So are we agreed then that from a technical standpoint it is legal,

from a moral standpoint it may be legal,

but from a practical standpoint the federal .gov will say "FU Montana here comes the 82nd!!!!", and so it is simply not a good idea in actual application?

Am I understanding you, and vice versa, correctly?  We are agreed?

-Ben

Quoted: So are we agreed then that from a technical standpoint it is legal, from a moral standpoint it may be legal, but from a practical standpoint the federal .gov will say "FU Montana here comes the 82nd!!!!", and so it is simply not a good idea in actual application? Am I understanding you, and vice versa, correctly?  We are agreed? -Ben

legal and illegal has nothing to do with it. the social contract has been broken. Anyone can do anything. This is about really no more than who's willing to kill more people in the end.

Quoted: So are we agreed then that from a technical standpoint it may be legal, from a moral standpoint it may be legal, but from a practical standpoint the federal .gov will say "FU Montana here comes the 82nd!!!!", and so it is simply not a good idea in actual application? Am I understanding you, and vice versa, correctly?  We are agreed? -Ben

I could make an argument that the Feds have the power as sovereign to maintain the union. But thats not as strong as a constitutional cite.  Other than that, sure.

Quoted: Quoted: So are we agreed then that from a technical standpoint it may be legal, from a moral standpoint it may be legal, but from a practical standpoint the federal .gov will say "FU Montana here comes the 82nd!!!!", and so it is simply not a good idea in actual application? Am I understanding you, and vice versa, correctly?  We are agreed? -Ben I could make an argument that the Feds have the power as sovereign to maintain the union. But thats not as strong as a constitutional cite.  Other than that, sure.

OK.  I will settle with it not being, at this time, explicitly illegal.  Agreed?  Friends? Don't make me go all Socrates (Bill and Ted style) on you.

-Ben

Quoted: Quoted: So are we agreed then that from a technical standpoint it may be legal, from a moral standpoint it may be legal, but from a practical standpoint the federal .gov will say "FU Montana here comes the 82nd!!!!", and so it is simply not a good idea in actual application? Am I understanding you, and vice versa, correctly?  We are agreed? -Ben I could make an argument that the Feds have the power as sovereign to maintain the union. But thats not as strong as a constitutional cite.  Other than that, sure.

It looks to be pretty explicit in the contract. Montana should legally be able to terminate the agreement with no repurcussions.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So are we agreed then that from a technical standpoint it may be legal, from a moral standpoint it may be legal, but from a practical standpoint the federal .gov will say "FU Montana here comes the 82nd!!!!", and so it is simply not a good idea in actual application? Am I understanding you, and vice versa, correctly?  We are agreed? -Ben I could make an argument that the Feds have the power as sovereign to maintain the union. But thats not as strong as a constitutional cite.  Other than that, sure. OK.  I will settle with it not being, at this time, explicitly illegal.  Agreed?  Friends? Don't make me go all Socrates (Bill and Ted style) on you. -Ben

Who said we weren't friends?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms. Really? We just did it with Kosovo.

ETA Knowing SCOTUS, they will take years to rule on it.

Quoted: Quoted: What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms. Really? We just did it with Kosovo.

what is so hard ot understand that the constitution is the foundation for our laws and since it's been deviated from and broken it no longer applies.

if you don't have a foundation you can't build a house. simple enough.

anyone can do anything in this country provided they have the power. As for going without a fight? well if we have to fight then we fight. These people are evil and tyrannical and absolutely will not stop.

Let's make it easy.  If Montana is a net loss on taxes.  More Fed $$ go in then tax $$ come out, let them go and try to make it on their own.

I have the feeling that Montana is a net drain on the Taxpayers teat.  And with a whole lot of "patriots" showing up, they are going to have to put a lot of money into roads, housing, telephones, water supplies, Post Offices, etc etc, all the things that come with a major increase in population and a demand for service industry jobs to support them.

Or all they all going to live in tents?  and on whose property?  I'd like to have the Porta-Pottie company in some of the cities.

Quoted: Let's make it easy.  If Montana is a net loss on taxes.  More Fed $$ go in then tax $$ come out, let them go and try to make it on their own. I have the feeling that Montana is a net drain on the Taxpayers teat.  And with a whole lot of "patriots" showing up, they are going to have to put a lot of money into roads, housing, telephones, water supplies, Post Offices, etc etc, all the things that come with a major increase in population and a demand for service industry jobs to support them. Or all they all going to live in tents?  and on whose property?  I'd like to have the Porta-Pottie company in some of the cities.

so in other words you just told every freedom-supporting montanan here on arfcom to go fuck themselves. yeah that's an intelligent thing to say.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... IIRC we tried this once before.... too bad it didn't work.... We tried this _twice_ before. The first time it DID work. It was called the American Revolution. People seem to forget that until then were were part of the British empire. They were our legal government, but they stopped listening to what we had to say, so we told them to pound sand. Actually, we tried this THREE times before. Ask Aaron Burr how that worked out.

