Very impressive.  It is nice to know that I have a home.

 I would like to have seen...Montana.

                                - Captain 2nd Rank Vasily Borodin

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

Thank you, John C. Calhoun, for elaborating on the compact theory of the union by giving us nullification.

To elaborate for those who aren't into history:

Calhoun was a lawyer in South Carolina before entering Congress from 1810-1817, becoming Secretary of War from 1817-1825, Vice President from 1825-1832, Senator from 1832-1844, Secretary of State from 1844-1845, and Senator again from 1845 until his death in 1850.

The nullification theory is thus: "Was the Union intended to be a consolidated republic or confederation of sovereign and independent states bound by a formal compact, the Constitution of 1787?"

The states rights doctrines: " 1) States don't relinquish any sovereignty when entering the Union (most extreme states rights position), 2) when ratifying the Constitution of 1787, they accepted the limitations on federal government as limitations on the state government; sovereignty resides in the people, not the state government, and what they give they can take away. There is nothing preventing secession. 3) Divided sovereignty.

Hamilton, when writing the Federalist Papers (documents circulated to the American people explaining the content of the Constitution of 1787 and the reasoning behind it; also used to establish the Bill of Rights, which most of our founding fathers saw as being so obvious that putting it in writing was pointless, but some insisted they be documented so as to make it harder for future politicians to fuck us over. Wise move.) wrote: "The plan of the convention aims at partial union or consolidation", states retaining "all rights of sovereignty they had before and which weren't delegated exclusively to the United States government". Note that this could, if you take the extreme position, mean that only the original thirteen states, Texas, and (technically) California were sovereign since they were independent states before joining the Union, whereas the rest were territories governed by the feds prior to incorporation as states. Obviously that wasn't the intent here.

In Chisholm vs Georgia, 1793: "United States are sovereign as to all powers of government actually surrendered; each state is sovereign as to all powers reserved for the states." i.e., the federal government ONLY has sovereignty SPECIFICALLY in the powers given to it by the Constitution (whereas the fed gov today is waaaaaaaay beyond that) and the states were their own lords and masters in regards to everything else. Notice that since 1865, the federal government has basically made every state its bitch, which is part of what started the Civil War in the first place.

Calhoun's nullification theory, based on this, was thus: How to protect a minority from having its rights oppressed by the majority?

The minority had three options:

1) Nullification. A state that felt its rights were being violated by a law passed by the other states could choose to ignore that law and not enforce it. i.e., if every state but Hawaii and Arizona passed a law saying you HAD to wear a white shirt on Sunday, those 48 states would pass and enforce the law while Hawaii and Arizona would tell the feds to fuck off.

2) Secession: If a state decided that remaining in the Union any longer was bad for it and its people, it could simply leave. It had joined the Union willingly, and it could leave whenever it wanted to. Essentially, this is the political equivelent of taking your ball and going home because all the other kids are assholes.

3) Resistance by force: If nullification and secession don't work, just shoot the bastards. The states that formed the Confederacy tried all three of these, in order.

The majority could react in one of three ways:

1) Amend the Constitution: Change the rules to get around the problem. The north tried this to prevent the south from seceding, but they never got anything off the ground.

2) Enforcement: If Hawaii and Arizona don't want to enforce the white shirt law, then WE'LL MAKE THEM ENFORCE IT. The north eventually resorted to this and went a killin'.

3) Compromise: Find a way to make both sides happy, or at least less pissed at each other. The north tried this too, but they were too busy arguing amongst themselves to do anything productive and the south basically told them to piss off as a result.

I happen to subscribe to the state's rights doctrine, as our founding fathers intended (the compact theory of union), and the nullification theory. Today, the federal government is WAY out of line, and it's time to fix that. Nullification of unjust and unConstitutional laws by states is the first step. The feds need to know that we're not taking any more of their bullshit. Convince them of this and they will back down. Once that's happened, we can work on reversing all the gradual encroachments on our rights and liberties that have taken place over the last century and remove the powers and agencies the federal government has illegally and unConstitutionally claimed for itself.

We can do this without violence, without a civil war. Otherwise... *shrug*

I guess some of us will be whistling Dixie. Again.

Good post, swindle.

I'd also point out that the doctrine of nullification was born of the very FIRST blatantly unConstitutional laws this nation ever passed: The Alien and Sedition Acts.

Google the Kentucky and Virginia resolves for further info.

Quoted: Thank you, John C. Calhoun, for elaborating on the compact theory of the union by giving us nullification. To elaborate for those who aren't into history: Calhoun was a lawyer in South Carolina before entering Congress from 1810-1817, becoming Secretary of War from 1817-1825, Vice President from 1825-1832, Senator from 1832-1844, Secretary of State from 1844-1845, and Senator again from 1845 until his death in 1850. <snip>

Swindle, you have violated the rules of ARFCom! The laws of internetdynamics don't allow so much logic to be in a single post! You have caused a rip in the cyber-universe, and the Interwebs will collapse in on themselves now! It's all your fault!

Quoted: I still think North Idaho, Eastern Washington, and Montana need to form their own state.

I AGREE!!! The cascades are a natural boarder. I live in E. Washington and it is a totaly different mind set then the other side of the state. Where I live I almost know everyone and if I dont I can still wave at them and they smile and wave back.

I am just _loving_ this statement from the Montana "argument" page...

Some speak of a "living constitution," the meaning of which may evolve and change over time.  However, the concept of a "living contract," one to be disregarded or revised at the whim of one party thereto, is unknown.  A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation.

progunleaders.org/argument.html

Is this about Hannah Montana?

Quoted: This could be Civil War 2: The Vengeance. The first one was about slavery. Next one will be about gun rights.

The first one was NOT about slavery. It was about who had the final say, the states or the federal government. The decision about whether or not a state would have slavery was one of the major topics that started the argument, but when the south seceded it was because they thought the states had final say over what was legal and what wasn't within their own borders, not the feds. The north declared war on the south because the yankees saw the war as a crusade to save the union, not because they were interested in freeing slaves.

The Emancipation Proclamation only came years after the war started and ONLY freed slaves in the states that seceded; the slaves in the north (slavery was legal in Deleware, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland; Maryland would have seceded but the yankees moved in troops and captured it to prevent D.C. from ending up deep within enemy territory.) weren't freed until after the war.

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about who got to decide whether or not slavery (amongst a number of other issues, mostly economic) was legal and where.

Quoted: That would be awesome.   Don't they have unclear weapons too?  I believe there are still some silos in Montana, aren't there?  What would happen to them if they seceeded?  Would Montanistan be a nuclear power?

The feds would move in the tanks before they let that happen.

Naturally, the Montana National Guard, state police agencies, and a number of civilians (both in Montana and other states) may have something to say about that.

Quoted: Quoted: That would be awesome.   Don't they have unclear weapons too?  I believe there are still some silos in Montana, aren't there?  What would happen to them if they seceeded?  Would Montanistan be a nuclear power? The feds would move in the tanks before they let that happen. Naturally, the Montana National Guard, state police agencies, and a number of civilians (both in Montana and other states) may have something to say about that.

And that, my friends, is where it'd get interesting...

In Montana, the Feds would have those nukes on C-5s/C-17s and out of the state so fast you wouldn't beleive it... Anyone who tries to stop them would be mowed down by some of the best spec-ops and rapid-reponse infantry on the planet. Montana doesn't have anything that could compete, they'd lose the nukes, and if they're smart, they'd just let them go.

But if other states with nuclear arsenals were to secede... Larger states, with more powerful local militaries... States like Texas... States that could at least delay the recovery of said nukes...

Well then...

That's when the game can get very, very interesting...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That would be awesome.   Don't they have unclear weapons too?  I believe there are still some silos in Montana, aren't there?  What would happen to them if they seceeded?  Would Montanistan be a nuclear power? The feds would move in the tanks before they let that happen. Naturally, the Montana National Guard, state police agencies, and a number of civilians (both in Montana and other states) may have something to say about that. And that, my friends, is where it'd get interesting... In Montana, the Feds would have those nukes on C-5s/C-17s and out of the state so fast you wouldn't beleive it... Anyone who tries to stop them would be mowed down by some of the best spec-ops and rapid-reponse infantry on the planet. Montana doesn't have anything that could compete, they'd lose the nukes, and if they're smart, they'd just let them go. But if other states with nuclear arsenals were to secede... Larger states, with more powerful local militaries... States like Texas... States that could at least delay the recovery of said nukes... Well then... That's when the game can get very, very interesting...

If the federal government had that sort of superior attitude "we'll just take em out and mow 'em down", that would be the same sort of over confidence they showed at Bull Run.

Didn't work out like they thought it would.

[edited to add] - But like Swindle1984 pointed out, there _were_ cases in the last civil war where the feds were able to push troops in and capture certain places before they could secede or as they were doing so. If I'm thinking correctly, Missouri was one. If I remember correctly they actually had two governments for a while... the real one that seceeded and was forced to leave the capital because they couldn't get enough troops to defend it quickly enough... and the puppet one put in by the feds.

For all the hustle and bustle there's no discussion of this in the Hometown forum for Montana. I had to start one asking what the deal was from a specific Montana perspective, but it's been quiet over there.

I predict that in a worse case scenario such as this, the Montana Militia would be made up of at least 30% Texans.  I have been to many places, and met many different types of people, but never have I known people with the rebelious as well as patriotic temper as TEXANS.  Nor have I ever been to another state that exhibits it's pride in such a way.  We know what is right (without anylization) and we know what is wrong (without second guessing).  Montana will have to form a Texas Brigade for the foriegn patriots.  Hell, we're the only state that has beat the hell out of another country in a war.  It has been engrained in most of us from birth, and we're just looking for a cause.  When the shit goes down, just open your southern highways to us and we'll be there in a minute.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That would be awesome.   Don't they have unclear weapons too?  I believe there are still some silos in Montana, aren't there?  What would happen to them if they seceeded?  Would Montanistan be a nuclear power? The feds would move in the tanks before they let that happen. Naturally, the Montana National Guard, state police agencies, and a number of civilians (both in Montana and other states) may have something to say about that. And that, my friends, is where it'd get interesting... In Montana, the Feds would have those nukes on C-5s/C-17s and out of the state so fast you wouldn't beleive it... Anyone who tries to stop them would be mowed down by some of the best spec-ops and rapid-reponse infantry on the planet. Montana doesn't have anything that could compete, they'd lose the nukes, and if they're smart, they'd just let them go. But if other states with nuclear arsenals were to secede... Larger states, with more powerful local militaries... States like Texas... States that could at least delay the recovery of said nukes... Well then... That's when the game can get very, very interesting... If the federal government had that sort of superior attitude "we'll just take em out and mow 'em down", that would be the same sort of over confidence they showed at Bull Run. Didn't work out like they thought it would. [edited to add] - But like Swindle1984 pointed out, there _were_ cases in the last civil war where the feds were able to push troops in and capture certain places before they could secede or as they were doing so. If I'm thinking correctly, Missouri was one. If I remember correctly they actually had two governments for a while... the real one that seceeded and was forced to leave the capital because they couldn't get enough troops to defend it quickly enough... and the puppet one put in by the feds.

You're correct in regards to Missouri's dual governments in the Civil War. Missouri isn't counted as a Confederate state because the feds moved in and replaced everyone with puppets. The real state gov. went into exile. Missouri's primary involvement in the war was one half of the state shooting at the other half; a civil war in miniature.

Incidentally, Texas is the only state that has its own navy. The USS Texas, a dreadnaught that served in both World Wars (and one of two surviving dreadnaughts to have done so) is the flagship of the Texas navy. It's currently restored to its WWII configuration and sitting on display; it should be noted that by "restored", I mean "fully operational and maintained". Granted, it's sixty years out of date and was obsolete even then, but it's a fucking battleship.

And yes, we still have some shells for the main guns, though obviously they're not stored onboard.

We also have the USS Lexington. How many states have their own carrier?

Quoted: I predict that in a worse case scenario such as this, the Montana Militia would be made up of at least 30% Texans.  I have been to many places, and met many different types of people, but never have I known people with the rebelious as well as patriotic temper as TEXANS.  Nor have I ever been to another state that exhibits it's pride in such a way.  We know what is right (without anylization) and we know what is wrong (without second guessing).  Montana will have to form a Texas Brigade for the foriegn patriots.  Hell, we're the only state that has beat the hell out of another country in a war.  It has been engrained in most of us from birth, and we're just looking for a cause.  When the shit goes down, just open your southern highways to us and we'll be there in a minute.

Hey now... You Texans need to remember that the good folks from the Volunteer State helped you kick out the Mexican government.

Okay, so I'm a native of Tennessee. Forgive me for having a little pride in that.  

You got it brutha.  Credit where credit is due.  You did send Davy Crockett.

good for them

Quoted: Quoted: I predict that in a worse case scenario such as this, the Montana Militia would be made up of at least 30% Texans.  I have been to many places, and met many different types of people, but never have I known people with the rebelious as well as patriotic temper as TEXANS.  Nor have I ever been to another state that exhibits it's pride in such a way.  We know what is right (without anylization) and we know what is wrong (without second guessing).  Montana will have to form a Texas Brigade for the foriegn patriots.  Hell, we're the only state that has beat the hell out of another country in a war.  It has been engrained in most of us from birth, and we're just looking for a cause.  When the shit goes down, just open your southern highways to us and we'll be there in a minute.   Hey now... You Texans need to remember that the good folks from the Volunteer State helped you kick out the Mexican government. Okay, so I'm a native of Tennessee. Forgive me for having a little pride in that.

Ok, we'll give you credit for Crockett and his homies, but what have you done for us lately?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That would be awesome.   Don't they have unclear weapons too?  I believe there are still some silos in Montana, aren't there?  What would happen to them if they seceeded?  Would Montanistan be a nuclear power? The feds would move in the tanks before they let that happen. Naturally, the Montana National Guard, state police agencies, and a number of civilians (both in Montana and other states) may have something to say about that. And that, my friends, is where it'd get interesting... In Montana, the Feds would have those nukes on C-5s/C-17s and out of the state so fast you wouldn't beleive it... Anyone who tries to stop them would be mowed down by some of the best spec-ops and rapid-reponse infantry on the planet. Montana doesn't have anything that could compete, they'd lose the nukes, and if they're smart, they'd just let them go. But if other states with nuclear arsenals were to secede... Larger states, with more powerful local militaries... States like Texas... States that could at least delay the recovery of said nukes... Well then... That's when the game can get very, very interesting... If the federal government had that sort of superior attitude "we'll just take em out and mow 'em down", that would be the same sort of over confidence they showed at Bull Run. Didn't work out like they thought it would. [edited to add] - But like Swindle1984 pointed out, there _were_ cases in the last civil war where the feds were able to push troops in and capture certain places before they could secede or as they were doing so. If I'm thinking correctly, Missouri was one. If I remember correctly they actually had two governments for a while... the real one that seceeded and was forced to leave the capital because they couldn't get enough troops to defend it quickly enough... and the puppet one put in by the feds. You're correct in regards to Missouri's dual governments in the Civil War. Missouri isn't counted as a Confederate state because the feds moved in and replaced everyone with puppets. The real state gov. went into exile. Missouri's primary involvement in the war was one half of the state shooting at the other half; a civil war in miniature. Incidentally, Texas is the only state that has its own navy. The USS Texas, a dreadnaught that served in both World Wars (and one of two surviving dreadnaughts to have done so) is the flagship of the Texas navy. It's currently restored to its WWII configuration and sitting on display; it should be noted that by "restored", I mean "fully operational and maintained". Granted, it's sixty years out of date and was obsolete even then, but it's a fucking battleship. And yes, we still have some shells for the main guns, though obviously they're not stored onboard. We also have the USS Lexington. How many states have their own carrier?

Wow... I didn't know TX had that! If the 'bama politicians would show some gumption and side with TX and MT, we could always try to snag the USS Alabama (battleship) that sits in Mobile Bay along with the USS Drum (sub).     www.ussalabama.com/

But back on the Missouri thing... didn't the Confederacy add a star to the flag in honor of them even though they were only part of it "at heart"? Seems like I remember reading something along those lines about them and maybe KY?

My family back at that time owned a few thousand acres of farm land just south of Atlanta. You can guess which side great gramps was on.
There's no way I could dishonor his memory by not supporting Montana and states rights.

I think this is how America will eventually fall. We will simply splinter into a bunch of little nations. Anyone with the least amount of vision can see it happening.

This nation is so divided, perhaps more so than any time in our history. But those divisions are much more than the split between liberals and conservatives and libertarians. The split is largely geographic in nature. For example, people in Texas don't generally share the same beliefs of people from New York and vice versa. Neither group of people seem willing to accept government rule of the opposite group. The nation is becoming fractured like this all over.

I can eventually see a time when this country breaks down into little groups of states. I can easily see New England become a little liberal, socialist utopia. I can see the states in the South all joining together. I can see lots of states in the American Midwest joining together. California, controlled by Los Angeles and San Francisco liberals and hippies becoming it's own little country. It may even fractionalize farther, with individual cities controlling themselves independently of the surrounding terrain.

This is what things are coming to folks. A nation can only be a nation when it's people possess a shared bond, something that binds them all together. For example, take South Korea. Nearly all the people who live there are Korean. Even if South Korea and North Korea someday merge into a unified country again, they will still all be Koreans. They share something in common with each other. Meanwhile, the US no longer has any such common bonds among it's people. We have blacks and we have whites. We have hispanics (millions here illegally). We have Asians. We have Arabs. And we have such a wide and extreme range of political views that the nation is almost a powderkeg.

There was a time when most people here in the US shared the same visions and were united together. But it seems that time has come and gone. Today America much more closely resembles what you might see out on a prison yard somewhere, where little clusters of people gravitate together based upon shared characteristics (usually related to religion and race as well as other personal beliefs and shared interests). And just as these prison gangs fight among each other, I look for the same to eventually happen to America in general. Either we go to war with each other with the winner to take all....or we split up into little geographic areas separated largely based on politics, religious beliefs and ethnicity and the nation dissolves.

Sadly, this is where I think we are headed. America will never fall to an outside army. It will fall from within because we are no longer the same nation we were in the formative years when everyone was working toward similar goals and were largely united in shared values, beliefs and had a common bond. Now we are a nation of people who are the exact opposite. Something will eventually have to give.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I predict that in a worse case scenario such as this, the Montana Militia would be made up of at least 30% Texans.  I have been to many places, and met many different types of people, but never have I known people with the rebelious as well as patriotic temper as TEXANS.  Nor have I ever been to another state that exhibits it's pride in such a way.  We know what is right (without anylization) and we know what is wrong (without second guessing).  Montana will have to form a Texas Brigade for the foriegn patriots.  Hell, we're the only state that has beat the hell out of another country in a war.  It has been engrained in most of us from birth, and we're just looking for a cause.  When the shit goes down, just open your southern highways to us and we'll be there in a minute.   Hey now... You Texans need to remember that the good folks from the Volunteer State helped you kick out the Mexican government. Okay, so I'm a native of Tennessee. Forgive me for having a little pride in that.   Ok, we'll give you credit for Crockett and his homies, but what have you done for us lately?

Well, you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm with ya for now... but if it'll make ya feel better, I'm from good stock. Great Granddaddy was 13th Georgia Infantry (Co. I), and took lead for the Confederacy _twice_ (Second Manassas and Gettysburg). Lived through it too. Tough old bastard.  Proud of him.  

Quoted: I think this is how America will eventually fall. We will simply splinter into a bunch of little nations. Anyone with the least amount of vision can see it happening. This nation is so divided, perhaps more so than any time in our history. But those divisions are much more than the split between liberals and conservatives and libertarians. The split is largely geographic in nature. For example, people in Texas don't generally share the same beliefs of people from New York and vice versa. Neither group of people seem willing to accept government rule of the opposite group. The nation is becoming fractured like this all over. I can eventually see a time when this country breaks down into little groups of states. I can easily see New England become a little liberal, socialist utopia. I can see the states in the South all joining together. I can see lots of states in the American Midwest joining together. California, controlled by Los Angeles and San Francisco liberals and hippies becoming it's own little country. It may even fractionalize farther, with individual cities controlling themselves independently of the surrounding terrain. This is what things are coming to folks. A nation can only be a nation when it's people possess a shared bond, something that binds them all together. For example, take South Korea. Nearly all the people who live there are Korean. Even if South Korea and North Korea someday merge into a unified country again, they will still all be Koreans. They share something in common with each other. Meanwhile, the US no longer has any such common bonds among it's people. We have blacks and we have whites. We have hispanics (millions here illegally). We have Asians. We have Arabs. And we have such a wide and extreme range of political views that the nation is almost a powderkeg. There was a time when most people here in the US shared the same visions and were united together. But it seems that time has come and gone. Today America much more closely resembles what you might see out on a prison yard somewhere, where little clusters of people gravitate together based upon shared characteristics (usually related to religion and race as well as other personal beliefs and shared interests). And just as these prison gangs fight among each other, I look for the same to eventually happen to America in general. Either we go to war with each other with the winner to take all....or we split up into little geographic areas separated largely based on politics, religious beliefs and ethnicity and the nation dissolves. Sadly, this is where I think we are headed. America will never fall to an outside army. It will fall from within because we are no longer the same nation we were in the formative years when everyone was working toward similar goals and were largely united in shared values, beliefs and had a common bond. Now we are a nation of people who are the exact opposite. Something will eventually have to give.

You are one of the few people who sees things the way they are. Anyone who's a student of history knows that there has never ever been a nation that didn't eventually break apart. Anyone who thinks this one will be any different is fooling themselves.

Quoted: Quoted: I think this is how America will eventually fall. We will simply splinter into a bunch of little nations. Anyone with the least amount of vision can see it happening. This nation is so divided, perhaps more so than any time in our history. But those divisions are much more than the split between liberals and conservatives and libertarians. The split is largely geographic in nature. For example, people in Texas don't generally share the same beliefs of people from New York and vice versa. Neither group of people seem willing to accept government rule of the opposite group. The nation is becoming fractured like this all over. I can eventually see a time when this country breaks down into little groups of states. I can easily see New England become a little liberal, socialist utopia. I can see the states in the South all joining together. I can see lots of states in the American Midwest joining together. California, controlled by Los Angeles and San Francisco liberals and hippies becoming it's own little country. It may even fractionalize farther, with individual cities controlling themselves independently of the surrounding terrain. This is what things are coming to folks. A nation can only be a nation when it's people possess a shared bond, something that binds them all together. For example, take South Korea. Nearly all the people who live there are Korean. Even if South Korea and North Korea someday merge into a unified country again, they will still all be Koreans. They share something in common with each other. Meanwhile, the US no longer has any such common bonds among it's people. We have blacks and we have whites. We have hispanics (millions here illegally). We have Asians. We have Arabs. And we have such a wide and extreme range of political views that the nation is almost a powderkeg. There was a time when most people here in the US shared the same visions and were united together. But it seems that time has come and gone. Today America much more closely resembles what you might see out on a prison yard somewhere, where little clusters of people gravitate together based upon shared characteristics (usually related to religion and race as well as other personal beliefs and shared interests). And just as these prison gangs fight among each other, I look for the same to eventually happen to America in general. Either we go to war with each other with the winner to take all....or we split up into little geographic areas separated largely based on politics, religious beliefs and ethnicity and the nation dissolves. Sadly, this is where I think we are headed. America will never fall to an outside army. It will fall from within because we are no longer the same nation we were in the formative years when everyone was working toward similar goals and were largely united in shared values, beliefs and had a common bond. Now we are a nation of people who are the exact opposite. Something will eventually have to give. You are one of the few people who sees things the way they are. Anyone who's a student of history knows that there has never ever been a nation that didn't eventually break apart. Anyone who thinks this one will be any different is fooling themselves.

The difference being, some of us are willing to save what can be saved, and let the rest hang from its own rope.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think this is how America will eventually fall. We will simply splinter into a bunch of little nations. Anyone with the least amount of vision can see it happening. This nation is so divided, perhaps more so than any time in our history. But those divisions are much more than the split between liberals and conservatives and libertarians. The split is largely geographic in nature. For example, people in Texas don't generally share the same beliefs of people from New York and vice versa. Neither group of people seem willing to accept government rule of the opposite group. The nation is becoming fractured like this all over. I can eventually see a time when this country breaks down into little groups of states. I can easily see New England become a little liberal, socialist utopia. I can see the states in the South all joining together. I can see lots of states in the American Midwest joining together. California, controlled by Los Angeles and San Francisco liberals and hippies becoming it's own little country. It may even fractionalize farther, with individual cities controlling themselves independently of the surrounding terrain. This is what things are coming to folks. A nation can only be a nation when it's people possess a shared bond, something that binds them all together. For example, take South Korea. Nearly all the people who live there are Korean. Even if South Korea and North Korea someday merge into a unified country again, they will still all be Koreans. They share something in common with each other. Meanwhile, the US no longer has any such common bonds among it's people. We have blacks and we have whites. We have hispanics (millions here illegally). We have Asians. We have Arabs. And we have such a wide and extreme range of political views that the nation is almost a powderkeg. There was a time when most people here in the US shared the same visions and were united together. But it seems that time has come and gone. Today America much more closely resembles what you might see out on a prison yard somewhere, where little clusters of people gravitate together based upon shared characteristics (usually related to religion and race as well as other personal beliefs and shared interests). And just as these prison gangs fight among each other, I look for the same to eventually happen to America in general. Either we go to war with each other with the winner to take all....or we split up into little geographic areas separated largely based on politics, religious beliefs and ethnicity and the nation dissolves. Sadly, this is where I think we are headed. America will never fall to an outside army. It will fall from within because we are no longer the same nation we were in the formative years when everyone was working toward similar goals and were largely united in shared values, beliefs and had a common bond. Now we are a nation of people who are the exact opposite. Something will eventually have to give. You are one of the few people who sees things the way they are. Anyone who's a student of history knows that there has never ever been a nation that didn't eventually break apart. Anyone who thinks this one will be any different is fooling themselves. The difference being, some of us are willing to save what can be saved, and let the rest hang from its own rope.

Absolutely right. That's all that can be done.

Since it seems we have started to organize for a movement, is this a hypothetical exercise or could this be a "real world" event about to take place?  Everything has a starting point.....

-X  

Quoted: Since it seems we have started to organize for a movement, is this a hypothetical exercise or could this be a "real world" event about to take place?  Everything has a starting point..... -X

Everything is hypothetical until it isn't.

Quoted: Looks like their may be a lot of dental floss tycoons real soon.

My thoughts exactly, but where are we gonna get the pygmy ponies?

Quoted: Quoted: Looks like their may be a lot of dental floss tycoons real soon. Right over my head.

Frank Zappa

"Going to Montana soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon"

Lyrics

Quoted: Since it seems we have started to organize for a movement, is this a hypothetical exercise or could this be a "real world" event about to take place?  Everything has a starting point..... -X

This is all hypothetical until Montana and maybe other state governments decide that the federal government has broken it's contract by changing the meaning of what "is" is in the bill of rights.

But it was all hypothetical in the 1860's until the federal government refused to vacate South Carolina's land after they seceeded from the Union. SC was forced to kick them out, and "the rest is history".

All we can _really_ hope for is that the Supreme Court finds that "is" means "is", so to speak, and not something else. That will diffuse the situation. At least until the next thing comes up. - It's like Swindle was saying... the Civil War was not really about slavery. Slavery was simply the issue that provided the spark. The real problem was that the federal government was overstepping it's constitutional boundaries and the southern states were getting the shaft because of it, so sooner or later _something_ was gonna push things to the point of no return.

Anyway, hopefully, things can be worked out, because another civil war would be terrible. Think about it. The last one was terrible and they didn't have half the technology we do.

That being said though, it's obvious that if it comes to that, there will be people moving to different states based on what they believe is right.

But the bottom line is what Swindle said: It's all hypothetical until it isn't.

Quoted: I believe Arizona has something similar in it's state constitution. But if it were to happen.....MONTANA HERE I COME !!!!

+1

Quoted: Quoted: I believe Arizona has something similar in it's state constitution. But if it were to happen.....MONTANA HERE I COME !!!! +1

Got my bags packed!  FREEDOM!  Can't get away from the yuppie socialist cesspool of south Florida fast enough.

Anyone aware of other states with similar agreements with the US?

Big Sky Country It Is!!!

Holy crap! Just when I thought Montana couldn't get any better.... I wanted to move there anyway. With state policy like that, I'll live in a canvas outfitter's tent if I have to.

ETA: I think Montana is about to have the largest concentration of ARFCOMers anywhere in the world.

Quoted: Now that's a kick ass state.

Yes it is.

I am proud to be from Montana!

12 pages and nothing from Dave_A yet?

Anyways, if it would be a constitutional government, a real-world Galt's Gulch, I'd go.

If we all moved there and it didn't work out, think of all the electoral votes Montana would have though!

Quoted: Quoted: Kalispell is a nice town near Glacier National Park. Kalispell, MT Gettin' too damn expensive there.

Who cares about the expense...  That link says it is 14 degrees there right now.  14 fucking degrees.  The thought of that sent a shiver through me so violent that I just chipped a tooth!!  

Montana, secede from the US?  Excuse me while I guffaw at the thought.



This is a state that just elected a big-government Democrat like Jon Tester to the US Senate (from what I understand he's a big fan of federal farm subsidies, being an "organic wheat farmer" himself).

This is a state that is gradually filling up with insufferable leftist Californian refugees who are slowly imposing their granola views on the rest of the state.

This is a state whose Democrat governor appears in alarmist TV commercials with RINO governors Arnold Schwartznegger and Jon "Silver Spoon" Huntsman, encouraging us to join the Church of Global Warming.

This is a state where over half the land is owned by the Federal Government.

Montana, secede from the US, and give up all those Federal bennies?



I don't mean to be insulting, but you guys are really gullible.

Quoted: This is a state that is gradually filling up with insufferable leftist Californian refugees who are slowly imposing their granola views on the rest of the state.

Sounds like the rest of us have to move in and out-vote them.  I'll join the convoy from the mid-Atlantic region.

Quoted: I believe Heller will go in our favor.  But if not...I'm moving to Montana!

BIG ditto to that !

.

at least there is hope.

Quoted: I think Montana would have a hard time as a soveriegn nation.  It would be landlocked, much like the West Bank in Israel.  They would have to truck all their exports/imports in through Canada, so Canada would definately have to be onboard, which would strain it's relations with the U.S..  I really don't think Canada would be willing to take that risk.  The U.S. could place a trade embargo on Montana and shut down any and all border crossings with it (much like the West Bank), effectively cutting it off from the outside world.  I don't think Montana is geographically located to be a completely independant and self sufficient nation.  But, what the hell do I know, I live in Texas.

a government that has gone on record countless times saying it is impossible to close the southern border with mexico suddenly finds the will and a way to seal off the state of montana?

Quoted: “I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me.”

LOL. I see what you did there.

Quoted: Quoted: This is a state that is gradually filling up with insufferable leftist Californian refugees who are slowly imposing their granola views on the rest of the state. Sounds like the rest of us have to move in and out-vote them have a good ole ethnic "liberal cleansing".

Fixed....

Quoted: Arizona's State Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms as well.

So does CT's, but that hasn't stopped them from regulating the shit out of it.