Is it time for secession?

Kevinw: Not an expert on civil war history, but as I recall it, the South did shoot first; At a fort being maintained by the North on Southern territory, which the North refused to leave. Honestly, though, I don't think that was the cause of the civil war. Pretext, maybe, but not cause.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
I believe it was 1972 that Erie Pennsylvania began steps to succeed from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and annex itself to Ontario over the issue of studded snow tires. Penna proposed a ban, and Erie refused to go along with it. It was big news in the papers for a few months. Erie is still part of PA, so I guess it went nowhere.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruegger:
A modern-day secession in the US is impossible or so close to it that you shouldn't clutter up your mind wishing for it.[/quote]

There is at least one state, I think it may be Kentucky, that has mandated secession in its state constitution if we fall under the governance of the U.N. If not Kentucky, it might have been the home state of Jesse Helms or Ron Paul...I can't remember. In any event, it is not impossible for it to happen.




------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our only "No compromise" gun lobby. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
 
NRAlife, “Texas can legally leave the union. It can also divide itself into 5
states if it wants to. That would be a good way to get 8 more conservative
Senators into office!”

Thirty years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now, however, fate has
wrought some terrible changes. Too many of today’s “Texans” still
support Clinton! (Gag! Hurl! etc....)

(Let’s go get a Shiner, Joe. ;) )
 
Dennis,

I agree... some places in Texas, like Austin for example, are a liberal Mecca. I swear I am not a racist man, but when I see the Hispanics flooding into this state like they are, knowing that 90% of them will (or their kids will) vote Democratic in the future, it does anger me. :(

Not only is Texas growing more liberal by the day, so is the country as a whole. This isn't meant to start a debate with you, but that IMHO is why this is the elction of our lifetime's. With more and more people becoming liberals in America everyday the Surpreme Court is our only REAL hope of saving the Second Amendment. I hope we can keep Gore from nominating the next 3 or 4 judges.

You don't know how ready I am for a beer/drink of any kind. I have heard a lot of good things about Shiner. That's sounds like a winner to me!

Joe

------------------

NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum

http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dave R:
Reagan...won his second term in a landslide, carrying every state but Dukakis' Michigan (or am I distorting facts here--someone please correct as necessary).[/quote]

Only because you asked. It was Walter Mondale, from Minnesota. And Dukakis is from Massachussets.
 
I agree that any state or county or city "could" secede, and I agree that they should have the right to do so, I just don't think they could do so successfully (even Texas).
I disagree that the federal gov't wouldn't have the will to put down a secession movement. I think that any attempted secession would be put down so forcefully that it would make Waco look like a county fair. Look at the Elian matter - 130 machinegun-carrying INS stormtroopers conducted an armed raid in response to a state child custody matter. What do you think would happen if an entire state defied the feds? It would be like a mouse poking a lion in the eye. I hear the wise ones in DC are trying to amend the Posse Comitatus act to allow troops to be used to quell domestic disturbances. I can smell the napalm already.

And once the secession was put down, every participant would undoubtedly get convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the government and sentenced to a hundred consecutive life sentences in federal prison.

Dangus -- I don't think Zimbabwe is a good example of a stable government that respects the rights of its citizens. President Mugabe recently vowed to forcibly "rediscribute" the land of white farmers (i.e., steal it and hand out to his supporters). I don't know a thing about Congo specifically, but I don't think there's a country in sub-Saharan Africa that scores highly on the freedom scale. It seems to me that every African nation is far poorer, has more human rights violations, and has much less freedom than even under the jackboots of the former colonial powers that controlled them.

Armed rebellion is not the answer.
 
Well, lets get into life after seccession. I figure every state has power plants so we can have electricity. Hospitals for fixing people. I figure most of the old or sickly would leave as they are likely on medicare or at least want government tested medical care. So every state has what is needed for life, but you stand a major chance at having a problem with staffing certain jobs. I am sure you could get general medical people, but what about specialists? Personally I wonder about shipping in fuel or any other goods. I think if there were no other option I could handle farming my food, with a group of others so we could designate jobs and produce more for less hours worked. But if just a few hundred miles away there is the old world as I knew it, with lots of rules and regs though, I don't know what I would do. I can make a living working around 50 hours a week. There are a lot of other hours left in the day to play. Maybe I am not serious enough for what you are discussing, but I wonder if those with elders they care for, or young who have something as simple as asthma have considered life after. It would be nothing like what is there today. And I think you are losing a lot in order to get fewer rules and laws. I recently had lots of problems with my eyes and the solution was expensive. I now consider living in the country a little differently. Being way away from a major hospital with someone capable of not putting me on disability is worth living in urban areas. Like I already said, maybe I am not a candidate for what you propose, but a major loss of options makes me consider bad things that could happen.
 
Well, my info is a wee bit outdated, but all I was basically saying is that in both of those African countries things improved a hell of a lot, but that doesn't mean they are great now. I'm just saying that rebellions don't always have to lead to greater tyranny.
 
You say you want a revolution?
Eliminate Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, and all the other handouts and thats what you'd get. Face it folks. We have the government that most Americans want. We that wish for a return to the original intent of the Framers are in the minority. The National Socialist party, i.e., the Democrats have succeded in getting enough people on the government wealth redistribution roles to insure that the people would never consider biting the hand that feeds them (so to speak).
 
Yes. Shoot, we've missed it by a couple of years.(!!)

Life after would be, hmm, interesting.

Things to consider:
Money/Currency?
Military?
Government Form/Function? (Anarchy isn't going to work)
Taxes?
Health care?
Jobs?

If you had a libertarian place, expect the High-Tech sector to come in droves. With that you would get service folks and those in the blue collar trades. You'd be surprised about the plumbers/electricians/construction trades, and how they feel/vote. I don't think Healthcare would be a big problem, since quite a few docs would be all over it. (Less govermental intrusion)
Basically, the market would decide.
Imagine a place like Rhodesia, only with sea access and some more natural resources.

It would be tight.
Ahhh.....

Okay, now that I'm back from dreaming...

Needless to say, I'd be there!!

TR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top