerrillas" - as in Iraq. Without "Sherman's March to the Sea" the South might not have fallen so quickly if at all. To me it is inevitable that the US as we know it will end in revolution or devolve into a regime that makes Hitler's Germany look like a playground.
Thernlund
Member
I vote for that one. But not any time soon. Maybe 100 years from now. And the "revolution" will be fought with money and lawyers. Capitalists in first-world countries don't have civil wars.
Not to mention... we'd all be crushed in minutes because the arm-chair commandos wouldn't stop arguing about which caliber for a revolt.
-T.
ctdonath
Member
Most of the commentary about Montana seceeding reminds me of Tom Lehrer's description of a bullfight:
Our nation's biggest problem is boredom.
* - yes, there are infringements, and vigilance must be maintained.
Short of local restrictions and 922(o) (both in line after Heller), fact is nearly anyone can get nearly anything they want (and can afford). The infringments around the edges* do not warrant the sheer he11 of civil war.
Our nation's biggest problem is boredom.
* - yes, there are infringements, and vigilance must be maintained.
BryanP
Member
Tell that to the next American Indian you meet.
- Status