Oops. Forgot about that.

Regarding if secession is illegal (not in any way commentary on if it is right or just):

Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Also in Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 the Supreme Court held that secession was a legal impossibility.

Quoted: Quoted: Let's make it easy.  If Montana is a net loss on taxes.  More Fed $$ go in then tax $$ come out, let them go and try to make it on their own. I have the feeling that Montana is a net drain on the Taxpayers teat.  And with a whole lot of "patriots" showing up, they are going to have to put a lot of money into roads, housing, telephones, water supplies, Post Offices, etc etc, all the things that come with a major increase in population and a demand for service industry jobs to support them. Or all they all going to live in tents?  and on whose property?  I'd like to have the Porta-Pottie company in some of the cities. so in other words you just told every freedom-supporting montanan here on arfcom to go fuck themselves. yeah that's an intelligent thing to say.

Ale,  I support Montana in this notion, I want to see the liberties of men upheld as much, or more, than the next guy.  That said, you ought to tone it down a bit.  Use some more tact.  You come across now as either being very young and bold, or very drunk.  Calm, calculated words and expressions will make your ideas valuable to those around you, both here and elsewhere.  At the rate you're going, I don't know that I would want you next to me in an infantry company.  Take it down a notch my friend, it will be better for your credibility.

-Ben

Let's keep an eye on this ,  atleast someone made an impression that we all could see.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's make it easy.  If Montana is a net loss on taxes.  More Fed $$ go in then tax $$ come out, let them go and try to make it on their own. I have the feeling that Montana is a net drain on the Taxpayers teat.  And with a whole lot of "patriots" showing up, they are going to have to put a lot of money into roads, housing, telephones, water supplies, Post Offices, etc etc, all the things that come with a major increase in population and a demand for service industry jobs to support them. Or all they all going to live in tents?  and on whose property?  I'd like to have the Porta-Pottie company in some of the cities. so in other words you just told every freedom-supporting montanan here on arfcom to go fuck themselves. yeah that's an intelligent thing to say. Ale,  I support Montana in this notion, I want to see the liberties of men upheld as much, or more, than the next guy.  That said, you ought to tone it down a bit.  Use some more tact.  You come across now as either being very young and bold, or very drunk.  Calm, calculated words and expressions will make your ideas valuable to those around you, both here and elsewhere.  At the rate you're going, I don't know that I would want you next to me in an infantry company.  Take it down a notch my friend, it will be better for your credibility. -Ben

so do I. I'm trying to get across what makes laws in the US legitimate and what doesn't. One needs to study law and the history of the constitution to understand EXACTLY how it worked and what is and is not legal. If you follow it all the way back to the legal models provided by John Locke and Thomas Hobbs then look at William Blackstone's commentaries on english law you'll see what I'm getting at. It's really no different than if a company makes a contract with another company and then breaks it. Point: there doesn't have to be a law saying you can secede because from a constitutional point of view there is no legitimate law because the constitution(the social contract as explained by Hobbs and emphasized by James Madison) has been broken. For all intents and purposes, despite how goofy it sounds, we really have been under an illegitimate occupational government for the past 100 years started by Lincoln who openly defied states' rights. So it's not about whether it's legal or not. It's whether people are willing to fight. I agree that the so-called US government is NOT going to let montana just walk away. The question isn't legality, it's who is REALLY willing to fight. In a way it's also a test of faith. It's kind of like World war 1 in the sense that whoever backs down will be seen as the weaker side and will be trampled on. So basically since the people who support freedom(Montana) have basically come out and said fuck you to the federal gov, the game is on if Heller is ruled as a collective right. If Montana backs down now it'll be the final nail in the coffin as to whether or not people pose a threat to gov because they are armed. And if they back down it'll be all that more reassuring to the fed that they can trample on us as much as they like.


This can't be stopped. I don't think people on this board realize how serious and dangerous this is.

I live in Michigan, and if Washington decided to passed a bill saying that gun rights were for militia's not citizens, I would be all for my State seceding from the Union.

Quoted: So are we agreed then that from a technical standpoint it is legal, from a moral standpoint it may be legal, but from a practical standpoint the federal .gov will say "FU Montana here comes the 82nd!!!!", and so it is simply not a good idea in actual application? Am I understanding you, and vice versa, correctly?  We are agreed? -Ben

No, you're missing the most obvious one:  The AG of Montana has no intention of following through, because seceding would cost them millions if not billions of federal bucks.

The reference to secession was just red meat for ARFCOM-type Montana gun owners from a Democrat administration eager to burnish the party's pro-gun bona fides just before a presidential election.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What in the fuck is so hard to understand?  It is illegal to secede from the union.  You can quote all the philosophers, presidents, and confederate heroes you want, but the fact remains: if you want to secede, you had better pick up arms.  No nation, and certainly not the United States Federal Government, is going to allow a region to declare independence without a fight.  It is a simple fact of government: it exists to perpetuate itself.  Any threat to its sovereignty and power will be dealt with by the force of arms. Can you please direct me to the law which states secession is illegal? -Ben You really think if you put it before the Supreme Court, the government's own judges wouldn't pull something out of their asses declaring secession illegal? Secession is always illegal.  Period.  In any state, in any government.  The sovereign has the inherent power to quash rebellions. No one will ever secede from the union peacefully. ETA: Illegal != wrong. I think quoting the people who founded our country and wrote the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is quite relevent here. I get what you're saying, but the point isn't to prove that secession is LEGAL, it's to prove that it's JUSTIFIED. If you want to go through with it, you have to be able to show to others, "see? this is why we're doing it, and here are all the reasons we have the right to do so." ETA: Exactly what our founding fathers did in the Declaration of Independence. Their secession was illegal, but they stated exactly what they were doing, why they were doing it, and why they were justified in doing it.

Exactly. And that is also exactly why they put the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. They KNEW that no tyrannical government will ever let go of it's power willingly, so they made sure to keep the _people_ armed to the teeth to A) keep the government in fear of it's own people and B) failing that, to give the people the ability to kick the tyrants out and start over with a new government.

Naturally, when the government starts to become tyrannical, it will attempt to disarm anyone who may oppose it in the future or the present, so it is in the interest of the people to be sure that is not allowed to happen. Even incrementally. Especially incrementally, because incrementalism is used to take things from people without arousing them too much until it's too late for them to stop it.

Without reading all 19 pages looking for one comment... I must say that song... Moving to Montana... by Frank Zappa comes to mind and will be playing for a good part of the night over here.

"Raising my lonely AR15 floss"  "With a pair of heavy duty, zircon encrusted AR15s in my hands... da de da..."

Ok, thats enough.

Just think, if they DID secede and a war started that killed 50,000+ it would all be because the gov wanted to ban guns to save lives.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Secy of State Brad Johnson of Montana delivered a letter to the Washington Times about possible outcomes of the Heller decision. Second Amendment an individual right The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday). The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory. A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right. There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms. As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states. Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States 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. BRAD JOHNSON Montana secretary of state Helena, Mont. Montana, the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller I wonder what other states? I don't know, but I hope Alabama joins the new confederacy. If not, I'm moving to Montana. i26.tinypic.com/2j2ygy9.gif I am SO glad the folks out in that state have shown that there are still some people in this country who love and support the original intent of the constitution and bill of rights. FINALLY, they have proven to me that I was wrong. I thought nobody in this country had the balls to stand up for what's right anymore, but it looks like MONTANA still stands for what's right. Good on 'em for it!!!

fuggin right... we can carpool.. what part of AL are you in... im at the ass end...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Secy of State Brad Johnson of Montana delivered a letter to the Washington Times about possible outcomes of the Heller decision. Second Amendment an individual right The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday). The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory. A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right. There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms. As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states. Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States 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. BRAD JOHNSON Montana secretary of state Helena, Mont. Montana, the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller I wonder what other states? I don't know, but I hope Alabama joins the new confederacy. If not, I'm moving to Montana. i26.tinypic.com/2j2ygy9.gif I am SO glad the folks out in that state have shown that there are still some people in this country who love and support the original intent of the constitution and bill of rights. FINALLY, they have proven to me that I was wrong. I thought nobody in this country had the balls to stand up for what's right anymore, but it looks like MONTANA still stands for what's right. Good on 'em for it!!! fuggin right... we can carpool.. what part of AL are you in... im at the ass end...

Good, you can pick me up on the way up. I'm on the other end.

Quoted: Quoted: Let's make it easy.  If Montana is a net loss on taxes.  More Fed $$ go in then tax $$ come out, let them go and try to make it on their own. I have the feeling that Montana is a net drain on the Taxpayers teat.  And with a whole lot of "patriots" showing up, they are going to have to put a lot of money into roads, housing, telephones, water supplies, Post Offices, etc etc, all the things that come with a major increase in population and a demand for service industry jobs to support them. Or all they all going to live in tents?  and on whose property?  I'd like to have the Porta-Pottie company in some of the cities. so in other words you just told every freedom-supporting montanan here on arfcom to go fuck themselves. yeah that's an intelligent thing to say.

Well if you say so.  Just what we need around here, another shit talking noob Texan.  BTW, if you look carefully you just might find a shift key on your keyboard, apparently beyond your capability to type while using it.

There should be little debate about wheter secession is legal or not.  I recon that a state's secession would be a rejection of the United State's constitution, treates, and laws and therefore it woulnd't matter if the US considered a state's secession legal or not.  From the state that is seceding's point of view what they did was 100% legal.

A new nation would be created with its own laws.

Quoted: Just think, if they DID secede and a war started that killed 50,000+ it would all be because the gov wanted to ban guns to save lives.

If 50K died, then I'd hope at least 10% of the remaining gun owners in the country would have the courage to push the

If The U.S. Supreme Court rules for the "collective rights" theory, I think what Montana does is the least of our problems.

Interesting times.

Why does it seem like this year, 2008, is full of all kinds of really bad things that could start civil unrest?

We have;

DC vs. Heller

Bush and his North American Union w/ boarder elimination

Obama and the U.N. Global Tax w/ small arms ban

McCain and a possible Gun Owner Registration & his new plan for $5000 in health care subsidies for every family.

Hillary the Harpy and her Hubby back to knocking off business partners and selling Nuke secrets to Commies...  and of course steeling company's profits.






I heading to Montana

anyone posted this yet.......................?


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. ..........

Just sayin..... Kind of an argument ender...........

Quoted: so do I. I'm trying to get across what makes laws in the US legitimate and what doesn't. One needs to study law and the history of the constitution to understand EXACTLY how it worked and what is and is not legal. If you follow it all the way back to the legal models provided by John Locke and Thomas Hobbs then look at William Blackstone's commentaries on english law you'll see what I'm getting at. It's really no different than if a company makes a contract with another company and then breaks it. Point: there doesn't have to be a law saying you can secede because from a constitutional point of view there is no legitimate law because the constitution(the social contract as explained by Hobbs and emphasized by James Madison) has been broken. For all intents and purposes, despite how goofy it sounds, we really have been under an illegitimate occupational government for the past 100 years started by Lincoln who openly defied states' rights. So it's not about whether it's legal or not. It's whether people are willing to fight. I agree that the so-called US government is NOT going to let montana just walk away. The question isn't legality, it's who is REALLY willing to fight. In a way it's also a test of faith. It's kind of like World war 1 in the sense that whoever backs down will be seen as the weaker side and will be trampled on. So basically since the people who support freedom(Montana) have basically come out and said fuck you to the federal gov, the game is on if Heller is ruled as a collective right. If Montana backs down now it'll be the final nail in the coffin as to whether or not people pose a threat to gov because they are armed. And if they back down it'll be all that more reassuring to the fed that they can trample on us as much as they like. This can't be stopped. I don't think people on this board realize how serious and dangerous this is.

Your thinking is "right on". Things have only gotten worse and worse a little at a time since the 1860's, and they will continue to until some of the states choose to hit the "reset" button so to speak, at which point the cycle of "the nature of government" will start over again (if they are successful). As the founders of our country pointed out, it is the nature of all governments to grow until they become a monster. At that point things get ugly and the "reset button" is pushed and the cycle begins again. Most people don't realize this cycle exists unless they're into reading history because the cycle is longer than a single human lifespan. - Speaking of lifespans, I've got a pet theory that part of what causes the cycle to happen is the fact that once there is no one left from a generation that experiences certain things, the "reality" of it fades in the minds of the younger generations. With the first couple of following generations, they can remember their parents and grandparents telling them about what they need to watch out for, but that isn't the same as having gone through it themselves, so they let their guard down a little. Then the next couple of generations come along and the stories become nothing more than something boring a teacher makes them learn from some history book in school, so most of the kids don't pay any attention to the lessons that need to be learned. When these kids grow up and start running the country, they have forgotten the history of their ancestors, so they start making the same mistakes again. As time passes, the same mistakes bring about the same results and the cycle is fulfilled again. - And so on forever.

That is why the founders of our country said it is our duty _forever_ to be vigilant on the subject of liberty. It is the nature of things for it to be taken away until the final straw breaks the camel's back and we have to start over with a new camel, so to speak.

All that being said though, if Montana and/or any other states ever hope to stand up for what's right, their leadership had better have a damn good defense plan, that's for sure. And they'd better have a finance plan, because as has been pointed out, part of the way the federal government keeps the states in check since the 1930's is by taking the tax money from the state and then refusing to give it back to them (in the form of "federal aid", etc) unless the state does what massuh tells them to do. All part of the unconstitutional socialist restructuring plan that's been going on for the last 80-odd years.

Another problem involved is that many "leaders" in various states are part of the "true believers" in the socialist elite bunch that controls the top levels. In other words, the hold they have on the country permeates several levels down into many state governments. For a quick and fun way to understand how some of these folks are "controlled" by people higher up, watch the movie Braveheart and pay particular attention to the statements of the father of Robert the Bruce and the statements of the English King Edward I. They pretty clearly show the nature of "divide and conquer" politics, and they explain why so many of our leaders love "globalism" so much. It's all about money in the pockets of "the elite" keeping them from having an allegiance the the people they supposedly represent. In King Edwards day they had "feudalism" where various "Lords" were indebted to and controlled by higher levels of lords and kings. The way sucessful monarchs like Edward controlled the "vassal lords" under them was by giving  them lands, including the serfs that lived on the land, in areas other than their home region. This caused their loyalty to the people who depended on them (the serfs and lower level nobility) to be divided because of the money they were getting from their holdings in other areas (for instance Edward would give land in England to Scottish lords). All this resulted in the loyalty of the vassal lords going to wherever their money came from, and ultimately to Richard, since he assured that they continued to get the money from the land he had given them (minus the taxes he took from them).

Now -   Today, if we were honest with ourselves, we might notice that not only are the states of the USA controlled by the federal government by similar financial "deals", but on an even higher level, "globalism" divides the loyalties of our prominent rich citizens and certain politicians because they hold interests in international companies or are financed by those who do (can you say China, boys and girls? I knew you could...). This is basically the same sort of system used by King Richard to control the loyalties of his underlings, so in a way you could call it "corporate feudalism" (since international corporate banks hold our debt,  effectively control our politicians and increasingly own our infrastructure). Just something to think about. People have to understand the nature of the problems they face before they can even think about how to fix them, and believe me, "the elite" are not gonna teach people about how things really work in government run schools. Can't have the serfs understanding how the system screws them.

The only thing that will fix things is if some of our political leaders decide to put principles in front of money and just do the right thing. It's tough to find people who will do that when times are "fat and sassy", but it will get easier as the dollar continues to drop with the economy like a rock and there is less to go around. When people start getting hungry they tend to start paying more attention and start doing something about their situation.

MAN... I just went back and read that again. It's amazing how screwed up our country has gotten. Really, really sad.

Update - the wife loves the idea of Montana. So does the 4 y.o., of course, she thinks a certain blond Disney singer lives there...

Quoted: Why does it seem like this year, 2008, is full of all kinds of really bad things that could start civil unrest? We have; DC vs. Heller Bush and his North American Union w/ boarder elimination Obama and the U.N. Global Tax w/ small arms ban McCain and a possible Gun Owner Registration & his new plan for $5000 in health care subsidies for every family. Hillary the Harpy and her Hubby back to knocking off business partners and selling Nuke secrets to Commies...  and of course steeling company's profits. I heading to Montana

Are you even from Earth?

It's a fun fantasy but we'll see how long a land locked nation lasts run by Arfcommers

Quoted: It's a fun fantasy but we'll see how long a land locked nation lasts run by Arfcommers

Can you call it "secession" if you secede and then are joined by 48 other states?

(Shhhh...don't tell California)

Quoted: Quoted: It's a fun fantasy but we'll see how long a land locked nation lasts run by Arfcommers Can you call it "secession" if you secede and then are joined by 48 other states? (Shhhh...don't tell California)

Well, technically I guess. California, Massachusets, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and D.C. would be awfully pissed at us though.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's a fun fantasy but we'll see how long a land locked nation lasts run by Arfcommers Can you call it "secession" if you secede and then are joined by 48 other states? (Shhhh...don't tell California) Well, technically I guess. California, Massachusets, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and D.C. would be awfully pissed at us though.

One of you is having some simple math issues.  Must have learned Subtraction at the NT School of Math.  You have to take all 48, so your taxes support MA, NY, IL, NJ and DC.  CA will come out ahead and can stand alone.  Once your gone we can split CA into several subdivisions and all but LA and SF counties will repeal "State" gun laws.

Quoted: Quoted: so do I. I'm trying to get across what makes laws in the US legitimate and what doesn't. One needs to study law and the history of the constitution to understand EXACTLY how it worked and what is and is not legal. If you follow it all the way back to the legal models provided by John Locke and Thomas Hobbs then look at William Blackstone's commentaries on english law you'll see what I'm getting at. It's really no different than if a company makes a contract with another company and then breaks it. Point: there doesn't have to be a law saying you can secede because from a constitutional point of view there is no legitimate law because the constitution(the social contract as explained by Hobbs and emphasized by James Madison) has been broken. For all intents and purposes, despite how goofy it sounds, we really have been under an illegitimate occupational government for the past 100 years started by Lincoln who openly defied states' rights. So it's not about whether it's legal or not. It's whether people are willing to fight. I agree that the so-called US government is NOT going to let montana just walk away. The question isn't legality, it's who is REALLY willing to fight. In a way it's also a test of faith. It's kind of like World war 1 in the sense that whoever backs down will be seen as the weaker side and will be trampled on. So basically since the people who support freedom(Montana) have basically come out and said fuck you to the federal gov, the game is on if Heller is ruled as a collective right. If Montana backs down now it'll be the final nail in the coffin as to whether or not people pose a threat to gov because they are armed. And if they back down it'll be all that more reassuring to the fed that they can trample on us as much as they like. This can't be stopped. I don't think people on this board realize how serious and dangerous this is. Your thinking is "right on". Things have only gotten worse and worse a little at a time since the 1860's, and they will continue to until some of the states choose to hit the "reset" button so to speak, at which point the cycle of "the nature of government" will start over again (if they are successful). As the founders of our country pointed out, it is the nature of all governments to grow until they become a monster. At that point things get ugly and the "reset button" is pushed and the cycle begins again. Most people don't realize this cycle exists unless they're into reading history because the cycle is longer than a single human lifespan. - Speaking of lifespans, I've got a pet theory that part of what causes the cycle to happen is the fact that once there is no one left from a generation that experiences certain things, the "reality" of it fades in the minds of the younger generations. With the first couple of following generations, they can remember their parents and grandparents telling them about what they need to watch out for, but that isn't the same as having gone through it themselves, so they let their guard down a little. Then the next couple of generations come along and the stories become nothing more than something boring a teacher makes them learn from some history book in school, so most of the kids don't pay any attention to the lessons that need to be learned. When these kids grow up and start running the country, they have forgotten the history of their ancestors, so they start making the same mistakes again. As time passes, the same mistakes bring about the same results and the cycle is fulfilled again. - And so on forever. That is why the founders of our country said it is our duty _forever_ to be vigilant on the subject of liberty. It is the nature of things for it to be taken away until the final straw breaks the camel's back and we have to start over with a new camel, so to speak. All that being said though, if Montana and/or any other states ever hope to stand up for what's right, their leadership had better have a damn good defense plan, that's for sure. And they'd better have a finance plan, because as has been pointed out, part of the way the federal government keeps the states in check since the 1930's is by taking the tax money from the state and then refusing to give it back to them (in the form of "federal aid", etc) unless the state does what massuh tells them to do. All part of the unconstitutional socialist restructuring plan that's been going on for the last 80-odd years. Another problem involved is that many "leaders" in various states are part of the "true believers" in the socialist elite bunch that controls the top levels. In other words, the hold they have on the country permeates several levels down into many state governments. For a quick and fun way to understand how some of these folks are "controlled" by people higher up, watch the movie Braveheart and pay particular attention to the statements of the father of Robert the Bruce and the statements of the English King Edward I. They pretty clearly show the nature of "divide and conquer" politics, and they explain why so many of our leaders love "globalism" so much. It's all about money in the pockets of "the elite" keeping them from having an allegiance the the people they supposedly represent. In King Edwards day they had "feudalism" where various "Lords" were indebted to and controlled by higher levels of lords and kings. The way sucessful monarchs like Edward controlled the "vassal lords" under them was by giving  them lands, including the serfs that lived on the land, in areas other than their home region. This caused their loyalty to the people who depended on them (the serfs and lower level nobility) to be divided because of the money they were getting from their holdings in other areas (for instance Edward would give land in England to Scottish lords). All this resulted in the loyalty of the vassal lords going to wherever their money came from, and ultimately to Richard, since he assured that they continued to get the money from the land he had given them (minus the taxes he took from them). Now -   Today, if we were honest with ourselves, we might notice that not only are the states of the USA controlled by the federal government by similar financial "deals", but on an even higher level, "globalism" divides the loyalties of our prominent rich citizens and certain politicians because they hold interests in international companies or are financed by those who do (can you say China, boys and girls? I knew you could...). This is basically the same sort of system used by King Richard to control the loyalties of his underlings, so in a way you could call it "corporate feudalism" (since international corporate banks hold our debt,  effectively control our politicians and increasingly own our infrastructure). Just something to think about. People have to understand the nature of the problems they face before they can even think about how to fix them, and believe me, "the elite" are not gonna teach people about how things really work in government run schools. Can't have the serfs understanding how the system screws them. The only thing that will fix things is if some of our political leaders decide to put principles in front of money and just do the right thing. It's tough to find people who will do that when times are "fat and sassy", but it will get easier as the dollar continues to drop with the economy like a rock and there is less to go around. When people start getting hungry they tend to start paying more attention and start doing something about their situation. MAN... I just went back and read that again. It's amazing how screwed up our country has gotten. Really, really sad.

I agree with your logic until you wrote what I have indicated in bold red letters.

Lets have those that broke the system and who are controlling it fix it. I don't agree in the politicians fixing the political system. Kind of a conflict of interest.

Quoted: so do I. I'm trying to get across what makes laws in the US legitimate and what doesn't. One needs to study law and the history of the constitution to understand EXACTLY how it worked and what is and is not legal. If you follow it all the way back to the legal models provided by John Locke and Thomas Hobbs then look at William Blackstone's commentaries on english law you'll see what I'm getting at. It's really no different than if a company makes a contract with another company and then breaks it. Point: there doesn't have to be a law saying you can secede because from a constitutional point of view there is no legitimate law because the constitution(the social contract as explained by Hobbs and emphasized by James Madison) has been broken. For all intents and purposes, despite how goofy it sounds, we really have been under an illegitimate occupational government for the past 100 years started by Lincoln who openly defied states' rights. So it's not about whether it's legal or not. It's whether people are willing to fight. I agree that the so-called US government is NOT going to let montana just walk away. The question isn't legality, it's who is REALLY willing to fight. In a way it's also a test of faith. It's kind of like World war 1 in the sense that whoever backs down will be seen as the weaker side and will be trampled on. So basically since the people who support freedom(Montana) have basically come out and said fuck you to the federal gov, the game is on if Heller is ruled as a collective right. If Montana backs down now it'll be the final nail in the coffin as to whether or not people pose a threat to gov because they are armed. And if they back down it'll be all that more reassuring to the fed that they can trample on us as much as they like. This can't be stopped. I don't think people on this board realize how serious and dangerous this is.

