Michigan and 29 other states attempt sucession from the union

WyoGrow

WyoGrow

Active Member
These are petitions started by average joe types.... not by representatives of the states mentioned. This happens all the time but is getting massive exposure this time around. Personally I think even if it were a serious push by the states that it's a chicken shit move. Dig in your damned heels and fight to win your country back. Don't just give up and hand it over to them. Many are pissed that less than 1/10th of the nation geographically is dictating what the other 90% has to do. People from rural areas don't think along the same lines as those from the major urban population areas that have almost all the influence on the voting process. Most people in cities don't hunt, so they only associate guns with crime and violence. So they have no issue with the current administrations aims at disarming the entire population. Welfare in rural areas in a big part is called helping your neighbors out as well as the rural populations tend to be more active church goers and rural area churches do a lot withing their communities for lower income and poverty level families. Where as in the big cities, where 90% of people don't even know their neighbors nor want to could give a shit less if they are starving. The cost of living is also higher in urban areas where the population mass overwhelms the available job and housing market. People from the city could learn a lesson or two from us rural types. On the flip side..... rural America is still rife with racism, sexism and rampant homophobia.... so the majority of us could learn a lesson in tolerance and a little forward thinking.
 
WyoGrow

WyoGrow

Active Member
Get up on your current events then. Obama just endorsed a UN moratorium on firearms that will directly affect the import of domestic brand legal firearms (for now at least) manufactured overseas as well as ammunition. While not directly attacking US gun rights this will drastically effect prices on legal weapons in the US. Going door to door and confiscating them is next to impossible. But making them such a bitch or cost prohibitive to buy that most wont bother isn't. This is a two fold tactic he can play off of. Because most gun owning Americans will take this as an infringement on their constitutionally protected rights and given stricter regulation and prices will keep purchasing firearms "under the counter".... garage sales, classified adds.... ect. These too are way to purchase guns that is firmly in the crosshairs of the Obama administration. As soon as the majority of people give up trying to jump through hoops to own a gun and stop buying this off the record means to acquire guns will be all the easier to classify as completely illegal.

Gun laws currently being "looser" has not a damned thing to do with Obama. He has made several attempts to impose extraneous restrictions on gun ownership and has been flatly shot down in Congress. Guns aren't the battle he choosing to fight right now. But as soon as he is done ramroding his tax reforms and Obamacare through Congress with the backing of a noe Democratic majority senate and a Democratic Supreme Court. You can bet it gets close to making it on his "shit I need to get done" list.
 
ThatGuy113

ThatGuy113

Well-Known Member
Please provide a link saying that guns will become more expensive under that mandate. Because all I can see about that mandate is that it forces countries to make human rights a top priority if they want to import weapons. This mandate has been brought up because 40% of weapons around the world are from America. That includes the weapons supporting the violence in Syria and other hot spots around the world including Mexico. Or how about that fact that this mandate has been up for discussion in the united nations since 2006?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107


http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20121114/SPORTS/311140114/Outdoors-Ignore-rumors-gun-ban-U-S-?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s



The only negative gun talk I have heard is the argument that hunters don't need full auto/ military grade weapons to hunt.
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
I think that when a government begins to game laws to control, a populous needs to game those same laws to keep them in check.

[video=youtube;84wJlDC8--o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84wJlDC8--o[/video]
 
ThatGuy113

ThatGuy113

Well-Known Member
The populous needs to pay attention in the first place let alone know the past 100 years of history. Cause if you don't know where your coming from where would you go?
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
I think these are some of Obama's views that these ppl fear:

[video=youtube;pLnb-OqKxhw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLnb-OqKxhw[/video]
 
ThatGuy113

ThatGuy113

Well-Known Member
I wish history actually played documentaries 24/7 god it would be so much better. The Men who built America series was fantastic.




Back to the gun thing.... Tell me gun laws are tightening when you can buy guns at gun shows with no backround check. I think it was a few months back they busted some radical Islamists buying guns at shows then smuggling them back over seas locally in michigan. The recent gun shooting in Wisconsin was with a gun bought by the shooter at a gun show with no backround check. We have some serious issues to handle but no one is taking your guns. The NRA is one of the biggest lobbies for a reason... Charging people money for a sticker for their car to push whatever the NRA wants to and not neccasariy what it's members want.

Before we get on the fear mongering about Obama lets remember the tea baggers who installed their reps in congress have installed a majority in congress who gets a 8% approval rating while the president sits around 40-50%. The tea partiers of today feel like their being taxed to much that's why they named their selfs after the historical tea partiers. The only problem is the original tea partiers weren't protesting paying taxes itself they were protesting being taxed without representation not how much they were being taxed. So now their being represented and they picked the wrong people if they don't like what's going on.
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
I think we are seeing some back lash from the DC & Chicago handgun bans of the past which in fact turned out just as their opposition had argued it would. To disarm law abiding citizens will only make them more vulnerable to violent crime ...
 
ThatGuy113

ThatGuy113

Well-Known Member
No one is talking about taking guns from law abiding citizens though that's the thing. Your right to own a gun as long as you havnt committed a felony or have a mental health issue your is protected. Guns don't make people independent, Jefferson would argue land ownership and the life of a farmer would make a man independent and in turn virtuous enough to participate in politics. Hamilton on the other hand thought most people would never have the ability to take their interests out of the way of the interests of the country. That's what original republicanism ideas were about. Only virtuous men could participate responsibly in politics. Virtuous meaning you can separate your self intrest from your decision making if put in a place of power.


I would agree those gun bans were not the best idea but it was a attempt none the less. We have to find a balanced approach.
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
I think it all needs to be taken in context. First and foremost, one must consider the Enlightenment Era that drove these men and their intellect. The question at that time was simply "Can man rule himself?", that is what our forefathers set out to prove true ...
 
ThatGuy113

ThatGuy113

Well-Known Member
TheMan13 said:
I think it all needs to be taken in context. First and foremost, one must consider the Enlightenment Era that drove these men and their intellect. The question at that time was simply "Can man rule himself?", that is what our forefathers set out to prove true ...
Click to expand...
They believed only certain MEN were capable and obviously we have gone a different direction. The direction is more Jeffersonian leaning more toward a expanding electorate based on the belief that people COULD become virtuous. Unfortunately we have a voting population that refuses to participate but loves to complain.



And I would believe most people claiming second amendment rights are definitely not in a militia.

As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
​
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[SUP][8][/SUP]


​
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
At this time government and religion were one and the cause of too many historical atrocities to list here. Although our forefathers knew there needed to be separation, they in no way wanted to interfere with ones right to worship. They assumed that the cultural norms of the people would not be changed nor religion hindered, but would rather expand with this given freedom. I'm sure they never foresaw this group that has been gaming such laws to the tune of freedom FROM religion ...
 
H

hic

Well-Known Member
I must say I am pleased to call both of you brother. I am happy to hear you both speak. I hope you guys can keep it friendly. I don't get alot but what I do its appreciated. I don't wanna get into the way I just wanted to pay my respects cause I respect you both right now.
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
ThatGuy113 said:
And I would believe most people claiming second amendment rights are definitely not in a militia.

As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
​
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[SUP][8][/SUP]​
Click to expand...

So true brother. I'm sure Jefferson would have foresaw:​

  • "To disarm law abiding citizens will only make them more vulnerable to violent crime ..."

    Is not tyranny a violent crime ;)​







​
 
ThatGuy113

ThatGuy113

Well-Known Member
I would never take a convo like this and not stay cool headed. The founding fathers may have hated each other fiercely but they still could get shit done together when it came down to it for the most part at least until that started fading out during the era of good feeling and eventually everyone was polarized and we got a 2 party system again which is what the founders warned against. The fact we can even have a reasonable educated discussion about it just makes me happy. I don't get to be a nerd about history openly very often so I take my chances when I can and have this convo.


Tyranny in definition doesn't automatically mean violence. It's just abuse of power.
 
H

hic

Well-Known Member
So what do you boys think shits gonna hit the fan here in the states with this notion of breaking away?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top