Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Nevada Petition to Secede

  1. #1
    Regular Member JohnMoses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    America
    Posts
    112

    Nevada Petition to Secede


  2. #2
    Regular Member john-in-reno's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    238
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...nment/3ff8v0HR

    There is already one started and it has 7k of the 17k names needed
    http://washoecountygunrights.blogspot.com/

    *** I am NOT a Lawyer, and I DO NOT have any LEGAL EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS ***

    MOLON LABE

  3. #3
    Regular Member JohnMoses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    America
    Posts
    112
    Didn't see that one, thanks.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Las vegas
    Posts
    25
    Pass -- I may not agree with everything that the federal government is doing, but I'm not ready to jump ship yet. I still believe in our republic and constuition.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas,NV
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinoons View Post
    Pass -- I may not agree with everything that the federal government is doing, but I'm not ready to jump ship yet. I still believe in our republic and constuition.
    Do you still believe in Santa Claus too?

  6. #6
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241
    People who sign the petition of secession should be charged with treason.

    I signed this petition instead:
    Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.
    http://wh.gov/9FAY
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by david.ross View Post
    People who sign the petition of secession should be charged with treason.

    I signed this petition instead:
    Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.
    http://wh.gov/9FAY
    "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements."

    From a speech to the House of Representatives, Jan. 12, 1848.

  8. #8
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Official OCDO Statement on The Secession Petitions

    I know that a lot of people see these petitions as a vehicle for sending a message of dissatisfaction after the election.

    However, I think it is important to publicly state that OCDO is NOT in support of seeing the nation torn apart.

    Our vision is of an America where our Constitutional protections are fully realized for all people in all states. The ONLY way to do that is to keep America strong.

    The best way to fight to system is to BECOME the system.

    We do this by electing pro-liberty candidates at the local, state, and federal level.

    We do this by making sure the next generation is educated about gun rights and other pro-liberty issues.

    We do this by challenging violations of rights in the courts.

    We do this by inviting people to go shooting.

    We don't do this by taking our ball and going home.


    John

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Las vegas
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by ed2276 View Post
    Do you still believe in Santa Claus too?
    Mr. Pierce, far more succinctly than myself, stated what I believe in the post above.

  10. #10
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    Quote Originally Posted by John Pierce View Post
    I know that a lot of people see these petitions as a vehicle for sending a message of dissatisfaction after the election.

    However, I think it is important to publicly state that OCDO is NOT in support of seeing the nation torn apart.

    Our vision is of an America where our Constitutional protections are fully realized for all people in all states. The ONLY way to do that is to keep America strong.

    The best way to fight to system is to BECOME the system.

    We do this by electing pro-liberty candidates at the local, state, and federal level.

    We do this by making sure the next generation is educated about gun rights and other pro-liberty issues.

    We do this by challenging violations of rights in the courts.

    We do this by inviting people to go shooting.

    We don't do this by taking our ball and going home.


    John
    John

    I was not aware that OC.ORG had an "Official" position on anything but the open carry of firearms. To say otherwise says that OC.org represents me as a user of the site and I strongly and strenuously object to it. One should join organizations like NRA, Brady Campaign, ACLU or AARP or many others if they want a group to speak for them.

    I am not saying what my position is on Secession as it has nothing to do with the open carry of firearms and in my opinion should not be on here.

    While what you stated may be your personal opinion, don't presume to speak for all other users of this site with your "official" position. If indeed it is so, I will asked to be removed from the roll of users of this site.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  11. #11
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    Big Guy,

    We DO have official positions on a variety of liberty-related topics almost all of which tie back to the rules of the forum and the mission of the site.

    However, those positions are mine and Mike's positions as the owners of the site. The only time we claim to speak on behalf of the forum members is regarding open carry.

    Make sense?

    Thanks!


    John

  12. #12
    Regular Member turborich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    175
    I wouldn't want my name on that list as you may been identified as a domestic terrorist or be given some other title. Your home may even get raided. I'm not in any hurry to end up in one of those "Fema camps"

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas,NV
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by david.ross View Post
    People who sign the petition of secession should be charged with treason.

    I signed this petition instead:
    Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.
    http://wh.gov/9FAY
    The problem with your sentiment is that both speech and petition are constitutionally protected rights under 1st Amendment. Treason, as defined in the Constitution consists only of levying war against the United States. Speaking about secession and petitioning your government for a redress of wrongs is not treason.

    As for the petition you signed, U.S. citizens cannot be deported for petitioning their government. Bills of attainder are illegal under the U.S. Constitution, so you cannot strip a U.S. citizen of his civil rights...speech and petition...and punish him for exercising those rights.

    You might want to cool your jets and allow that your fellow citizens have rights to express themselves and petition their government, just as you have a right to express your support for a tyrannical empire.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by david.ross View Post
    People who sign the petition of secession should be charged with treason.
    Yah, because people who express an opinion that isn't popular should be shot, right? (Calling to have someone charged with treason is no better than calling for their execution)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas,NV
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by John Pierce View Post
    [INDENT] I know that a lot of people see these petitions as a vehicle for sending a message of dissatisfaction after the election.

    However, I think it is important to publicly state that OCDO is NOT in support of seeing the nation torn apart.

    Our vision is of an America where our Constitutional protections are fully realized for all people in all states. The ONLY way to do that is to keep America strong.
    The only thing "strong" in America at present is a government willing to use force and coercion against its own citizens.

    The best way to fight to system is to BECOME the system.
    This flies in the face of logic and experience. This is saying, the only way to fight corruption is to become corrupt. The only way to fight tyranny is to become a tyrant. They system...government...is one of force, imprisonment, crushing dissent, violence, and coercion. When people have the desire to lord over others, as in elective office, they naturally exercise power and claim authority to do so. If they are inclined to rule over others, to tell them what to do, then they must necessarily use the tools of the state..force, fear, coercion...to accomplish those ends.

    We do this by electing pro-liberty candidates at the local, state, and federal level.
    Pro-liberty candidates don't get elected in numbers sufficient to make a difference. Pro-liberty candidates by seeking office are expressing a desire to rule over others. Thus, they are willing to make laws and use force to carry them out.

    We do this by making sure the next generation is educated about gun rights and other pro-liberty issues.
    Education is nice. You can get all the education you like about those subjects, but it will do you no good if the majority of the people are for tyranny. When the majority is dependent of government for their subsistence, and the next generation is beleaguered with debt, unemployment, etc. education about gun rights and pro-liberty issues will be far off their radar screens. They will be pre-occupied by more immediate needs.

    We do this by challenging violations of rights in the courts.
    You meant the government courts, with government appointed, government paid judges? Yeah, how is that going?

    We do this by inviting people to go shooting.
    Very simplistic! "Here, Tom, take this gun and aim at that target. Ok, now pull the trigger. Bullseye!!!! Now don't you feel free? Look at all those taxes and regulations and thousands of laws that have fallen by the wayside because you hit the bullseye!!"

    We don't do this by taking our ball and going home.
    Secessionists aren't going anywhere. They stay right where they are within their resident states. They merely are separating themselves from a tyrannical central government, which claims the right to oppress them and invade their rights; which will not leave them in peace to enjoy freedom among their families, friends, and neighbors.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by ed2276 View Post
    The problem with your sentiment is that both speech and petition are constitutionally protected rights under 1st Amendment. Treason, as defined in the Constitution consists only of levying war against the United States. Speaking about secession and petitioning your government for a redress of wrongs is not treason.

    As for the petition you signed, U.S. citizens cannot be deported for petitioning their government. Bills of attainder are illegal under the U.S. Constitution, so you cannot strip a U.S. citizen of his civil rights...speech and petition...and punish him for exercising those rights.

    You might want to cool your jets and allow that your fellow citizens have rights to express themselves and petition their government, just as you have a right to express your support for a tyrannical empire.
    +1

    You just want to review your argument regarding Bills of Attainder. A Bill of Attainder is a legislative license to kill the subject(s) of the bill. The lesser form that stops short of homicide is a Bill of Pains and Penalties--exile, stripped of property, etc. Possibly even ears cut off or nose notched, but I'd have to look those up.

    For any readers interested, the problem with a Bill of Attainder is that it is a legislative decree; you can be killed by anyone--without trial or due process. No grand jury indictment. No trial. No confronting witnesses against you. No compulsory service for witnesses in your favor. Just a decree that you are an outlaw, meaning removed from the protection of the laws, and anybody can kill you without penalty. With the added expectation that some would try to kill you. There may have been rewards offered, but I'd have to look that part up.

    Of historical note is that Thomas Jefferson himself advocated a Bill of Attainder from the VA legislature against the depredations of a gang (or troop, depending on your view of the facts) of royalists operating in the VA countryside during the revolution. The men targeted claimed a commission from the king or colonial governor, and as such would not have been criminals. Theft and pillage seemed to be a big part of their game, and they were causing some real ruckus, thus the doubt about their credentials. I forget how it turned out. But, I do recall that later, Patrick Henry had occasion to criticize Jefferson for his advocacy of the Bill of Attainder. And, not a gentle criticism, neither.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas,NV
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    +1

    You just want to review your argument regarding Bills of Attainder. A Bill of Attainder is a legislative license to kill the subject(s) of the bill. The lesser form that stops short of homicide is a Bill of Pains and Penalties--exile, stripped of property, etc. Possibly even ears cut off or nose notched, but I'd have to look those up.