Ex-fucking-lactly, and QFT.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: so do I. I'm trying to get across what makes laws in the US legitimate and what doesn't. One needs to study law and the history of the constitution to understand EXACTLY how it worked and what is and is not legal. If you follow it all the way back to the legal models provided by John Locke and Thomas Hobbs then look at William Blackstone's commentaries on english law you'll see what I'm getting at. It's really no different than if a company makes a contract with another company and then breaks it. Point: there doesn't have to be a law saying you can secede because from a constitutional point of view there is no legitimate law because the constitution(the social contract as explained by Hobbs and emphasized by James Madison) has been broken. For all intents and purposes, despite how goofy it sounds, we really have been under an illegitimate occupational government for the past 100 years started by Lincoln who openly defied states' rights. So it's not about whether it's legal or not. It's whether people are willing to fight. I agree that the so-called US government is NOT going to let montana just walk away. The question isn't legality, it's who is REALLY willing to fight. In a way it's also a test of faith. It's kind of like World war 1 in the sense that whoever backs down will be seen as the weaker side and will be trampled on. So basically since the people who support freedom(Montana) have basically come out and said fuck you to the federal gov, the game is on if Heller is ruled as a collective right. If Montana backs down now it'll be the final nail in the coffin as to whether or not people pose a threat to gov because they are armed. And if they back down it'll be all that more reassuring to the fed that they can trample on us as much as they like. This can't be stopped. I don't think people on this board realize how serious and dangerous this is. Your thinking is "right on". Things have only gotten worse and worse a little at a time since the 1860's, and they will continue to until some of the states choose to hit the "reset" button so to speak, at which point the cycle of "the nature of government" will start over again (if they are successful). As the founders of our country pointed out, it is the nature of all governments to grow until they become a monster. At that point things get ugly and the "reset button" is pushed and the cycle begins again. Most people don't realize this cycle exists unless they're into reading history because the cycle is longer than a single human lifespan. - Speaking of lifespans, I've got a pet theory that part of what causes the cycle to happen is the fact that once there is no one left from a generation that experiences certain things, the "reality" of it fades in the minds of the younger generations. With the first couple of following generations, they can remember their parents and grandparents telling them about what they need to watch out for, but that isn't the same as having gone through it themselves, so they let their guard down a little. Then the next couple of generations come along and the stories become nothing more than something boring a teacher makes them learn from some history book in school, so most of the kids don't pay any attention to the lessons that need to be learned. When these kids grow up and start running the country, they have forgotten the history of their ancestors, so they start making the same mistakes again. As time passes, the same mistakes bring about the same results and the cycle is fulfilled again. - And so on forever. That is why the founders of our country said it is our duty _forever_ to be vigilant on the subject of liberty. It is the nature of things for it to be taken away until the final straw breaks the camel's back and we have to start over with a new camel, so to speak. All that being said though, if Montana and/or any other states ever hope to stand up for what's right, their leadership had better have a damn good defense plan, that's for sure. And they'd better have a finance plan, because as has been pointed out, part of the way the federal government keeps the states in check since the 1930's is by taking the tax money from the state and then refusing to give it back to them (in the form of "federal aid", etc) unless the state does what massuh tells them to do. All part of the unconstitutional socialist restructuring plan that's been going on for the last 80-odd years. Another problem involved is that many "leaders" in various states are part of the "true believers" in the socialist elite bunch that controls the top levels. In other words, the hold they have on the country permeates several levels down into many state governments. For a quick and fun way to understand how some of these folks are "controlled" by people higher up, watch the movie Braveheart and pay particular attention to the statements of the father of Robert the Bruce and the statements of the English King Edward I. They pretty clearly show the nature of "divide and conquer" politics, and they explain why so many of our leaders love "globalism" so much. It's all about money in the pockets of "the elite" keeping them from having an allegiance the the people they supposedly represent. In King Edwards day they had "feudalism" where various "Lords" were indebted to and controlled by higher levels of lords and kings. The way sucessful monarchs like Edward controlled the "vassal lords" under them was by giving  them lands, including the serfs that lived on the land, in areas other than their home region. This caused their loyalty to the people who depended on them (the serfs and lower level nobility) to be divided because of the money they were getting from their holdings in other areas (for instance Edward would give land in England to Scottish lords). All this resulted in the loyalty of the vassal lords going to wherever their money came from, and ultimately to Richard, since he assured that they continued to get the money from the land he had given them (minus the taxes he took from them). Now -   Today, if we were honest with ourselves, we might notice that not only are the states of the USA controlled by the federal government by similar financial "deals", but on an even higher level, "globalism" divides the loyalties of our prominent rich citizens and certain politicians because they hold interests in international companies or are financed by those who do (can you say China, boys and girls? I knew you could...). This is basically the same sort of system used by King Richard to control the loyalties of his underlings, so in a way you could call it "corporate feudalism" (since international corporate banks hold our debt,  effectively control our politicians and increasingly own our infrastructure). Just something to think about. People have to understand the nature of the problems they face before they can even think about how to fix them, and believe me, "the elite" are not gonna teach people about how things really work in government run schools. Can't have the serfs understanding how the system screws them. The only thing that will fix things is if some of our political leaders decide to put principles in front of money and just do the right thing. It's tough to find people who will do that when times are "fat and sassy", but it will get easier as the dollar continues to drop with the economy like a rock and there is less to go around. When people start getting hungry they tend to start paying more attention and start doing something about their situation. MAN... I just went back and read that again. It's amazing how screwed up our country has gotten. Really, really sad. I agree with your logic until you wrote what I have indicated in bold red letters. Lets have those that broke the system and who are controlling it fix it. I don't agree in the politicians fixing the political system. Kind of a conflict of interest.

yeah I agree on that too. Politicians these days just don't have the stout to do it. Nor is it in their interest. Their fat and happy, why would they take that away from themselves.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's a fun fantasy but we'll see how long a land locked nation lasts run by Arfcommers Can you call it "secession" if you secede and then are joined by 48 other states? (Shhhh...don't tell California) Well, technically I guess. California, Massachusets, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and D.C. would be awfully pissed at us though.

At that point... I say conquer them.  They'd be exactly what they are today... malignant cells waiting to grow into a full-blown cancer.

We know that it is impossible for leftists to coexist peacefully with rational people.  leftism demands that everyone else must march in lockstep... otherwise, the productive folks leave and the drones come in, and you have to take care of all of society's ills with no money.  Leftists would never leave everyone else alone.  Hence, they need to be stamped out.

Quoted: Obama and the U.N. Global Tax w/ small arms ban

Link?

Never mind......   I found it.....

Quoted: Well there is always the Allied States of America? (Jericho)

ASA ain't a good thing....I smell war a'brewing again.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Blue Helmets suck.  25 PMC's with small arms did what more than a few thousand Blue Helmets could not do in Sierra Leonie.  My money is on the armed citizens.  Not to mention if the U.S. and or U.N. took up arms against Montana, I think there would be more than a few of us trying to fight our way into Montana, past the hostile forces.  So we would have them surrounded.   We will out flank them!! If this all goes baddly in D.C. vs. Heller, I'm on my way!! Thats what the minutemen thought to, but nobody came to their rescue.  I dont have much faith in the will and ability for the common man to mobilize and meet a threat. The "minutemen" (or are you thinking of the Freemen?) weren't supported by the Montana state government or any allied state governments. Totally different situation. This would be like 1860/61 where people would be running back and forth choosing sides. Go read some history. There were loads of people who's families were torn apart by differences in opinion on allegiance to their state or to the imperial federal government. Lots of people from the north moved to the south specifically to join the confederate army, and vice versa. If state governments are involved, the thing could very easily get very ugly very quickly. Montana just needs to hope some states will jump in on their side. Edited to add: By the way... I wonder how many nukes Montana has? Just wondering.

Approx 500 devided between ND, MT, & WY Minuteman 3 ICBM

Ed

Quoted: It's a fun fantasy but we'll see how long a land locked nation lasts run by Arfcommers

Well it wouldn't be much of a problem to take part of Canada.

Quoted: I'm SURE that Sarah Brady, Diane Feinstein, and a fwe other anti-gunners would find this to be rather frighening. I believe Heller will go in our favor.  But if not...I'm moving to Montana!   CJ

+1.  Finally someone with balls to stand up and say, "FUCK NO"

Quoted: I make damn good chicken wings. I can open up a chicken wing joint We will have to concentrate on getting nukes, a professional football team, and a quality first rate beer. You have to have at least two of these to call yourself a country.

We already have several of the quality Beers covered, and you will find, with all of the recreation opportunities that TV becomes an annoying window on the socialization of a once great country.

IM me about the beers, they're good.

Ed

Quoted: I heading to Montana

I say .......

Melon Label

Quoted: Quoted: Obama and the U.N. Global Tax w/ small arms ban Link? Never mind......   I found it.....

I didn't know that bill had all of that commie BS in it.

Seriously, we've got some SERIOUSLY creepy parrallels to both the US in the 1850's and Europe in the 1930's.