Nobody's_Hero
Member
3/4 of the states can pass an amendment through convention.
It is long overdue for us to use this power.
It is long overdue for us to use this power.
If Heller goes bad- Montana may secede???
- Thread starter evan price
- Start date
- Status
69Chevy
Member
Using how the feds operate now, I wager it would go something like this:
- They open up on the crowd with non lethal stuff
- They arrest anyone they can (especially "leaders") and throw them in jail without habeas corpus
- You get labeled a "homegrown terrorist" and "enemy combatant", then get thrown in jail and tortured for a few years.
- Then you get put on mock trial and get sentenced to a long prison sentence
Nobody's_Hero
Member
When they came for the Montanans,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Montanan.
69Chevy
Member
Nah, if your going to do this, lets start it right:
When they came for the drug users,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a drug user.
When they came for the Arabs,
I remained silent;
I wasn't an Arab.
When they came for the Montanans,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Montanan.
When they came for the drug users,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a drug user.
When they came for the Arabs,
I remained silent;
I wasn't an Arab.
When they came for the Montanans,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Montanan.
takhtakaal
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 853
Tell that to Mas Ayoob.
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
Most of the time, I agree with you longrifleman. But in this case, I do not. The fedgov has shown it has ways of dealing with non-violent political dissent.
They don't kill you, they dissapear you.
And yes, because Arabs are new to the country (and most of them have a religion "funny" to us), we allow them to be taken, and put away without just cause or due process. We are only cutting our own throats here.
Even if Montana could make a stand, it would require exposure of government agendas, and ability to make the media pay attention (which with the 6 major corps controlling media, they wouldn't be on a seperatist's side.
It is true, the nation-state is being broken down into smaller factions, even as internationalist unions form before them. Ultimately, I think we will go on a big wheel here.
Yes, we will see red state/blue state divides break the country apart if we allow it. The only way to stop it is for one side or the other to win by demographics. The only way to do that, is to put a moritorium on immigration for a while. (In which case, red wins because they still have kids which statistically blue states do not do)
Otherwise, we divide until blue states and red states are seperate, and the Southwest ends up being the tail wagging the dog (seperate ethnic agendas controlling those who helped them get in).
But, Montana (and probably a few of it's neighbors) are where this begins. What I know is that my remaining youthfull years, and my middle age will be interesting times in the Chinese sense of the word.
They don't kill you, they dissapear you.
And yes, because Arabs are new to the country (and most of them have a religion "funny" to us), we allow them to be taken, and put away without just cause or due process. We are only cutting our own throats here.
Even if Montana could make a stand, it would require exposure of government agendas, and ability to make the media pay attention (which with the 6 major corps controlling media, they wouldn't be on a seperatist's side.
It is true, the nation-state is being broken down into smaller factions, even as internationalist unions form before them. Ultimately, I think we will go on a big wheel here.
Yes, we will see red state/blue state divides break the country apart if we allow it. The only way to stop it is for one side or the other to win by demographics. The only way to do that, is to put a moritorium on immigration for a while. (In which case, red wins because they still have kids which statistically blue states do not do)
Otherwise, we divide until blue states and red states are seperate, and the Southwest ends up being the tail wagging the dog (seperate ethnic agendas controlling those who helped them get in).
But, Montana (and probably a few of it's neighbors) are where this begins. What I know is that my remaining youthfull years, and my middle age will be interesting times in the Chinese sense of the word.
ctdonath
Member
Different splits happen - or don't happen - for various reasons.
Quebec is dominantly French-speaking in an otherwise English-dominated country, with all the cultural differences that go with that. Thing is, there is little "oppression" involved: French is officially dominant in that province, with the rest of the country compelled to make deep linguistic accomodations; bilingualism aside, there is little reason for "we're not gonna take it anymore". Additionally, Quebec is demographically dominated by Montreal, which would suffer significantly without a broad tax & power base to draw from. Final result is that the last secession vote lost by about 0.1%.
Quebec is about balkanization.
Montana is about freedom.
There's a difference.
IllHunter
Member
Just a moment there
longrifleman, if you really believe this is true,
longrifleman, if you really believe this is true,
Can I have your guns? You don't need them here in the land of milk and honey.
Last edited:
Libertyteeth
Member
"I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence,
I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have
done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an
Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should
have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical
force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his
duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in
the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I
advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I
would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that
she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her
own dishonor." - Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from
Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962
I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have
done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an
Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should
have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical
force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his
duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in
the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I
advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I
would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that
she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her
own dishonor." - Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from
Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962
sacp81170a
Member
The great irony here is that I'm living in a state where Americans of Japanese descent were interned in WWII and I lived in Wyoming, another state where they were interned. I wonder if they'll need to re-open Heart Mountain?
longrifleman
Member
Thanks, Libertyteeth.
You can't win any war fighting to your enemy's strength. Small arms against the most powerful military in the history of the world may be exciting to contemplate from a distance. Up close all corpses smell pretty much the same.
This fight would be won or lost at the moral level. As for the exact tactics, control of the media message would be much more important than the number of Barrett rifles in the inventory. If something like this did happen, I don't think it would be confined to just one state. The larger the area, the harder for any central govt to control. One more reason to work to keep the internet free.
Maybe. The folks in western Canada might think being cut off from Quebec as a big step up in freedom.
The devolution of the large nation-state doesn't seem to me to have a single cause that fits everywhere, beyond the urge to be generally left alone to make your own decisions. Technology probably plays some part. When you can go online and order stuff directly from the other side of the world, why put up with interference from the capital(any capital).
As for disappearing the protesters, that would certainaly be the first choice of the govt. If it makes it to the point of a thousand people standing on the border, the improvements in technology means that there would be two thousand cameras of some type recording it. Ask a few cops about hidden tapes. They seem to generally work against abusive authority.
ctdonath
Member
That's exactly how to contemplate the application: from a distance.
18,000,000 deer hunters have the idea.
Thernlund
Member
For my part, I would in no way support the secession of any state from the Union. I will support most any other tactic aimed at guaranteeing my rights. But not secession.
If states begin leaving rather than choosing to make a stand, the remaining states become that much weaker.
Divided we fall. I will support no action that causes such a divide.
-T.
If states begin leaving rather than choosing to make a stand, the remaining states become that much weaker.
Divided we fall. I will support no action that causes such a divide.
-T.
And united we will fall if we follow the wrong ideas or pursue the wrong course of action. Lincoln MAY have done a good thing, or he may have been seriously misled. I will not judge that. However:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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."
Sound like unification at all costs to you?
Thernlund
Member
I didn't say at all costs. There are greater "costs" than secession. I would submit to you that secession is actually one of the easier routes. To me it's akin to taking your ball and going home. Nice. Much harder to stand and "fight" for what's right than just saying "F*** you, I'm out."
-T.
(I quote the word "fight" because I don't necessarily mean physical aggression.)
EDIT: Additionally, I don't read that as promoting secession. I read it as overthrowing a government.
"...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." "...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
I'd support that. But how well do you think we'd do at bouncing the current gov't if we're short on states that'd be willing to do so?
Last edited:
longrifleman
Member
There's distance and then there's distance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M198_howitzer
Stay or leave has always been one of the most difficult questions for me since I started studying this after I found out how many lies I'd been taught
about the war of secession. At what point does abuse by the majority justify leaving? I don't know the answer, but there is a limit, or every principle I thought this country was founded on is a lie.
Titan6
member
Some of you would do well to review Touqueville. How Tyranny arises in a democracy and why it would never happen in America come to mind.
paintballdude902
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 2,872
i have always wondered this but never remembered to ask my history teacher last semester
if a state decides that they dont like a law what is to keep them from saying " hey we dont like this so we arent going to enforce it just watch ur tail for the feds"
if a state decides that they dont like a law what is to keep them from saying " hey we dont like this so we arent going to enforce it just watch ur tail for the feds"
Thernlund
Member
I think this already goes on in some places.
-T.
Titan6
member
That is the gist of it, but that was before the ISC allowed Federal agencies to amass as much power as they now have. MT has struggled against this such as with a "work around" last year with FA weapons but it never came to pass. Realisitically with the amount of power the Fed has in the centralized government that strategy no longer works.
You may wonder where the original "Sheep" concept came from, Touqueville 1831. He accurately predicted the rise of the giant democratic social state that we have in America today.
You may wonder where the original "Sheep" concept came from, Touqueville 1831. He accurately predicted the rise of the giant democratic social state that we have in America today.
Nobody's_Hero
Member
Ghandi is great and all, but we wouldn't be much of a country if it hadn't been for the people who said these kinds of things . . .
Now, by my analysis, the fact that we have gone 143 years without a rebellion either means we're doing an incredibly fantastic job managing our government, or an incredibly ****ty job.
Now, by my analysis, the fact that we have gone 143 years without a rebellion either means we're doing an incredibly fantastic job managing our government, or an incredibly ****ty job.
Thernlund
Member
The answer is no doubt subjective, but I think it could certainly be ALOT worse. 143 years and THIS is the result thus far? Not too shabby.
-T.
Titan6
member
Since we are in a democracy it really depends upon your POV. If your ancestors lived in America before the Europeans came or you were born with dark skin than yeah, you might feel like the government hasn't been doing all the great for the last 143 years, and you might have a good point.
Just because there hasn't been a revolution by the standard that you are thinking does not mean that things have been all rosy for everyone. The rule of the majority is just that.
ctdonath
Member
Oh come now - going from slavery to well-off freedom in an affluent society is doing pretty darn well! Condi Rice as US Secretary of State, Colin Powell for Secretary of Defense, and Barak Obama as leading candidate for President? that's doing well indeed! (Maybe not perfect yet, but come on...)
- Status