• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

MONTANA may join KOSOVO as NEW INDEPENDENT STATE over DC vs HELLER?

deepdiver

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

Mordis, Montana is not talking about secession. They are arguing that an abridgement of the 2nd Amendment by SCOTUS or Congress is a violation of their compact with the US making them a state. As a FUNCTION OF LAW not a function of war or secession, their compact would be voided by such an action by the federal gov't. That is a peaceful position based on the rule of law. Now, the question is, will the US Imperial Gov't under Billary or Osama deal with it peacefully or be stupid and inexperienced enough and be surrounded by enough dumb bunnies to turn it into a state-wide Waco situation? I'm betting on incompetence which could lead to something none of us, beyond theoretical rhetoric, really want to live through. But if it goes there, it will only do so under Montana's scenario, if the United States gov't does indeed behave tyrannically. Undeniably scary, but far from armed secession.
 
Kevin Jensen

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
imported post

Eagleeye wrote:
Anyone Know what other states are under a similar contract?
Click to expand...
This is from Utah's original constitution when they were granted statehood.

Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the Legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law.
Click to expand...
It has been ammended since then to read this.
Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.] The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.
Click to expand...
I also like this one.

Article I, Section 3. [Utah inseparable from the Union.] The State of Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...
 
S

surfj9009

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
639
Location
Spokane, WA, ,
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
Mmm time to move to Montana, I guess.

:shock:
Click to expand...
No doubt. I guess it's time to start looking at buying a construction company over there and picking up a nice big chunk of land, on top of a big hill of course!!
 
Flintlock

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:
Eagleeye wrote:
Anyone Know what other states are under a similar contract?
Click to expand...
This is from Utah's original constitution when they were granted statehood.

Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the Legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law.
Click to expand...
It has been ammended since then to read this.
Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.] The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.
Click to expand...
I also like this one.

Article I, Section 3. [Utah inseparable from the Union.] The State of Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Using the word Inseparable is an unfortunate and ill-advised term. Nobody ever will know what the future holds or what the federal government has entailed for us. A state must always have at least the ability to leave or they will always be under the boot of the mighty imperial government no matter what is happening. And this is in their state constitution for goodness sakes...
 
S

Sitrep

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
150
Location
Here and There, Washington, USA
imported post

I seriously doubt it will ever come to a shooting war between those who only want the military and police to be armed, and those who think all citizens have the right to keep arms.


Since at least half of the military and police would be on the pro-RKBA side and many of the citizens on that side are also armed (sometime quite well armed).

Pacifists will always loose a war.
 
C

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

"The authorites" have fired on fellow Americans before. Don't just hope they won't do it or you're likely to be unpleasantly and tragically surprised.

Expect the National/State Guard, the police or regular military to follow ANY orders issued -- such as confiscation of weapons and "agressive crowd control" -- and you'd be more in line with reality...and can then decide how you will prepare for this if it happens in your area.

-- John D.
 
MetalChris

MetalChris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
SW Ohio
imported post

Sitrep wrote:
[snip] Since at least half of the military and police would be on the pro-RKBA side and many of the citizens on that side are also armed (sometime quite well armed).
Click to expand...
Very true. ;)
 
L

Leader

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
274
Location
Livingston Co., Michigan, , USA
imported post

Decoligny wrote:
Mordis wrote:
Maybe someone who is in the nra, should wright them and ask them to organize a massive rally out side scotus. Massive on the scale of the MIllion Man March.
Click to expand...
We could call it the Gazillion Gun Gathering :celebrate

LONG LIVE THE GGG :celebrate
Click to expand...

I wonder what it wouldhappen if Legaly armed citizens just stopped at the borders of the District of Columbia on thier way to show support for the Second Amendment?

How many cars on how many roads would it take to stop all traffic going into the city?

Think it would get anybodys attention ?
 
possumboy

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
imported post

Leader wrote:
Decoligny wrote:
Mordis wrote:
Maybe someone who is in the nra, should wright them and ask them to organize a massive rally out side scotus. Massive on the scale of the MIllion Man March.
Click to expand...
We could call it the Gazillion Gun Gathering :celebrate

LONG LIVE THE GGG :celebrate
Click to expand...

I wonder what it wouldhappen if Legaly armed citizens just stopped at the borders of the District of Columbia on thier way to show support for the Second Amendment?

How many cars on how many roads would it take to stop all traffic going into the city?

Think it would get anybodys attention ?
Click to expand...
One car is enough to backup all traffic going into DC. Seen it happen.
 
C

casullshooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Bristow, Virginia, USA
imported post

Mordis wrote:
This topic and the links posted herin are frightening to me. I have been noticing a trend on this and other boards. It seems that the number of instances someone mentions armed insurection vs the government is rising, as is the number of people who support or agree with the it or the idea that the time is coming.

While i would pack my whole family and move to montana to insure its freedom and fight for the cuase of freedom, I thuroughly hate the idea of a forth coming war. I would much prefere this to be settle with out violence and blood shed. I know of people IRL that seem to think that "something is coming" but wont elaborate on what it is.

The very idea we even have to think about this is scary, that it is even being discussed is scary. It should scare the hell out of everyone here that the thought of possible revolution/civil war is even in anyones mind.

To make matters scarier, most of our military is over seas. lets say this civil war happens. While were busy fighting eachother, Russia and or China could easily take that opportunity to invade and destroy us.

I think that instead of talking about possible state sucsessions due to contract violations and the inevitable civil war that will follow, not be disscussed. Instead we should focus on ways to prevent this. Maybe someone who is in the nra, should wright them and ask them to organize a massive rally out side scotus. Massive on the scale of the MIllion Man March. We need to fight this the legal way, not by spreading fear and revolutionist ideas around when there is no present need for any.

Dont misconstru my meanings here. I will and would fight for freedom. I just dont think now is the time to go around talking about joining a revolution/civilwar when there is so much that can be done before that ever happens.
Click to expand...

I do not think tat you have to worry about a land invasion as any invader will have to get thier fleet past our fleet of L.A. Class subs armed with ADCAP torpedos. They would find thier troop transports on the bottom of the sea with few survivors. The Chinese know this and they only want to cross the 70 mile strait of Taiwan. 70 miles is an eternity with those subs waiting for you.

Abe Lincoln was a war criminal, plain and simple.
 
N

ne1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
460
Location
, , USA
imported post

Ways to prevent this? I don't know that, legally,"there is so much that can be done".
On February 25, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States, without comment, voted again not to hear We The People v. United States. Thus, SCOTUS ducked its Constitutional duty, yet again, to declare the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment.
The Court elected not to be put into the position of having to declare the unalienable Right of the People to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution’s essential principles, enumerated powers and explicit prohibitions.

Instead, the Court has chosen to conspire with the political branches in a collective decision to protect, preserve and enhance the treasonous notion that constitutional violations are mere issues of current public policy, subject only to the will of the majority of People voting in precincts and the halls of Congress.

Beginning this Saturday, March 1[suP]st[/suP], Bob Schulz will be speaking at various venues to discuss the matter at hand. Everyone is encouraged to attend one of these most serious meetings. There is no charge to attend. WTP will not be providing any food or beverage. The meeting will be all “business.”
Click to expand...
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-02-26.htm
 
Flintlock

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

ne1 wrote:
Ways to prevent this? I don't know that, legally,"there is so much that can be done".
On February 25, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States, without comment, voted again not to hear We The People v. United States. Thus, SCOTUS ducked its Constitutional duty, yet again, to declare the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment.
The Court elected not to be put into the position of having to declare the unalienable Right of the People to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution’s essential principles, enumerated powers and explicit prohibitions.

Instead, the Court has chosen to conspire with the political branches in a collective decision to protect, preserve and enhance the treasonous notion that constitutional violations are mere issues of current public policy, subject only to the will of the majority of People voting in precincts and the halls of Congress.

Beginning this Saturday, March 1[suP]st[/suP], Bob Schulz will be speaking at various venues to discuss the matter at hand. Everyone is encouraged to attend one of these most serious meetings. There is no charge to attend. WTP will not be providing any food or beverage. The meeting will be all “business.”
Click to expand...
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-02-26.htm
Click to expand...
This is very sad...
 
Flintlock

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

casullshooter wrote:
Mordis wrote:
This topic and the links posted herin are frightening to me. I have been noticing a trend on this and other boards. It seems that the number of instances someone mentions armed insurection vs the government is rising, as is the number of people who support or agree with the it or the idea that the time is coming.

While i would pack my whole family and move to montana to insure its freedom and fight for the cuase of freedom, I thuroughly hate the idea of a forth coming war. I would much prefere this to be settle with out violence and blood shed. I know of people IRL that seem to think that "something is coming" but wont elaborate on what it is.

The very idea we even have to think about this is scary, that it is even being discussed is scary. It should scare the hell out of everyone here that the thought of possible revolution/civil war is even in anyones mind.

To make matters scarier, most of our military is over seas. lets say this civil war happens. While were busy fighting eachother, Russia and or China could easily take that opportunity to invade and destroy us.

I think that instead of talking about possible state sucsessions due to contract violations and the inevitable civil war that will follow, not be disscussed. Instead we should focus on ways to prevent this. Maybe someone who is in the nra, should wright them and ask them to organize a massive rally out side scotus. Massive on the scale of the MIllion Man March. We need to fight this the legal way, not by spreading fear and revolutionist ideas around when there is no present need for any.

Dont misconstru my meanings here. I will and would fight for freedom. I just dont think now is the time to go around talking about joining a revolution/civilwar when there is so much that can be done before that ever happens.
Click to expand...

I do not think tat you have to worry about a land invasion as any invader will have to get thier fleet past our fleet of L.A. Class subs armed with ADCAP torpedos. They would find thier troop transports on the bottom of the sea with few survivors. The Chinese know this and they only want to cross the 70 mile strait of Taiwan. 70 miles is an eternity with those subs waiting for you.

Abe Lincoln was a war criminal, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
The Chinese know this and they aren't stupid. They could probably never be able to "invade" but if they tried, it wouldn't be like you are suggesting. It would be more likely that they would do something similar to what the Soviets did to Afghanistan and fly plain-clothes soldiers over on commercial aircraft and control a few airports and have additional personnel come over the southern border which is a sieve and also pull a Red Dawn and have some help from somebody like Russia. They would also likelydisguise their intentions byusing freighters and tankers full of military equipment and personnel andalso some terrorist activity to throw us off and hit us with a barage of cyber andsattelite attacks.They also have nuclearsubs and can drop off commandos in strategic areas of interest and cause a lot of damage. They could also attempt to shutdown the Panama Canal (which they control).

It's not feasible, but anything is possible, particularly with help. There would be Americans with guns behind every blade of grass though and always the potential of it going nuclear...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top