    For any readers interested, the problem with a Bill of Attainder is that it is a legislative decree; you can be killed by anyone--without trial or due process. No grand jury indictment. No trial. No confronting witnesses against you. No compulsory service for witnesses in your favor. Just a decree that you are an outlaw, meaning removed from the protection of the laws, and anybody can kill you without penalty. With the added expectation that some would try to kill you. There may have been rewards offered, but I'd have to look that part up.

    Of historical note is that Thomas Jefferson himself advocated a Bill of Attainder from the VA legislature against the depredations of a gang (or troop, depending on your view of the facts) of royalists operating in the VA countryside during the revolution. The men targeted claimed a commission from the king or colonial governor, and as such would not have been criminals. Theft and pillage seemed to be a big part of their game, and they were causing some real ruckus, thus the doubt about their credentials. I forget how it turned out. But, I do recall that later, Patrick Henry had occasion to criticize Jefferson for his advocacy of the Bill of Attainder. And, not a gentle criticism, neither.
    Thanks for the education, Citizen. I revise my post and replace Bill of Attainder with Bill of Pains and Penalties.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinoons View Post
    I still believe in our republic and constuition.
    Same here.

    I just wish our Federal Government did.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pointy end and slightly to the left
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    Same here.

    I just wish our Federal Government did.
    DVC Havenít seen you post for a while. I guess this subject rattled your computer keyboard.

    I believe the right to protest within legal boundaries is a very valuable right however, It would appear to me this is a knee jerk reaction due to the result of the election.
    Just my own thought however I believe the initiators realize there is no or little chance of it being successful. I am all for trying to wake up Washington DC. Not sure a petition to Secede will have much of an influence. I am going to make a prediction and that is, it will never happen. To argue for or against the issue might make for some good conversation. However, I believe a mute point.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinoons View Post
    Mr. Pierce, far more succinctly than myself, stated what I believe in the post above.
    Lets be a little more precise. Those are not beliefs, they are conclusions. And, as such, are relative to the information and consideration available to the person drawing the conclusion.

    The underlying premise of John's statement is that the union is salvageable and can be returned to liberty. Or, possibly, he is uncertain but is unwilling to give up trying because the alternatives to restored liberty under the existing union is too scary or too risky. I happen to agree that the alternatives are scary and risky.

    But, I happen to disagree that liberty will be restored under the existing union. Two reasons. The first here. The second in a succeeding post.

    I am going to claim some extra knowledge. I am into my third biography on men who had a lot to do with the fall of the Roman Republic and its transformation into imperial Rome under the emperors. After reading a few of these, it becomes clear that the politicians and upper classes, rather than try to avert disaster, merely tried to either hold onto what advantages they already had or worked to get as much out of the situation for themselves as they could. Almost nobody but Cicero and a few others worked to actually preserve the Republic. The only folks who took a decisive act were Julius Caesar's assassins. But, all they did was start ten years of jockeying for power and civil wars. (They left Cicero out of the planning and the deed, so he's not a part of the assassination picture.)

    The republic was totally dysfunctional. The lower classes, especially in the city of Rome, mainly taken advantage of by the senate and upper classes, wanted fairness for themselves (and some freebies). But, the senate and upper classes were unwilling to play fair, wanting to keep their property and advantage. Everybody was so busy trying to make the most of the situation for himself, that almost nobody was working to make the tough sacrifices needed to preserve the Republic.

    And, as it happened, way back in his early adulthood, Caesar aligned himself with the masses by way of marriage. And, remained a populist throughout his political career. So, the masses aligned themselves on the guy who was aiming for dictatorship. And, of course, as things got worse in the final run up to dissolution, the masses seemed to rely on Julius Caesar to look out for their welfare. Make no mistake, besides being a master general and conquerer of Gaul, he was a master politician. The boy was very good at politics. So, the masses were not particularly working on preserving the republic, either. Its not like there were crowds yelling at Caesar to knock off his obvious rise to power and restore the republic.

    Now, here's the really dangerous part. For all apparent purposes, only a very few people seemed to recognize that the Republic was so dysfunctional that it was effectively dead. Julius Caesar recognized it. I have little doubt that was the reason he went for it--aimed for dictatorship.

    Even after Caesar's death, while some hoped the republic would be restored, people divided themselves into the Caesarian faction and the republican faction (the senate and upper classes who were earlier trying to hold onto their power and advantage.) Nobody seemed to be saying "lets restore the republic to the way it should be." There were sighs of relief when the armies of Octavian and Marc Antony (both Caesarians) seemed to gain the upper hand over things for the stability it seemed to offer; but nobody was coming forward and saying, "OK, you two. Assume the duties of co-consuls and put the republic back on sound footing."

    As a chilling sign for today, the people in the government during the last years of the Republic didn't seem too concerned with following the Roman constitution, except maybe avoiding shocking supporters too much, or opening the door to being prosecuted by a political opponent.

    The people in our government have shown no sudden turn to selfless service aimed at restoring our Republic, there is no reason to think they will suddenly have a collective epiphany and start. They're there for themselves--power and money. There is no reason to think they will suddenly give that up collectively and start working to restore the Republic. There is every reason to think they will try to hang on as long as possible out of self-interest, or try to engineer the most for themselves as each crisis develops. Ron Paul is our Cicero in a loose manner of speaking.

    So, while liberty and a republic functioning under its constitution is possible--all it would take is a lot of agreement to go back to playing by the rules--I conclude that its pretty unlikely. Human nature hasn't changed.

    Nonetheless, its worth trying because the alternative is pretty grim. So, I agree with John that we should try to work within the system. I just don't hold it as a vision; and I say why I have my conclusions.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-15-2012 at 05:59 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Reason #2.

    Read No Treason by Lysander Spooner. It is a long essay. It is available on the web. Written about 1870. In short, he points out that the constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to prevent it. The essay was written as a refutation of voices calling for the prosecution of certain confederate officials for their actions relative to the war. The bulk of the essay is a very eye opening examination of the constitution and government. You will find it hard to maintain intellectual honesty and keep your existing views of the constitution.

    Read Hologram of Liberty by Boston T. Party pen name for Kenneth Royce. A hologram is a type of image, the implication here being that it is not the thing it looks like. Royce lays out some very compelling arguments that the constitution is actually arranged to facilitate the fedgov morphing into the monster it has become. He covers the shenanigans during, before, and after the constitutional convention. He covers the unfinished Article III (courts) and the Judiciary Act of (1789?) which some scholars have aptly observed was actually a constitutional amendment dressed as an act of the new congress. He covers a good bit more , too. He makes two overall points in addition to the one I first mentioned. First, that idolizing the constitution makes it difficult to see what is actually there. And, second, when you find yourself constantly losing the game, at some point you have to wonder if the rules themselves are rigged against you. The book shows you how the rules of the game--the constitution--are rigged against you.

    Thus, I conclude that the constitution itself is defective. As Spooner pointed out, it either gave us the government we have or was powerless to prevent it. If the constitution itself is defective, restoring it won't work. And, that is assuming the power-mad would give up their machinations and twists and finding implied powers that aren't there or stop ignoring it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-15-2012 at 02:52 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Northern Nevada, ,
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by John Pierce View Post
    The best way to fight to system is to BECOME the system.
    I find this disgusting.

    I have twice been convicted of a crime for declining consent to a search and refusing to be a witness against myself. I have sat and listened as officers of the system told bald-faced lies, disproven by their own evidence, in order to convict me, in order to immunize them from lawsuit.

    I want nothing to do with that system, except to watch it crumble under the weight of its corruption.

  23. #23
    Regular Member turborich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    175
    Like I said earlier in the thread, There's a reason to keep your name off of a list like this.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-su...-deported.html

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    A big +1 to what Ed and Citizen posted.


    Quote Originally Posted by turborich View Post
    Like I said earlier in the thread, There's a reason to keep your name off of a list like this.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-su...-deported.html
    Unfortunately, we're all already on the lists, signed or not. Warrantless electronic surveillance is up 60% since 2009.

    The only benefit to not signing these petitions is that it's one less charge they could potentially bring against you if they chose to go Brandon Raub style on you.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by turborich View Post
    Like I said earlier in the thread, There's a reason to keep your name off of a list like this.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-su...-deported.html

    Alex Jones fills his niche nicely. I frequently disagree with his conclusions; and the steady diet of conspiracy can be a bit wearing, but I do usually find useful information. Even the video here has some interesting perspectives that helped sharpen my own.

    I just wish he would ease up on the conspiracy angle. I once asked a fella who had a somewhat secretive career whether he ever came across any info to the effect that National Review and Bill Buckley were CIA fronts ie part of a CIA conspiracry to mold public opinion. The fella replied that it didn't matter--the effect was the same. Meaning, whether the conspiracy existed or not, the effect of Buckley and National Review got you to the same place. You didn't need a conspiracy angle to Buckley and National Review. They accomplished what they accomplished as far as public opinion goes.

    Similar for Alex Jones and his bankster conspiracies. A conspiracy is not necessary to create the effects they do. You can achieve the same result with each bankster operating merely out of self-interest. And, by omitting a conspiracy angle, you alienate fewer listeners.

    I'm not saying there are no bankster conspiracies. Given the direction they are headed, there almost has to be some sort of superficial overall agreement. But, people can figure that out for themselves once they have the information.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •