Montana Secession based on 2nd Amendment Ruling?

http://www.progunleaders.org/

The Resolution
http://www.progunleaders.org/resolution.html

Big List of Montana Leaders who support the Resolution
http://www.progunleaders.org/officials.html

Montana Shooting Sports Association
News Release concerning the "Montana Resolution"

Montana Officials Concerned Over Statehood Contract Violation
Supreme Court could violate statehood contract in Heller decision

 

A big issue with succession of the Western States is approx 50% of the land is Federal owned by all Americans.

 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=123697

I made sure to include Montana in my "States to secede" list!

 

Montana is sweet. Montana, North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming.

The problem with secession is obviously the federal government starting a second civil war to keep the union intact.

You'd need a smaller state, with a low population, and enormous financial resources, to make the case that you can buy the FEDs out of whatever holdings they have within the state.

 

New Hampshire and Vermont sound like the candidates for me .

I think we should avoid war as much as possible, but if I were to lead this movement, I'd make sure there were no obstacles in my path, I refuse to silenced.

 

I'm for peaceful secession. Peaceful resistance etc.

Have to be careful, or it will be another Waco Texas.

Look up the We The People Foundation. They are working on a court case relating to the redress of grievances, per the Constitution. That could go a long way to re-establishing individual rights.

 

Thanks I'm checking them out. I just don't want this to die down and turn in to some "fantasy" that is highly improbable. Whatever we do, we have to operate with twice the ambition, manpower and wisdom than the elites.

I too am for a peaceful movement, but if anybody is being intimidated, it sure as hell won't be me!

 

Nate, the problem with movements and their loss of momentum, is that everyone wants to be Ben Roethlisberger and no one wants to be Daniel Sepulveda.

Sometimes your (or my, or whomever) contribution might be to inform two more people. That's it. But the movement gained something.

Folks want instant change, instant results. They want to have a miracle election for a miracle candidate, and expect the world to immediately improve. It's almost as misguided as voting for someone because they are not someone else *cough* (Hillary) *cough*

It's never that simple. That's why we need committeemen, selectmen, precinct captains, county chairmen, dog catchers, assistant treasurers, etc.

Maybe we need some good husbands and fathers who will take care of their family, set a good example in the community, and teach their children all of the stuff they won't get in school, like the differences between learning and thinking.

Nothing wrong with aiming high, just remember that a lot of positions have to be filled along the way, and if there is a shortage of volunteers, you might have to be the dog catcher, so that someone else can later be the Governor, Senator or President.

 

One man does not make a political movement.

 

Ron Paul must not exist

Good points guerilla, and bogart. I just want to take advantage of what we have. After this, many people from this movement might wonder off, we need to have something in place so that that doesn't happen.

 

Ron Paul's date of birth is August 20, 1935

 

LOL bogart 4 president!

 

Stay connected.

Get on some mailing lists,

WE THE PEOPLE

DOWNSIZEDC

Aaron Russo's RESTORE THE REPUBLIC

If you're on those lists, you'll be aware if anything substantial is going down.

 

It's pretty tough to come out of nowhere unless you are Obama

Ronald Regean was kind of a movement. He was Gov of California, had a lot of name recogization as an actor and ran twice for President. It isn't easy.

If Ron Paul was 20 years younger it would be another story.

 

Are we seriously talking about secession of US states and being in favor of it?

I thought you all loved your country

 

Are you familiar with the Declaration of Independence?

It starts like this...

 

^This is the kind of "crazy" stuff that always made me love my country. If we aren't afforded the rights the founders fought for, we have an obligation to the cause of liberty to continue fighting.

If D.C. does not care about this cause they will realize our patriotism is to ideals of freedom & law and not to a flag or empire. Hopefully D.C. fixes its problems or lets the states and people go without violence.

 

Well, considering I have a major in History from UIC I'm pretty sure I got the same "basic" understanding as you do. So you didn't answer my question, are we talking about the sucession of US states and you agree with it? What even makes you think a state could survive outside the US economy which has been entirely based on it for the past 200 or so years? Do you realize how much federal money goes into certain states each year? Will they switch to the Euro?

Yes, on paper it sounds oh so great, but when it comes down to economical and regional factors it will hurt that states people in the short term of seccession. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't states make the first move to starting "taxing" again? I mean, that was one of the "major" reasons we declared independance, over taxes. Remember this little thing called the Boston tea party, it wasn't just a costume gathering

 

Much, MUCH less than the states send out to the federal government.

I don't think finding a new currency would be a problem. It would easily appreciate against the U.S. dollar unless they did something silly like living off public debt and fake interest rates that threaten to destroy the entire banking system.

 

You live in a dream world, please give us an example of how they could do this and not end up in economic ruins. Just humor me with a generalized theory.