Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NH bill takes secessionist tone over expected Obama gun laws
RidleyReport.com ^

Posted on 02/01/2009 4:18:18 PM PST by Dada Orwell

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-165 next last
To: George Smiley

Wait, I think we’re on to something here! If New Yawk leaves, maybe the rest can all stay.


61 posted on 02/01/2009 8:09:15 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: engrpat

A secession could happen without a shooting war, however. And I really believe if, and especially Texas were to secede, they would NOT be attacked. There would, be problems over the federal military bases in the state, but not that couldn’t be resolved. And if a civil war does become unavoidable,we should defend the constitution that was handed down to us , so we may hand it to our children.


62 posted on 02/01/2009 8:09:33 PM PST by Quickgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe
from the red-state section of the People's State of New Jersey

And which city block is that, pray tell?

:-)

63 posted on 02/01/2009 8:10:22 PM PST by George Smiley (They're not drinking the Kool-Aid any more. Now they're eating it straight out of the packet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
The Union's got nukes now.

Many of which are in Texas.

Just sayin...

64 posted on 02/01/2009 8:14:41 PM PST by meyer (We are all John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: basil

States don’t have the right to secede....Abraham Lincoln established that principle back in 1865. Remember that the total is greater than the sum of its parts!


65 posted on 02/01/2009 8:23:59 PM PST by ChrisInAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AvOrdVet

“I believe it was Montana just awhile back the used this defense, should the U.S. violate the Constitution under which the State joined the union the state would break it contract with the U.S....”

What are they going to do, go back to being a Territory? That “contract” with the rest of the United States is what brought the State of Montana into existence.


66 posted on 02/01/2009 8:28:58 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley; Malsua

It’s called Sussex County. Almost all politicians in all the towns in the county are GOP (generally the good kind, not RINOs). We returned a CONSERVATIVE Republican congressman (Scott Garrett) to office last November by a 2-to-1 margin. Not even a lot of red-state politicians had landslides like that in the last election.


67 posted on 02/01/2009 8:32:05 PM PST by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

Well, once they were free I guess they could do anything they wanted. Vote into existence the new Nation of Montana. Course the (US) federal government wouldn’t defend them militarily, either. The Canuckians might decide they needed a southern province. I don’t know, though. Our northern brethren have been so pussified by their liberal anti-gun government that Montana might end up with a Alberta and Saskatchewan instead!


68 posted on 02/01/2009 8:33:48 PM PST by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
As far as I know there is nothing in the Constitution giving any state the right to secede.

What does The Declaration of Independence have to say on the subject?

yitbos

69 posted on 02/01/2009 8:35:56 PM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof
I know some liberal will point out that Texas takes more in federal money than it sends to Washington but I tend to ascribe that to smarter congressmen who know how to bring back the bacon.

That might be part of it, but the main part is that we have good weather, and lots of open land. Thus we have, or had, lots of military bases, particularly Air Force bases, and Naval Air Stations. We have the largest, in terms of population, Army base as well. Add to that a fair amount of defense industry, (At one time Dallas/Ft. Worth alone had GD/Lockheed, LTV, E-Systems, Texas Instruments (defense group), Collins Radio and others. Most of those, while shrunken, are still around under one name or another.

70 posted on 02/01/2009 8:55:41 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dada Orwell

Maybe we have a state to take in millions of angry patriots...


71 posted on 02/01/2009 8:56:07 PM PST by wastedyears (April 21st, 2009 - International Iron Maiden Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basil

Montana is another one.


72 posted on 02/01/2009 9:01:44 PM PST by wastedyears (April 21st, 2009 - International Iron Maiden Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley
And since the federal government was the creation [an agent] of the states,

That's not really true. The preamble to the Constitution starts out:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

No mention of the states there. Yes the states had to ratify, but they did so in special conventions, not by actions of their legislatures. Thus, and by it's terms, the Constitution is binding on both the federal and state governments.

But to support your point, their is nothing in the Constitution that says states cannot seceded, and there is this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

73 posted on 02/01/2009 9:04:26 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

Much better armed, with better transportation and instant communication.


74 posted on 02/01/2009 9:09:13 PM PST by wastedyears (April 21st, 2009 - International Iron Maiden Day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

“..>Much better armed, with better transportation and instant communication...”

I’d be happy if the USA seceded from the left coast and New England.


75 posted on 02/01/2009 9:15:49 PM PST by Islander7 (If you want to anger conservatives, lie to them. If you want to anger liberals, tell them the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

“Well, once they were free I guess they could do anything they wanted.”

Why should the rest of the States allow them to do that?

In 1803 the 17 United States, through their agent the Federal Governement, bought from France what the US named the Louisianna Territory.

About 1848 the 30 United States, through their agent the Federal Government, obtained the Oregon Territory by a Treaty with England.

The United States allowed people to move to the land they had obtained and owned with a view toward forming new states.

In 1889, Montana, consisting of parts of the Louisianna Territory and Oregon Territory, was admitted to the Union as one of the States. (The land was part of some other Territories but I’m skipping that part.)

If the people of Montana want to leave the United States, can you provide a reason why the other States of the United States should allow them to take the land with them?

I’m not particularly interested in an answer involving the Federal Government. The Federal Government is only an agent of the States. The States could get together and change the Government of the United States if they had the will and cohesion to do so. That happened once.


76 posted on 02/01/2009 9:28:29 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Re Posts 33; 37; 50

Nice find(s).

However, in the end, when push comes to shove, nothing that is written will be of any consequence.

There are an estimated 200,000,000 guns still in the hands of the serfs. IMHO, when something moves 10-20% of these serfs to opt out, they will opt out.

Best bet....around the second time Apophis arrives. Maybe even the first...

OTOH, after obambi's meeting with chavez in April, Michelle may make him declare himself President-For-Life. That could lead to some interesting times.

77 posted on 02/01/2009 9:30:51 PM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dada Orwell

If NH takes the lead God bless them but this is not a regional conflict. It doesn’t matter where you live or whose side great-great-granddad was on. We’re all rebels now.


78 posted on 02/01/2009 9:35:30 PM PST by InABunkerUnderSF (Illegal Immigration is not about the immigration. Gun control is not about the guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dada Orwell
IMHO, the proper thing for states to do would be to publicly announce that their officials were required by their oath to the Constitution of the United States to resist any actions by anyone--including agents of the federal government--whose actions were forbidden by the Supreme Law of the Land. Nothing in the Constitution allows the Supreme Court or any other entity to authorize actions which are forbidden in plain and simple terms by the test of the document itself.

Some people would like to brand anyone who would oppose today's government an anarchist, ignoring the fact that opposition to totalitarian anarchists is necessary for the continued existence of lawful government.

79 posted on 02/01/2009 9:58:21 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

If o tries to take away my GOD given right to be an armed free citizen, I would support the succession of Louisiana from the union.

I live in Louisiana, If Texas seceded from the union and Louisiana did not, I would gladly move to the Great State of Texas. I would be glad to join the fight.

I would rather be a felon and free, than unarmed and a slave.


80 posted on 02/02/2009 12:14:21 AM PST by Do the math (Doug)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-165 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson