Joined
·
50 Posts
Be gentle on Californians as we are becoming economic and political refugees from the leftist oppressors who have taken over our state.
Anyone kow of a nice refugee camp?
Montana willing to secede: DC vs. Heller
41 - 51 of 51 Posts
Anyone kow of a nice refugee camp?
Joined
·
8,010 Posts
actually i think it is the other way around, CA use to be a very nice place. everyone moves to CA so they can change it. i see why not stay in your own hometown and try to change that 
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
We get a lot of refugees from CA here in UT. Though...for some reason they hate where they came from but want that which they hated here. Funny how that works...actually i think it is the other way around, CA use to be a very nice place. everyone moves to CA so they can change it. i see why not stay in your own hometown and try to change that
Joined
·
512 Posts
I always knew Montana was the one who would start anything having to do with succession .
In the book (the second American civil war ) it was Montana and Ohio , and the first Federal troops in there were totally Destroyed.
In seeing that 11 more states followed ,Texas being one of them and one of the most important for having defendable deep water ports.
Alaska also ,and with the Governor they have up there now she is already at the point of saying ( screw you ) and she said that Alaska will not recognize any Federal Gun Control as far as bans ,confiscation ,or registration.
Two weeks ago she kicked elements of the ATF and the EPA out of her state and told the State Police to make sure they comply.
The Military think tank of Jane's .com says the next American Civil war will not be so much between states ,It will be a war of Ideas ,and the way some states feel about America in the way they feel it should be.
The same thing happened to the Romans over the Pax Romana ,their version of our Constitution ,it was called the Punic Wars.
Romans who felt the Republic was being replaced by the Socialist Empire who was dissolving the Pax Romana as the Liberals now are doing the Constitution.
One other American saw the same thing happening to America that we see today.
We have three branches of Government , two of these branches have violated their oath of office and as we speak should be removed .
#1 Executive ,The sitting President and the three running in November are in violation of their oath of office to obey and protect the Constitution. #2 Legislative ,Congress should be rendered ineffective ,and put on suspension for the laws they have passed ,and even talking about anything in the effect of your right to bear arms is a treasonous act .#3 the Judicial ,The Supreme court at this moment is the only branch of Government still functioning in accordance. The entire existence of the Supreme Court is the Constitution ,its application to laws ,and to be sure it is enforced.
The other American that had to use the act of enforcement that in the event the American people feel their rights under the Constitution have been violated have the right to replace that Government and install one in accordance to law.
Washington did just this with the aid of the Supreme court. All three have the power to do this ,but then as now it is the SCOTUS who has to ring the bell,and they know it ,why do you think both party's try to stack this Court in their favor ?
What should SCOTUS do that Washington did ?#1, Immediately suspend the other two branches of Government for violation of Oath and dereliction of Office.
#2 ,order General Patreas back from IRAQ ,Order him to take command as Commander and Chief pending the reconstruction of the Government.
3# Hold immediate elections in order to re-establish order.
Believe it or not ,Washington actually did this because sympathizers of the British had been put in Congress ,and him being the President he asked SCOTUS to do it.
Grant almost did it ,Roosevelt ,Truman, and Kennedy.
It is time for the Constitution to show its teeth , visa vie ,the 2nd Amendment.
If SCOTUS did this i would follow them to the end , and in the DC gun case they have no choice but to follow the Constitution.
In the book (the second American civil war ) it was Montana and Ohio , and the first Federal troops in there were totally Destroyed.
In seeing that 11 more states followed ,Texas being one of them and one of the most important for having defendable deep water ports.
Alaska also ,and with the Governor they have up there now she is already at the point of saying ( screw you ) and she said that Alaska will not recognize any Federal Gun Control as far as bans ,confiscation ,or registration.
Two weeks ago she kicked elements of the ATF and the EPA out of her state and told the State Police to make sure they comply.
The Military think tank of Jane's .com says the next American Civil war will not be so much between states ,It will be a war of Ideas ,and the way some states feel about America in the way they feel it should be.
The same thing happened to the Romans over the Pax Romana ,their version of our Constitution ,it was called the Punic Wars.
Romans who felt the Republic was being replaced by the Socialist Empire who was dissolving the Pax Romana as the Liberals now are doing the Constitution.
One other American saw the same thing happening to America that we see today.
We have three branches of Government , two of these branches have violated their oath of office and as we speak should be removed .
#1 Executive ,The sitting President and the three running in November are in violation of their oath of office to obey and protect the Constitution. #2 Legislative ,Congress should be rendered ineffective ,and put on suspension for the laws they have passed ,and even talking about anything in the effect of your right to bear arms is a treasonous act .#3 the Judicial ,The Supreme court at this moment is the only branch of Government still functioning in accordance. The entire existence of the Supreme Court is the Constitution ,its application to laws ,and to be sure it is enforced.
The other American that had to use the act of enforcement that in the event the American people feel their rights under the Constitution have been violated have the right to replace that Government and install one in accordance to law.
Washington did just this with the aid of the Supreme court. All three have the power to do this ,but then as now it is the SCOTUS who has to ring the bell,and they know it ,why do you think both party's try to stack this Court in their favor ?
What should SCOTUS do that Washington did ?#1, Immediately suspend the other two branches of Government for violation of Oath and dereliction of Office.
#2 ,order General Patreas back from IRAQ ,Order him to take command as Commander and Chief pending the reconstruction of the Government.
3# Hold immediate elections in order to re-establish order.
Believe it or not ,Washington actually did this because sympathizers of the British had been put in Congress ,and him being the President he asked SCOTUS to do it.
Grant almost did it ,Roosevelt ,Truman, and Kennedy.
It is time for the Constitution to show its teeth , visa vie ,the 2nd Amendment.
If SCOTUS did this i would follow them to the end , and in the DC gun case they have no choice but to follow the Constitution.
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
I am a resident of Alaska...I think we are too far gone for SCOTUS to do what they should. The nation as a whole is still fairly conservative. It is unfortunate that the conservitive majority is however the silent majority and we seem to let the minority run things. Heaven forbid If I go on TV tonight and say that marriage is between a man and a woman only...now I am racist or sexist, or insensitive. The minorty would fry my.
Not sure where I was going with that...I do love Alaska though.
Not sure where I was going with that...I do love Alaska though.
Joined
·
919 Posts
Well I started reading this thread because it was on an interesting subject, and seemed to be forming into a good discussion. Then I got to page two, skipped a bunch of bitching, ranting, and stubbornness. So I choose to respond to a comment made months ago that I feel is more in tune with the original intent of the thread. Because hell, with the question posed you can't help but think about it....
(oh yeah, what fallows is only my opinion, I am neither a politician nor a historian so... yeah.)
So I think there was truly a movement for a state to split it would be bad, but no so bad as Bravo believes. First I find it difficult to believe that any state could actually get to the point where the majority of its citizens had a huge enough beef with the federal government and where either unable or unwilling to resolve it through the government as to cause full blown revolution. That being said if it was even mildly apparent that was going to happen I believe federal troops would be deployed to "keep the peace" until the situation could be resolved. Anyone participating in violence wouldn't come out of it to well. I do not think there would be the widespread fratricide in the Army that Bravo believes would come about. After all, I swore to defend the constitution from all threats both foreign and domestic. I consider succession a direct threat.
Long and Short of it, I think inevitably any movement for succession would be put down and martial law would be in place until both federal and state branches of government where to be restored and the state was stabilized.
Oh and on a lighter note, Who calls it the War of Northern Aggression anyway?? As I recall from my limited education, didn't SC fire first? I was always under the impression that Lincoln pursued war only when he deemed it inevitable. Anyway, whats wrong with just referring to it as the "Civil War". Is that not accurate. Why the spin to make the North look so evil. I mean, playing the morality game between north and south during the civil war isn't going to look pretty for anyone. We could call it the "War Against African Genocide." Or the "War of Nainital Preservation" Or the "War for HUMAN Rights". People do like to quote the presidency set by Lincoln of the executive branch to suspend constitutional rights, but no one ever mentions that 4 million people in the south during the civil war had NO rights, not even those human ones we are all about these days.
Anyhoot, that mighta been to much rant, I have a strong feeling this post will be widely glanced over. And I hope I haven't made any enemies as I am pretty new here, some day wish to own an XCR (or 2... or 3... or... how many till its considered stockpiling? ), and would like to be able to come here for feedback on it when I do!
(oh yeah, what fallows is only my opinion, I am neither a politician nor a historian so... yeah.)
Secession is not an option. Join the Union you join for life. If ever one state is allowed to leave the entire Nation will collapse. Lincoln understood this, and it is with this in mind he so persistently pursued absolute victory in the Civil War. peace with division was not an option, and quite frankly I am of the mind that Neither the "Yankee" US or the Confederation would have survived. Only united did the States have a chance, and that is why we where, had to stay, and must remain ONE nation.
So I think there was truly a movement for a state to split it would be bad, but no so bad as Bravo believes. First I find it difficult to believe that any state could actually get to the point where the majority of its citizens had a huge enough beef with the federal government and where either unable or unwilling to resolve it through the government as to cause full blown revolution. That being said if it was even mildly apparent that was going to happen I believe federal troops would be deployed to "keep the peace" until the situation could be resolved. Anyone participating in violence wouldn't come out of it to well. I do not think there would be the widespread fratricide in the Army that Bravo believes would come about. After all, I swore to defend the constitution from all threats both foreign and domestic. I consider succession a direct threat.
Long and Short of it, I think inevitably any movement for succession would be put down and martial law would be in place until both federal and state branches of government where to be restored and the state was stabilized.
Oh and on a lighter note, Who calls it the War of Northern Aggression anyway?? As I recall from my limited education, didn't SC fire first? I was always under the impression that Lincoln pursued war only when he deemed it inevitable. Anyway, whats wrong with just referring to it as the "Civil War". Is that not accurate. Why the spin to make the North look so evil. I mean, playing the morality game between north and south during the civil war isn't going to look pretty for anyone. We could call it the "War Against African Genocide." Or the "War of Nainital Preservation" Or the "War for HUMAN Rights". People do like to quote the presidency set by Lincoln of the executive branch to suspend constitutional rights, but no one ever mentions that 4 million people in the south during the civil war had NO rights, not even those human ones we are all about these days.
Anyhoot, that mighta been to much rant, I have a strong feeling this post will be widely glanced over. And I hope I haven't made any enemies as I am pretty new here, some day wish to own an XCR (or 2... or 3... or... how many till its considered stockpiling?
), and would like to be able to come here for feedback on it when I do!
Joined
·
8,010 Posts
Pius, your last post sucks. It just makes too much sense. I think I scared Bravo off because of this thread.
Joined
·
919 Posts
Ya, thats really why I got out of the army, kept getting in trouble for making sense....
Another good reason that the war between the states was fought, was
for the commodity exchange. We were a fully independent nation,
producing everything any nation would ever need to be great.
That argument no longer exist. The only reason any of us are kept
around is to enable the government to grow. We are just tax paying
units.
I'm sure all of you had a big fat party when the USSR collapsed. I'm
not saying the the collaps of the USA would be a good thing. But it is
inevitable. I love my country, my home, my people. The best people
on the planet.
For hundreds of years brave and desperate people left their homes in search
of something better, we are the product of that gene pool. Thats why
all American's still want something better, for us, our children and our children's'
children.
What is the next stage in the evolution of our country? I don't know.
But it will be very interesting to see.
for the commodity exchange. We were a fully independent nation,
producing everything any nation would ever need to be great.
That argument no longer exist. The only reason any of us are kept
around is to enable the government to grow. We are just tax paying
units.
I'm sure all of you had a big fat party when the USSR collapsed. I'm
not saying the the collaps of the USA would be a good thing. But it is
inevitable. I love my country, my home, my people. The best people
on the planet.
For hundreds of years brave and desperate people left their homes in search
of something better, we are the product of that gene pool. Thats why
all American's still want something better, for us, our children and our children's'
children.
What is the next stage in the evolution of our country? I don't know.
But it will be very interesting to see.
41 - 51 of 51 Posts
