Thanks Montana, we Texans like your idea. We will give it a shot also.
- Thread starter Acera
- Start date
- Status
Officers'Wife
Member
Unfortunately this is trying to reaffirm 'states rights.' An issue that was decided to the negative circa 1865. Once a government seizes power it will not peacefully give it up. Offhand I would say the fed will step in saying such a law will allow felons a 'pipeline' to firearms causing a bloodbath in NYC. It's a false premise but good enough for government work.
Selena
Selena
DAdams
Member
Glenn Beck
Had this issue on tonight 5.7.09. States Rights. I have brought this to the attention of my State Representatives here in TN, it may have a chance here too.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12276753
Salt Lake City article from today.
If you haven't read Mark R. Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny, give it a shot.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Tyran..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0Z7M13KT0R054H6DGS6J
Had this issue on tonight 5.7.09. States Rights. I have brought this to the attention of my State Representatives here in TN, it may have a chance here too.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12276753
Salt Lake City article from today.
If you haven't read Mark R. Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny, give it a shot.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Tyran..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0Z7M13KT0R054H6DGS6J
Last edited:
freewheeling
Member
This isn't a secessionist movement, and it's certainly not about race. In fact, only one of the states involved is in the South, and all of the states are in the West. It also isn't at all clear how this would shake out in terms of federal pressure, but as a general rule wealth is transferred from urban to rural areas through progressive taxation. The urban areas tend to tolerate this, although they don't think about it too much.
But it is possible to envision some sort of alliance of western states that resist pressure and operate somewhat independently, creating some counterpressure for awhile.
BTW, this is all very different from the Civil War secessionist movement, which was driven by the elites in the South and by southern states dominated by those plantation elites. Most of the counties in the South that were not part of the plantation economy voted against secession in 1860. That isn't remotely similar to what's going on now, except in the fevered imaginations of those who've bought into the "southern strategy" canard.
If this is a kind of Western sovereignty revolt I guess the critical question is what the coastal states would do. California would probably be opposed, and Oregon and Washington politics are dominated by the high population western sections of those states, so they'd also probably demure. And that would leave the high desert states in a relatively isolated condition. So it would be a little like a third party movement in the sense that it generally wouldn't have long term staying power, but might influence the politics of the rest of the country. It's not clear where this would end, but I'd hazard a guess that it might kick off a national tax revolt ending in some sort of flat tax concept similar to those that have been proposed by James Buchanan and the Public Choicers. Overall that would not be something that threatens the Union, but rather strengthens it.
Pure speculation, though.
But it is possible to envision some sort of alliance of western states that resist pressure and operate somewhat independently, creating some counterpressure for awhile.
BTW, this is all very different from the Civil War secessionist movement, which was driven by the elites in the South and by southern states dominated by those plantation elites. Most of the counties in the South that were not part of the plantation economy voted against secession in 1860. That isn't remotely similar to what's going on now, except in the fevered imaginations of those who've bought into the "southern strategy" canard.
If this is a kind of Western sovereignty revolt I guess the critical question is what the coastal states would do. California would probably be opposed, and Oregon and Washington politics are dominated by the high population western sections of those states, so they'd also probably demure. And that would leave the high desert states in a relatively isolated condition. So it would be a little like a third party movement in the sense that it generally wouldn't have long term staying power, but might influence the politics of the rest of the country. It's not clear where this would end, but I'd hazard a guess that it might kick off a national tax revolt ending in some sort of flat tax concept similar to those that have been proposed by James Buchanan and the Public Choicers. Overall that would not be something that threatens the Union, but rather strengthens it.
Pure speculation, though.
General Geoff
Member
I think you have that backwards.
freewheeling
Member
There has been an attempt to transfer rural school funds to urban schools, and there are a few other areas like that. There's a recent effort to establish better internet coverage in rural areas, for instance, but the general problem rural areas have is an inability to attain economies of scale. But computers are making a difference there.
Well, perhaps I'm not supposed to talk about this stuff here. It's sure an interesting development, though. I never saw it coming, and I don't know where it will ultimately lead. A block of states with reciprocal trade agreements in the Inland Empire? It'd sure be fun for political scientists. What would Nebraska do?
Frank4711
Member
It's about States and Individual rights and Freedom.
Federal rules may be put back in check, Go Montanna!
The founders of this country did not intend for the Federal government to control states. After 70+ years of manipulation of the supreme court ruling that a farmer growing wheat for his own family was subject to federal interstate commerce rules.
Now farmers are starving and going bankrupt to save the snail darter. The time has come for states to assert their rights. Different populations have different cultures and needs, often referred to as individual states rights. Its whats missing in this age of tyranny for hard working folks that know whats best for them self's. Fly over country has had enough of the Federal Government telling us what we can and can not due based on the contention of interstate commerce laws.
States have always been and always will be the better at governing their own population and its needs. So my hat goes off to Montana, Texas and any other state that can free us from this Tyranny. Move to a state you like and vote if you don't wont to move. So if you wont to subsides illegals, and live in a state that is bankrupt fine. Folks from Texas and other states do not need to bail out those states that make the wrong economic decisions. Then give up their hard earned money made with out mistakes, while being told we can not own guns as identified as a right under the second amendment since they no better. I'll be happy to find a nice place to cling to my Bible and guns with out Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama telling me whats best for me. We owe the gift of freedom to our children. Way to go montana! This is the best news I've herd in a long time.
Chicago Politics gets ruff real fast I think we should look at raising an interstate blackmail fund when Montana and other start being told they will not get road money, etc, if they don't do as the Fed says.
The founders of this country did not intend for the Federal government to control states. After 70+ years of manipulation of the supreme court ruling that a farmer growing wheat for his own family was subject to federal interstate commerce rules.
Now farmers are starving and going bankrupt to save the snail darter. The time has come for states to assert their rights. Different populations have different cultures and needs, often referred to as individual states rights. Its whats missing in this age of tyranny for hard working folks that know whats best for them self's. Fly over country has had enough of the Federal Government telling us what we can and can not due based on the contention of interstate commerce laws.
States have always been and always will be the better at governing their own population and its needs. So my hat goes off to Montana, Texas and any other state that can free us from this Tyranny. Move to a state you like and vote if you don't wont to move. So if you wont to subsides illegals, and live in a state that is bankrupt fine. Folks from Texas and other states do not need to bail out those states that make the wrong economic decisions. Then give up their hard earned money made with out mistakes, while being told we can not own guns as identified as a right under the second amendment since they no better. I'll be happy to find a nice place to cling to my Bible and guns with out Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama telling me whats best for me. We owe the gift of freedom to our children. Way to go montana! This is the best news I've herd in a long time.
Chicago Politics gets ruff real fast I think we should look at raising an interstate blackmail fund when Montana and other start being told they will not get road money, etc, if they don't do as the Fed says.
ScottG1911
Member
I'll have to get on ohio about that
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
How bout Texas start with something simple like allowing people to carry auto knives.
When the state laws are more suppresive than federal law, its kinda the pot calling the kettle black.
When the state laws are more suppresive than federal law, its kinda the pot calling the kettle black.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Folks that think this is about secession have lost their minds.
waterhouse
Member
Not with the current law in place.
In other words, even if this passed, you could not build a full auto in Texas using all Texas made parts, because it wouldn't be registered pursuant to the NFA.
We do not need succession. Just the constitution to be followed. Provide for the defense of he country and a judicial system. Replacing the sand on beaches and buying car companies with our money is to big of a stretch. This will hopefully make the supreme court determine where the boundary is. We are the last great refuge in the world for a non suppressive government and individual rights. The trend of socialism for America has just had a shoot placed across its bow. We can only hope its not to late. The right to bear arms was for a reason, to make the government fear the people. How ironic this right will become the first scuffle for re asserting our rights. Its amazing how smart our founding father were. But it only came through trail and error of what worked and did not for Federal and state governments to co exist.
One thing was certain the right for people to own arms was required. As gun owners and citizens this is about the people deciding whats right and not bureaucrats beholden to popularity polls and special interest seeking re-election as a way of life. Freedom and Liberty must be protected by the people and the States. National databases and public opinion used to conclude you should loose your 2nd amendment right is a malicious attempt to pave the way to ending that right.
There are certainly many points to be made about gun ownership but the Federal Government and these folks who take and oath to defend the constitution of the United States and act against it need to be challenged and this is it.
One thing was certain the right for people to own arms was required. As gun owners and citizens this is about the people deciding whats right and not bureaucrats beholden to popularity polls and special interest seeking re-election as a way of life. Freedom and Liberty must be protected by the people and the States. National databases and public opinion used to conclude you should loose your 2nd amendment right is a malicious attempt to pave the way to ending that right.
There are certainly many points to be made about gun ownership but the Federal Government and these folks who take and oath to defend the constitution of the United States and act against it need to be challenged and this is it.
Last edited:
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
While I'm 100% behind this, didn't the FedGov, via the SCOTUS, make it patently clear in US v. Raich that they have no respect for the 10th amendment and it is, for all intents and purposes, dead? After all, that case was about a plant grown in Calif, used in Calif, that never left Calif.
Succession - probably it'll never go that far but since Texas pays more to the fed than comes back and they're trying to impose rules on that money.....
If anything it will hopefully quell the gun grabbers and give them notice that the law abiding citizens in Texas and Montana will not take any more CRAP! Now for a couple factories in Texas to start producing handgun ammo!!!
X
If anything it will hopefully quell the gun grabbers and give them notice that the law abiding citizens in Texas and Montana will not take any more CRAP! Now for a couple factories in Texas to start producing handgun ammo!!!
X
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Secession, not succession
303Jeff
Member
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/
This says it's still alive with no action since 5/1/2009, which was when it was favorably reviewed by the Public Safety committee. No amendments were made. I don't know how long these things take, seems like it's been a while. Hopefully this will keep moving up the chain.
This says it's still alive with no action since 5/1/2009, which was when it was favorably reviewed by the Public Safety committee. No amendments were made. I don't know how long these things take, seems like it's been a while. Hopefully this will keep moving up the chain.
I just finished emailing my state representative about this issue and that I sure hope he supports this. I have never emailed or gotten involved in politics other than voting. So I'll be eager to find out what happens now. Thanks for posting this. I mentioned that the during the Obama scare that the firearms industry increased its sales by over a billion dollars, and that I doubted that Texans saw any revenue from that. Hope many more will get their representatives involved.
hirundo82
Member
This bill died when the 2009 legislative session closed. It would have to be introduced again when the legislature reconvenes in January 2011.303Jeff said:
- Status
