Which states will secede when the gun confiscation begins?

[LAK]

Um, no. The government has been doing exactly that for a long, long time. I was involved in the City of Detroit's taking of a lot of land back in the late 1970s and early 1980s for the Chrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant project. The City used eminent domain to take many hundreds of acres, spent millions of taxpayer dollars to clean it up and prep it, and then handed it over the Chrysler for a new plant. It wasn't even considered controversial at the time, because that sort of thing had been going on for as long as anyone could remember.

(etc)....

I think it is the frequency and extent of these thefts, and that media - mainstream and otherwise - are providing avenues of attention for any things previously the subject of a few local news stations, newpapers and citizens.
--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedtstates.org

 

[GEM]

If that ever happens, I plan to go on the offensive. I'm not going to just sit around and wait for them to kick in my front door at 3 am...

You have just been put on the warrantless wire tap list. Thanks for telling us about this so we can set it up now. The Federal Government.

 

[Correia]

GEM, if you're not already on the To Do list, then you must not be living right.

 

[hso]

Will any states (Texas??) secede when President Hillary, in her second term federalizes the National Guard and sends them door to door to confiscate all your guns? (Maybe she let you keep a single shot .22 for a little while) She'll know who you are because in the first term there will be manditory gun and gunowner registration. So when this happens where can we go?

No state will secede under any of the circumstances you've laid out.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

I don't know if one could draw any comparisons...... but it seems like the Australians did a fine job of resisting gun confiscation. No?

Lets take a moment and compare something:

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument

298,000,000 US Population (rounded up)
1,400,000 service members
20,090,000 Aus Population (rounded up)
400,000 Service members

Now, lets just say, for giggles, that 1/2 the households in the US have a gun...and that is what the anti's suggest. that comes to 149 MILLION households with guns in the US, that the government knows about.

I would guess that there are at least another 100 million or so guns that are "hiding" in safes, lockers, footlockers, caches, wilderness caches, old mines, drug houses, lake-beds, car trunks, camper trailers, boats, rv's...you get the idea.

To give you some perspective... 7.1 million people abuse illicit drugs in the USA: http://www.dfaf.org/marijuana/whyharmful.php

Since the percentage of drug users stands are 2.3% of the overall population, and a good number of those folks are *known* to the authorities as well (I would say about 1/2 the number of addicts out there have a criminal record of some drug offense--my hunch...not fact). Yet we can't get all the drugs, and there is a LOT less of it out there, numerically. We don't even dent the supply...and there is a WOD going on!

If we can't even dent the supply of drugs to 2.3% of the population, when a significant percentage of those users are *known* to us, how can we do anything like a sweep of guns in any area.

Oh, and hillary won't even get the nod. :banghead:



::edited: got my percentages wrong::

 

[alan]

A likely answer, I think,to the original question is the folowing. In one word, NONE!!!

 

[NineseveN]

Hehe, threads like this are funny.

I agree that the slow roast is working, but I expect to see things ramp up again in the next 10 to 15 years. I know it sounds off given the political climate, but don't think for one minute that republicans are your friends. We've lost as much, if not more of our freedoms under Bush as we did Clinton...this is the new way of all things. The whole "party" thing is just a dog and pony show to divert us while the fat cats slice and dice and decide which part of your life each gets to rule.

We're in the middle of a game of risk played by men that without thier manipulative talents that they use on a dumbed down public, couldn't conquer a child's sandbox after recess...the worst part is, every time our attention is drawn to the man with the little Mexican burro on a string, a handful of our pawns are swiped away and we miss a turn.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

We're in the middle of a game of risk played by men that without thier manipulative talents that they use on a dumbed down public, couldn't conquer a child's sandbox after recess...the worst part is, every time our attention is drawn to the man with the little Mexican burro on a string, a handful of our pawns are swiped away and we miss a turn.

Actually, I used to think that way.

I am seeing a heartwarming blend of cynicism. Here as in elsewhere. I don't think thing people are getting dumbER, I think that the dumb ones are starting to go away...the boomers are retiring...yes...those boomers. The people that sissified our nation. The people who sat on their asses while Islamists came to power. They are finally retiring, getting off the world stage, and making the dumb mistakes the elderly make.

Problem for the ruling powers is...well...frankly...kids is smart. They maybe lazy and stoned, but they are very smart. They are also politically aware. NOW, we need to reach out to them, while the time is ripe, and they are still playing their 1st person shoot-em-ups!

 

[Alex45ACP]

GEM, if you're not already on the To Do list, then you must not be living right.

Beat me to it

 

[DigitalWarrior]

None

I do not understand threads like this.

First, because there seems to be an assumption that the confiscation has not begun. I know I cannot buy an M16 in the states for less than 30k. I cannot buy an AR-15 or a .50 in California.

Second, because people assume that the goal is confiscation of weapons. In all likelyhood the goal is to ensure that people who would use weapons in an act of treason are not able to. That is done with monitoring and predictive behavioral models.

Third, shooting a person does little but garner sympathy and support for those who would disarm us by providing evidence that we cannot be trusted. Talking about it damages our reputation for both sound judgement and honesty.

Fourth, no one wants war on American, and we will go to darn near any length to avoid it.

DigitalWarrior

 

[XMP]

This is purely a hypothetical question; states don't actually have the right to secede -- Abe Lincoln

 

[AirForceShooter]

Texas defnitely has the RIGHT to secede.
They kept that right when they joined the Union.
I think that Florida also has the Right as it never formerly surrendered after the War of Northern Aggression. But I could be wrong on that one

AFS

 

[Fletchette]

I think the best bet for any resistance would be quiet insurrection. By that I mean that several states do not try to leave the union, as they probably could not garner enough political support, but they simply decide not to go along with the gun ban / confiscation. Local politicians would make watered-down complaints that "the Federal government is not funding us to enforce these new laws, so we cannot do so". Basically, they would copy the illegal immigration policies of many blue states - local cops cannot turn in people for owning guns. Gun owners will recieve amnesty if they contact the police for gun use (just like an illegal alien identified during a traffic stop cannot be deported). Basically, make it illegal in name only.

This is not the ideal solution. But it is a good resistance strategy. We as gun-owners despirately need a way to turn the politics around so that the defeat of a new anti-gun law is no longer cited as a "victory" and start actually repealling the gun control laws that are on the books. I love to know how to do that.

 

[Taurus 66]

Will any states (Texas??) secede when President Hillary, in her second term federalizes the National Guard and sends them door to door to confiscate all your guns?

That's a LOT of doors! WHOOEEE!

"Anyone for overtime, for about the next ... oh ... 25 years? Hell, we'll even throw in hazardous pay. If you haven't yet made out a will, you must do so before we start in on the neighborhoods. You have 1 hour."

 

[progunner1957]

Guns are going the way of cigarettes.

I can't see "The Government" ever outlawing cigarettes - hey, people have a Constitutional right to suck down poison smoke, right??

Too bad The Sheeple and "The Government" don't view the right to arms to be as important as the right to smoke. But then "The Government" doesn't make the billions off of the firearms makers that they do from the cigarette makers.

Neither do cigarettes present a roadblock to "The Government's" quest for absolute power with no accountability that an armed citizenry does - and that's what governmental antigun bigotry is all about: More power for "The Government."

 

[dogbaloo]

Texas defnitely has the RIGHT to secede.
They kept that right when they joined the Union.
I think that Florida also has the Right as it never formerly surrendered after the War of Northern Aggression. But I could be wrong on that one

AFS

With all due respect...it's urban legend. Texas does not have the right to secede. We screwed the pooch in 1845 my friend. Joined up with the union, and the days of an independent republic were gone never to return.

http://www.lonestarwebworks.com/texassecede/faq.asp

http://tafkac.org/politics/texas_secession_rights.html

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dorf/20041124.html

There's a mess of folks out there that would love you to believe it, but it simply ain't true. Even if it was, it would never, ever in a million light years happen.

Now, there IS a pretty significant chance that Mexico could take Texas back. I'm willing to bet there's a far greater chance of that happening.

Viva'!!!

 

[45Frank]

Isn't most of the country now ran by a few states. NY, CA, NJ, and maybe one or two more. Check the laws in the above mentioned states. They are completly Socialist.

then I think it would become too obvious that a minority of States have taken over,

 

[hugh damright]

I believe in a State's right to secession. The Declaration of Independence, our very founding, is based upon the States' right to secession. The States came first ... "State" means "Country". When the States formed a Confederation called "The US of A", they declared in the 2nd Article of Confederation that each State was retaining it's sovereignty. When the US Constitution was presented to the States, they were concerned about the US taking their sovereignty, so they requested our Tenth Amendment ... undelegated powers are reserved to the States, and the Constitution does not say that no State can secede from the Union therefore they have a constitutional right to do so. Also, when ratifying the Constitution, several States, including my State of Virginia, declared that we reserve the right to reclaim the powers being delegated. My Virginia Constitution also declares that the majority of Virginians have the right to alter or to abolish government and that means secede. Also, the Federalist Papers promised that the States were to bound only by their own voluntary act.

Further, if there is no right to secession, there is no need for State Militia, and there are no free States, and the real Second Amendment is dead ... But not to me it isn't, I still believe that Virginians have a collective right to come together and form militia to defend the free State which is by right ours.

 

[mec]

one of the north western states- Wyoming or Montana voted in one house at least, to refuse to do business with any aspect of the Federal government not authorized in the constitution. It was a protest vote against the Clinton administration and did not quite get into law.

 

[m14rick]

+1, hugh damright!

 

[Leif]

You can get enough people together in one place to make things work, certain states are already collecting patriots from other states(Kali owners going to Arizona or Nevada for example), and with a bit more time, you might at least be able to get it on the ballot.

Patriots don't dream about splitting up the country just because they have paranoid fantasies that the government will take all of their guns away tomorrow. Seems a rather unpatriotic thing to me ...

And "Red Dawn" is a lousy, inane movie ...

 

[XMP]

I believe in a State's right to secession.

You can believe in a state's right to secede all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that all the evidence you cite refers to the founding of the original United States, which essentially ceased to exist in its original form with Lincoln. If a state actually attempted to secede it would quickly find federal/imperial troops invading its borders to preserve the "more perfect union".

 

[Gifted]

Patriots don't dream about splitting up the country just because they have paranoid fantasies that the government will take all of their guns away tomorrow. Seems a rather unpatriotic thing to me ...

And at the point where that sort of thing would eb on the ballot would be at the point where it's no longer a paranoid fantasy. Just as the socialist population of these states grew slowly to the point where they became the cessspits they are, eventually the population of patriots and such will eventually in certain areas reac hcritical mass. That's when the confrontations happen, as they realize that they are no longer being represented adequately in the federal government. THIngs like what Flechette said would happen first,

several states do not try to leave the union, as they probably could not garner enough political support, but they simply decide not to go along with the gun ban / confiscation. Local politicians would make watered-down complaints that "the Federal government is not funding us to enforce these new laws, so we cannot do so". Basically, they would copy the illegal immigration policies of many blue states - local cops cannot turn in people for owning guns. Gun owners will recieve amnesty if they contact the police for gun use (just like an illegal alien identified during a traffic stop cannot be deported). Basically, make it illegal in name only.

and as the local people start seeing the federal government as nosy and overbearing, they'll start pushing for change. the politicians will pick up on this quick. Here, I can see a few things happening:

they cut a deal to maintain the status quo, which stays for a while, before the process repeats again,

They manage some reform, which gets rid of some crap, and we settle into the liberty states, and the socialist states, but with disproportionate numbers,

They try for a peaceful successsion(I agree, with the way politicians are, someone will have to get shot before this happens), which either succeeds, or escalates into armed insurrection, or

We just go straight into insurrection(depends on when someone gets shot).

that insurrection might not stay contained in the liberty states, it might spread a bit, who knows. But there will be a confrontation, especially if the dems get into power again. RINOs would give us trouble the other way, we'd have to have some pretty good third parties in there, not likely any time soon. And that confrontation will begin on the streets, or in the halls of government. Let's hope it's peaceful.

 

[Freedspeak]

Personally, I don't think many states will secede, however I think many individuals may secede with extreme prejiduce! The states may then have to follow.