Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 102

Thread: A New State

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    I just had a great idea. Why don't all of us gun owners have our own state? They can draw up a new state out of existing territories and we can all move there. We can live in our own state where everyone is armed. Then the gun grabbers will watch in astonishment as we have no crime and live our lives peacefully. **** 'em. I think it's a hell of an idea. How about you?

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    IMO, because there is more than one-issue involved re: living somewhere: The people! Not the material things, but the people and what they do or do notbelieve in, which controls how they behave.

    The average gun owner (i.e., most of them)are FOR many social/cultural/moral/political issues I am AGAINST....so I sure wouldn't want to live with them. In fact, they'd be on the other side in a shooting Cluture War or Civil War II (which probably will never happen consideringcurrent politics and where most so-called Americans'heads are at).

    So there probably are plenty of people likeYOU -- "gun owners" -- who could easily make up a state's population, but there arenot enough of US to do that. About all WE can do is try to live obscurely under the radar and let the country continue it's downward spiral.

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    251

    Post imported post

    Already exists.

    http://www.freestateproject.org/



    We need to think bigger. We need charismatic individuals to infiltrate the brady bunch, get elected to their board and effectively disband them. We need people running on both democratic and republican tickets in every district in the US.

    You'd have to do it one state at a time, with state delegates and state senators, so you could change state law quickly and effectively. You'd need to fund 3-4 people to run democrat and 3-4 people to run republican in every district in the state chosen. Do it all simultaneously. Spread 3 of your people's non-gun views across the spectrum. Mirror the 4th person's platform to be identical to the incumbent in order to pull votes.

    With that many people running in every district and with proper funding and publicity you'll be able to get enough people elected to do something. If the state staggers their delegate and senator rotations then it'll be more difficult.


    The other option would be to do residency swaps. Run only one legit candidate in each district. But get everyone in the group to register as a resident in every district based off a legitimate member's address in each respective district. You have 3000 people living in your house? Completely plausible. Throw the votes. I'm not sure how each state audits registered voters for their districts. In my home county in MD you could just walk to the board of elections, give them an address in the county you claimed was your current residence, and they'd issue you a voter registration card.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    nickerj1 wrote:
    Already exists.

    http://www.freestateproject.org/



    We need to think bigger. We need charismatic individuals to infiltrate the brady bunch, get elected to their board and effectively disband them. We need people running on both democratic and republican tickets in every district in the US.

    You'd have to do it one state at a time, with state delegates and state senators, so you could change state law quickly and effectively. You'd need to fund 3-4 people to run democrat and 3-4 people to run republican in every district in the state chosen. Do it all simultaneously. Spread 3 of your people's non-gun views across the spectrum. Mirror the 4th person's platform to be identical to the incumbent in order to pull votes.

    With that many people running in every district and with proper funding and publicity you'll be able to get enough people elected to do something. If the state staggers their delegate and senator rotations then it'll be more difficult.


    The other option would be to do residency swaps. Run only one legit candidate in each district. But get everyone in the group to register as a resident in every district based off a legitimate member's address in each respective district. You have 3000 people living in your house? Completely plausible. Throw the votes. I'm not sure how each state audits registered voters for their districts. In my home county in MD you could just walk to the board of elections, give them an address in the county you claimed was your current residence, and they'd issue you a voter registration card.
    You mean America would be infiltrated from within by <gasp> ..... PATRIOTIC AMERICANS?

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    New state won't matter. Look at Alaska. No permit for OC or CC and the state gov't pretty much leaves people alone, at least moreso than pretty much any other state. Doesn't eleminate the rampant corruption, but at least keeps it more at arms length. But they can't mail a gun to a relative, they can't buy a machine gun with out an ATF license, they can't do a lot of things because the federal government is still acting as a nanny to suppress freedom and liberty in the name of security - social securities through social programs and engineering and physical securities such as TSA. Both are abysmal failures, and both encourage and even demand that people be dependent upon the government for their most fundamental right as a human being - their right to life. Nothing would be different in a new state. If the citizens reject the nanny philosophy, the gov't has ways of punishing the states, and being that progressives long ago removed any state's representation within the federal government, you won't get far. The dumb masses will ensure the failure of any such state. Besides, with nearly 1/3 of the adult population owning firearms, that is going to have to be a big state.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Marquette, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    253

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    About all WE can do is try to live obscurely under the radar and let the country continue it's downward spiral.

    -- John D.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    I just had a great idea. Why don't all of us gun owners have our own state? They can draw up a new state out of existing territories and we can all move there. We can live in our own state where everyone is armed. Then the gun grabbers will watch in astonishment as we have no crime and live our lives peacefully. **** 'em. I think it's a hell of an idea. How about you?
    Alaska and Vermont. Wyoming is close. These gun friendly states still feel the boot of oppression from the BATFE.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  8. #8
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    I just had a great idea. Why don't all of us gun owners have our own state? They can draw up a new state out of existing territories and we can all move there. We can live in our own state where everyone is armed. Then the gun grabbers will watch in astonishment as we have no crime and live our lives peacefully. **** 'em. I think it's a hell of an idea. How about you?
    Could we call this new state RonPaulistan???:celebrate
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    kmcdowel.

    "America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolf, 101 Things To Do Till the Revolution



    -- John D.

    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    kmcdowel.

    "America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolf, 101 Things To Do Till the Revolution



    -- John D.
    I LOVE IT!!! LMAO....

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    I just had a great idea. Why don't all of us gun owners have our own state? They can draw up a new state out of existing territories and we can all move there. We can live in our own state where everyone is armed. Then the gun grabbers will watch in astonishment as we have no crime and live our lives peacefully. **** 'em. I think it's a hell of an idea. How about you?
    Could we call this new state RonPaulistan???:celebrate
    Um yeah, no.

    How about, "The Constitutional State(s) of America"
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Empire of, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    I keep telling everyone to move to Alaska. Vermont is too small and surrounded by Evil States. Alaska just has Russia and Canada on its borders.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I trust Russia more than Canada. At least the Politboro admits that they are a bunch of commie fascist murdering SOBs bent on controlling people's lives and consolidating power for personal gain. We should be so lucky to have a Canadian socialist or a Hillary and Obama admit it so openly.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    "commie fascist" is quite an oxymoron because those are opposed economic systems.

    When the Culture Wars (also to be known as the War Between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres) break out, beyond today's skirmishes, the Russians will be our Northern and Eastern European allies against the depauperate cultures of the temperate Southern Hemisphere.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    "commie fascist" is quite an oxymoron because those are opposed economic systems.
    I could argue that to a certain degree, but you are obviously correct that economically they cannot exist contemporaneously and in that regard my comment was incorrect. I retract the word "fascist" and replace it with "totalitarian" to avoid an OT conversation on colloquial v formal/traditional definitions.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  16. #16
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    I just had a great idea. Why don't all of us gun owners have our own state? They can draw up a new state out of existing territories and we can all move there. We can live in our own state where everyone is armed. Then the gun grabbers will watch in astonishment as we have no crime and live our lives peacefully. **** 'em. I think it's a hell of an idea. How about you?
    Could we call this new state RonPaulistan???:celebrate
    Um yeah, no.

    How about, "The Constitutional State(s) of America"
    CSA was tried once. Big war. Lots of needless death. Tragic consequences for state sovereignty. I like RonPaulistan better.Ron Paulis the modern Thomas Jefferson after all.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP At least the Politboro admits that they are a bunch of commie fascist murdering...
    Russia still has a Politburo?
    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.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    SNIP At least the Politboro admits that they are a bunch of commie fascist murdering...
    Russia still has a Politburo?
    Oh good, God ... I don't think so. I was just making an smarmy off the cuff comment which I don't usually do. Guess that'll learn me.

    Thundar wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    I just had a great idea. Why don't all of us gun owners have our own state? They can draw up a new state out of existing territories and we can all move there. We can live in our own state where everyone is armed. Then the gun grabbers will watch in astonishment as we have no crime and live our lives peacefully. **** 'em. I think it's a hell of an idea. How about you?
    Could we call this new state RonPaulistan???:celebrate
    Um yeah, no.

    How about, "The Constitutional State(s) of America"
    CSA was tried once. Big war. Lots of needless death. Tragic consequences for state sovereignty. I like RonPaulistan better.Ron Paulis the modern Thomas Jefferson after all.
    Laff - I didn't even think about it being abbreviated to CSA - I was focused on the "constitutional" part. While I still like the concept, CSA would carry far too much baggage even nearly a century and a half later. But Ron Paul as a modern Thomas Jefferson?
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    IMHO, CSAreflects who REALLY rules the nation:

    Corporate States of America.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    IMO, because there is more than one-issue involved re: living somewhere: The people! Not the material things, but the people and what they do or do notbelieve in, which controls how they behave.

    The average gun owner (i.e., most of them)are FOR many social/cultural/moral/political issues I am AGAINST....so I sure wouldn't want to live with them. In fact, they'd be on the other side in a shooting Cluture War or Civil War II (which probably will never happen consideringcurrent politics and where most so-called Americans'heads are at).

    So there probably are plenty of people likeYOU -- "gun owners" -- who could easily make up a state's population, but there arenot enough of US to do that. About all WE can do is try to live obscurely under the radar and let the country continue it's downward spiral.

    -- John D.
    I have a couple of questions for you. 1) Do you know enough of the 80 million gunowners in this country to make an ignorant blanket statement about what they believe in? 2) What do you mean by referring to me as 'YOU' and referring to you as 'US', as though I am not part of the collective? You did hit the nail on the head, however, when you used the term 'WE', though I personally disagree that we should stay below the radar.

    'Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them'
    -Frederick Douglass 1857

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    I_Hate_Illinois,

    1. Yes, I believe I do. And if you are not aware that most gun-owners are quite liberal on other issues (besides guns) -- which makes them not my choice for living amongst even in a "A NewState" -- then maybe you are the ignorant one? I used to think most gun-owners were conservatives and shared a real conservative's platform of core beliefs...they aren't and they don't. They're mostly liberals-libertarians or libertarian-liberals...I don't know which. But at least nowYOU are aware of this phenomenon.

    2. By "US" I meant gun-owners such as yours truly and people who share my values (a small minority). By"YOU" I meant most gun-owners (the majority of them). I included you in the "great majority" because I truly doubt we'd agree on those social/moral/political/cultural issues which separate the men from the boys, if you will.

    Given the rampant moral decay of this country, I don't see any way to fix it (work within the system) because there is no solid foundation anymore to build on, so seceding from the Union to "start over" seems a viable option...but my idea of a "New State" would be different than most people here. I think this country CAN be fixed, if people really wanted to do that (but not enough do), but itcan't be done via the democratic process.

    -- John D.

    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Marquette, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    253

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    SNIP
    1. Yes, I believe I do. And if you are not aware that most gun-owners are quite liberal on other issues (besides guns).
    ...I was not aware of this.
    I truly doubt we'd agree on those social/moral/political/cultural issues which separate the men from the boys, if you will
    ...so because you are pro choice, or pro "civil union," you are a man and I am a boy? Please elaborate.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    Again, you have it wrong. It's actually just the opposite: Most gun-owners support those twoitems you named, not I. For example, don't say anything negative about the Pink Pistols, Log Cabin Republicans, etc...most gun-ownerswill be all over you for being a homophobe bigot. And certainly don't ever talk about race and crime statistics...then you're certainly a racist. In short, they're very much PC in other issues and the truth is avoided, even censored.

    You reallyDO need to get up to speed on this...

    But enough said from me because I don't "debate" in forums anymore. I just put in my opinion (as alien as it is) like everyone else and won't get into arguing about it. Besides, what is said here in this forum or any other forum of any topic matter changes nothing anyway...much like all the gun-issue polls people feel the need to take part in...it doesn't mean anything but I guess it makes people feel good to "vote" anyway, as if it really matters. It doesn't.

    Regards,

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Marquette, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    253

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    You reallyDO need to get up to speed on this...
    ...I'm trying, but what you are saying is truly news to me. Please clarify for me. In your opinion, are you saying that: Most gun owners are pro-choice and pro-civil union and ignore the high correlation with race and crime rates, but you are the opposite?

    -Thanks, -Kevin

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    kmcdowel wrote:
    cloudcroft wrote:
    You reallyÂ*DO need to get up to speed on this...
    Â*
    ...I'm trying, but what you are saying is truly news to me. Please clarify for me. In your opinion, are you saying that: Most gun owners are pro-choice and pro-civil union and ignore the high correlation with race and crime rates, but you are the opposite?

    -Thanks, -Kevin
    I think he is definitely right if he is saying there are a large segment of gun owners who believe in liberty and equal rights for everyone. not just for rich white straight gun owners.
    The bigots and hate mongers are slowly dieing off as a this other group of people who actually live amongst different races, ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations become gun owners. I have high hopes for this up and coming group to spread the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just the people who share the same religion, or skin color, or sexual orientation. The love of guns is not what brings this group together, it is the intelligence to determine that free men should have actual freedom, freedom to protect ourselves, to speak our minds, and to live our lives as we see fit.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •