Montana threatens to secede

[redtigerdragon]

link. Basically, if the supreme court shuts down the argument that gun rights aren't just for militias, Montana will secede.

[UkJenT]

LOL. I'd like to see them actually secede. That would be the day when one state secedes and then has it's *** kicked by the U.S. military.

[LoArmistead]

LOL. I'd like to see them actually secede. That would be the day when one state secedes and then has it's *** kicked by the U.S. military.

 

Why would it have its butt kicked by the US military? Hell, if they just wait a few years before they secede, we won't have a standing military to speak of to fight them with.

 

The federal government has been overstepping its Constitutional boundaries excessively for the past century. The founding fathers knew it was inevitable for central powers to eventually become too controlling, and if they were alive today, they would undoubtedly approve of another secession, given the absolute control the federal government has over our lives.

 

Do I think a secession will actually happen? Unfortunately not, but does every single state in this union have the moral and Constitutional obligation to secede or drastically reduce the power our central government has? Abso-friggin-lutely.

[greengiant912]

LOL. I'd like to see them actually secede. That would be the day when one state secedes and then has it's *** kicked by the U.S. military.

 

I don't think it would be so much as a military conflict as it would be a political statement and protest. Just because Secession was one of the causes of the Civil War doesn't mean it will throw us into another military conflict against ourselves.

 

 

If Montana want's to secede let them, without federal funding, and support Montana will become the real 'New Mexico'. Not to mention that we could see the US put an embargo on them if they were to Secede.

 

Needless to say there won't be a military conflict, it will be economic warfare to try and get them to rejoin the Union.

 

I really doubt that they would even do it, its a wild out there idea and I don't think there is much merit to their 'threat'

[benjaminw]

I do not believe such an action, if ever to take place, would occur by a single state. I believe one state would gather support from other disenfranchised states and garner support for a common movement.

 

I have a hard time believing that the Texas ego would tolerate NOT being the first state to secede, and would join in any such venture, especially considering the secession remarks from the Texas governor just last week!

[redtigerdragon]

I have a hard time believing that the Texas ego would tolerate NOT being the first state to secede

 

I'd have to agree with this sentiment.

[LoArmistead]

I have a hard time believing that the Texas ego would tolerate NOT being the first state to secede, and would join in any such venture, especially considering the secession remarks from the Texas governor just last week!

 

And if such an event should take place, I would be the first one coming home to join y'all.

[SMeeD]

Im glad people still have the balls to threaten to secede. I cant imagine it taking too many states to get the government to realize they mean business if they worked together.

[malmsteenisgod]

And if such an event should take place, I would be the first one coming home to join y'all.

 

If such an event should take place, I'd get the hell out of the country. Au revoir chiennes!

 

But really, I hope secessions do occur. This mess has gone too far. I just think I'd rather be someplace safer when it happens.

Edited May 6, 2009 by malmsteenisgod

[LoArmistead]

Im glad people still have the balls to threaten to secede. I cant imagine it taking too many states to get the government to realize they mean business if they worked together.

 

But, when hundreds of billions of dollars every year are funneled from the private sector, through the federal government and then filtered back down to the states in the form of grants and special appropriations, it disincentivizes states from seceding. No rational person (or state) wants to give up his handout. The states are just as much enslaved on the government plantation as we are. Sure, we stand up and say we don't like wealth redistribution, but when tax day comes around and we are actually able to take advantage of that Earned Income Tax Credit and dependent care expenses credits, we don't complain, do we? Even though accepting those credits often time results in us receiving more from the federal government than we paid in.

[benjaminw]

I believe you perfectly verbalized one of the main reasons for secession talks: the federal government taking $1.00, and giving you back $0.75 and telling you it's for your own good or it's a gift or that you just received a "stimulus". Why not just let us keep the $1.00, and let us decide how to spend it (or only take $0.25). "Us" being the individual, the city, the county, the state...

 

What about the states who are refusing such funds? What is their carrot to continue giving up liberties to the federal government?

[ClayMeow]

Technically the second amendment does specifically state a militia.

 

Regardless, am I the only one that thinks handguns SHOULD be banned? So many studies prove that handguns do NOT increase one's safety, even during crimes, because the majority of people aren't properly trained in their use (and sorry, but the gun range does not prepare you for intense situations).