http://progunleaders.org/resolution.html
Perhaps the most pivotal Supreme Court case in a long time and there has been little discussion here. Apparently Montana is not fucking around. Lock and load boys and girls, let the games begin. What say you.
Good topic - but gun rights have been a hot topic around here lately.
As for Montana’s resolution - it’s interesting, but I am not sure the Montana legislature understands what the case is about.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Good topic - but gun rights have been a hot topic around here lately.
As for Montana’s resolution - it’s interesting, but I am not sure the Montana legislature understands what the case is about.[/quote]
It is clear to me that the case is misunderstood, and also clear that this is political theater in an election year.
Montana state legislature meets every 2 years for 6 weeks. This is an"extrasessional" resolution, meaning that it was probably circulated, signed and not debated. Who in Montana would debate against the 2nd amendment, in an election year?
I would not expect a game of chicken based on the DC court case ruling; Montana is not, as was said of South Carolina in 1860, “too small for a republic and too big for an insane asylum.”
Whats this about “collective rights”? Somebody mind peeling this one back a bit?
Those men are patriots and should be applauded. That’s why I can only live in the Pacific Northwest. I’d love to move to California or to New England, but I will never subject my family to any of their draconian and socialist rules.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Those men are patriots and should be applauded. That’s why I can only live in the Pacific Northwest. I’d love to move to California or to New England, but I will never subject my family to any of their draconian and socialist rules.[/quote]
Before rushing to applaud them, ask yourself if they are doing anything of substance.
If the USSC finds that the 2d Am is not an unalloyed individual right and more of a collective right that allows states to have higher restrictions on gun ownership - which I think would be wrong - how does that affect Montana’s right to have strong individual rights for its citizens?
A “collective right” win doesn’t mean Montana has to suddenly restrict its citizens’ gun rights - it means that the federal constitution won’t get in the way if states decide to get very restrictive.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Whats this about “collective rights”? Somebody mind peeling this one back a bit?[/quote]
A “collective” right is not an “individual” right. Thus, in the case of the second amendment, a group of people (such as “a well-regulated militia”) might be allowed to bear arms, but an individual (a single member of “the People”) might not. If the second amendment grants rights to the individuals, then the restrictions on gun ownership in DC (and presumably in other places as well) could be ruled unconstitutional. Or at least that’s my understanding.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
…Montana state legislature meets every 2 years for 6 weeks. …[/quote]
They should all follow this example.
Probably will come to nothing, but it’s fun to consider that if Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas were to secede from the union, the Confederacy they would form would be the most powerful nuclear power in the world.
From a logistic point of view, they’d need to get Washington and Oregon in on it, of course, for access to the Pacific. Add Alaska and Colorado too, for petroleum, precious metals, Biotest supplements and NORAD.
Not sure yet how I feel about Texas. It would be nice to have access to the Gulf of Mexico, but that would mean letting Oklahoma into the gang as well, for contiguity. We’ll see how Rainjack and TGunslinger feel about it.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Probably will come to nothing, but it’s fun to consider that if Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas were to secede from the union, the Confederacy they would form would be the most powerful nuclear power in the world.
From a logistic point of view, they’d need to get Washington and Oregon in on it, of course, for access to the Pacific. Add Alaska and Colorado too, for petroleum, precious metals, Biotest supplements and NORAD.
Not sure yet how I feel about Texas. It would be nice to have access to the Gulf of Mexico, but that would mean letting Oklahoma into the gang as well, for contiguity. We’ll see how Rainjack and TGunslinger feel about it.[/quote]
If OK seceded, we’d go back to being Indian Territory.
We would exchange safe passage from the New Confederacy proper to Texas in exchange for Wyoming coal, trading considerations, and advanced technologies we can’t produce ourselves.
Over time, the New Confederacy would grow in power and begin to view Indian Territory as a obstacle to their growth. You guys would start to bully us around and ignore the treaties we signed. Without the advanced technology we acquire from the New Confederacy, your technology/expansion-emphasizing society would eventually overpower our cultural heritage-emphasizing society.
Of course, in a fit of guilt over reclaiming Indian Territory through pseudo-conquest, the New Confederacy would offer us a half-assed “Sovereignty” that we would use to build casinos and sell high alcohol content beverages in places that would otherwise restrict them.
Our final, cold-hearted vengeance will be repossessing your houses without mercy after you gambled while drunk in our casinos.
…so yeah, we’re in.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Those men are patriots and should be applauded. That’s why I can only live in the Pacific Northwest. I’d love to move to California or to New England, but I will never subject my family to any of their draconian and socialist rules.
mike[/quote]
You better not move to far West or you’ll come under the communist regime of Gov. Gregoire. You’ll have to pay the government and get a permit to cut a tree down on your own property. G’damn Fascist state.
But agreed on the applause.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Probably will come to nothing, but it’s fun to consider that if Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas were to secede from the union, the Confederacy they would form would be the most powerful nuclear power in the world.
From a logistic point of view, they’d need to get Washington and Oregon in on it, of course, for access to the Pacific. Add Alaska and Colorado too, for petroleum, precious metals, Biotest supplements and NORAD.
Not sure yet how I feel about Texas. It would be nice to have access to the Gulf of Mexico, but that would mean letting Oklahoma into the gang as well, for contiguity. We’ll see how Rainjack and TGunslinger feel about it.[/quote]
Go ahead and roll the Tanks out over the Cascades. Some serious spray and pray is going to be necessary to clean out the den of Commies on the Pacific Coast. Give the word and I’m sure a good insurgency can be arranged though.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Probably will come to nothing, but it’s fun to consider that if Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas were to secede from the union, the Confederacy they would form would be the most powerful nuclear power in the world.
From a logistic point of view, they’d need to get Washington and Oregon in on it, of course, for access to the Pacific. Add Alaska and Colorado too, for petroleum, precious metals, Biotest supplements and NORAD.
Not sure yet how I feel about Texas. It would be nice to have access to the Gulf of Mexico, but that would mean letting Oklahoma into the gang as well, for contiguity. We’ll see how Rainjack and TGunslinger feel about it.
If OK seceded, we’d go back to being Indian Territory.
We would exchange safe passage from the New Confederacy proper to Texas in exchange for Wyoming coal, trading considerations, and advanced technologies we can’t produce ourselves.
Over time, the New Confederacy would grow in power and begin to view Indian Territory as a obstacle to their growth. You guys would start to bully us around and ignore the treaties we signed. Without the advanced technology we acquire from the New Confederacy, your technology/expansion-emphasizing society would eventually overpower our cultural heritage-emphasizing society.
Of course, in a fit of guilt over reclaiming Indian Territory through pseudo-conquest, the New Confederacy would offer us a half-assed “Sovereignty” that we would use to build casinos and sell high alcohol content beverages in places that would otherwise restrict them.
Our final, cold-hearted vengeance will be repossessing your houses without mercy after you gambled while drunk in our casinos.
…so yeah, we’re in.[/quote]
How about just ceding us the panhandle in exchange for full sovereignty, most-favored nation trading status, a mutual non-aggression and defense treaty, and November being recognized and celebrated as National Indian Cultural Heritage Emphasis Month throughout the Confederacy?
Of course, if Rainjack doesn’t agree to get Texas signed on, the deal’s off.
[quote]Valentinius wrote:
Go ahead and roll the Tanks out over the Cascades. Some serious spray and pray is going to be necessary to clean out the den of Commies on the Pacific Coast. Give the word and I’m sure a good insurgency can be arranged though.
[/quote]
No spraying necessary. We’ll just send Mike and a few batteries of Confederate Marines to march on Olympia and Salem. They’ll have those Commies on the run to San Francisco before you can say “Jane Fonda.”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Valentinius wrote:
Go ahead and roll the Tanks out over the Cascades. Some serious spray and pray is going to be necessary to clean out the den of Commies on the Pacific Coast. Give the word and I’m sure a good insurgency can be arranged though.
No spraying necessary. We’ll just send Mike and a few batteries of Confederate Marines to march on Olympia and Salem. They’ll have those Commies on the run to San Francisco before you can say “Jane Fonda.” [/quote]
Careful now…I am a represenative of SF. Roll your tanks right over…but know that you’ll be squashing some of the the very ‘liberty’ you hold so dear. As for Jane Fonda… fuck her. She is a joke. I’m sure I should be liberal as hell, as you would expect, but I’m not. Not even close. Pick another city to bag on. This one says fuck you.
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Valentinius wrote:
Go ahead and roll the Tanks out over the Cascades. Some serious spray and pray is going to be necessary to clean out the den of Commies on the Pacific Coast. Give the word and I’m sure a good insurgency can be arranged though.
No spraying necessary. We’ll just send Mike and a few batteries of Confederate Marines to march on Olympia and Salem. They’ll have those Commies on the run to San Francisco before you can say “Jane Fonda.”
Careful now…I am a represenative of SF. Roll your tanks right over…but know that you’ll be squashing some of the the very ‘liberty’ you hold so dear. As for Jane Fonda… fuck her. She is a joke. I’m sure I should be liberal as hell, as you would expect, but I’m not. Not even close. Pick another city to bag on. This one says fuck you.[/quote]
Jeez, Molly. Ouch.
Read my prior posts. Then you may notice that California ain’t even under consideration for membership in the Confederacy. As for Mikeyali and his Idaho Rifles (“Mike’s Marauders”), their mission is confined to Salem, Oregon and Olympia, Washington, with side trips to Portland, Spokane and Seattle (for coffee, mostly). It is a surgical mission to rout out and remove the entrenched communist element in those cities, as identified by Valentinius and confirmed by BostonBarrister.
The aforesaid Commies are free to flee to whatever cities in the People’s Republic of California that will grant them asylum. I only mentioned San Francisco because it’s conveniently close to the Oregon border, and at least there they would be amongst their own. However, they may go to San Jose, San Clemente, San Luis Obispo or San Juan Capistrano for all I care.
So certainly no offense intended to you and your fair (or foggy, rather) city. And rest assured that no Confederate tanks will be rolling across the Golden Gate Bridge on my watch.
With apologies to Norman MacLean,
“The world is full of gun-grabbing bastards, the number increasing rapidly the farther one gets from Missoula, Montana.”
Thunderbolt, is that General Montgomery?
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Thunderbolt, is that General Montgomery?[/quote]
Negative - it is General John “Black Jack” Pershing: