Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-03-2008, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Cody, WY
774 posts, read 2,577,625 times
Reputation: 399

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Relevant to the intial topic:

From The Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

If later states' admission papers say otherwise, isn't that discrimination??
The US Constitution, ratified in 1787, replaced the Articles of Confederation and its provisions. Consequently, the provisions for statehood in the US Constitution are the ones that must be met.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2008, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Sheridan, Wy
1,466 posts, read 4,049,563 times
Reputation: 652
Thumbs up Right on the money!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Here is what most people don't realise about the 2nd Amendment:

It wasn't written with the intent that as an armed citizen you could defend yourself from criminals or from foreign invaders, altho either are useful enough. It was written with the intent that Americans could take up arms against our own government in the event that said government became repressive.

Remember that the Founders had just fought a war to free themselves from an abusive government, and the Bill of Rights specifically addresses those abuses that the Colonies fought against. And the Founders recognised that NO government remains free of corruption or abuse forever, thus someday the citizens might need to take it down. THAT is what the 2nd Amendment is actually about.

As to RealID... know why the Danish gov't doesn't keep such records on its citizens? Because during WW2, the first thing the invading Nazis did was pull records from local police stations, which gave them all the info they needed on Danish citizens.

As to the supposed benefits of this or ANY legislation, consider that whoever YOU regard as the "good guys" won't be in office forever. What if someone you regard as the "bad guys" had control over the same laws?? Komrade!! your papers please!!!
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.
You hit the nail on the head Reziac! I totally agree with you...

That is very interesting about the Danish! I didn't know that... I hope it doesn't take a crisis like that to wake people up in this country, but unfortunately I think it just may... Too many are willing to give up their freedom's for so called security... When in fact giving up our rights puts us at an even greater risk...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2008, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Sheridan, Wy
1,466 posts, read 4,049,563 times
Reputation: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
My 11th grade American History teacher (at Great Falls H.S.) was big on digging up "dirt" about famous persons... made the subject more interesting, for sure. Anyway, couple things she brought up: 1) Lincoln was lead by the nose by his advisors, who certainly didn't have the country's best interests at heart, and 2) freeing the slaves wasn't done for the slaves' sake; it was done to deliberately cripple the South's economy, to the benefit of the newly powerful Northern industrialists.

As to Montana feeding at the Federal funding teat... how much of that would be necessary if most of those same tax dollars stayed at home in the first place? How many of our tax dollars are wasted by adminstrative costs as they go from Montana to D.C. and back to Montana? wouldn't it be more cost-effective if the money just stayed home? How bad off would we be, really??

As the old song goes... "got along without ya before I met ya, gonna get along without ya now..."
Reziac,
That is wonderful your teacher did that! Too many just follow along with the watered down version of history that was rewritten to be politically correct...
She was accurate in what she found. In fact there are scholars who have found the slaves were treated far worse in the northern industrialized areas. And I agree the whole slavery issue and actions were used to deliberately cripple the south. There is a really good book out there called "War Crimes" about what happened to the south during the civil war... very interesting.. I posted a few links to books a few posts back... I know there was bad treatment on both sides, but overall the south treated their prisoners of war a lot more humane and did not engage in killing innocent women and children like the north did. The north won one of their battles by starving the southern soldiers to death and withholding all supplies from them... definitely not a fair war indeed.. anyways, it is refreshing to know that you had a teacher like that

You are right on about tax also! Sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders Wish there were more like you...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2008, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Road Warrior
2,016 posts, read 5,573,267 times
Reputation: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoingHome2TX View Post
They won't. They can't. The only state with the ability to make session possible is Texas. Not because of the way the law may or may not be written, but because of industry. Texas is able to self contain herself, and did for 9 glorious years. (In terms of industry, in terms of maintaining her borders, that I doubt.) Montana has no resources aside from mining and a limited timber market, and tourism. (Her agriculture could be a respectable resource, but its limited to too narrow of a crop base to make it viable to feed a nation.) They don't pay the bills of a self-sufficent nation.

As a whole, the population is typically lazy and loud in words, but when it comes down to the actual right to remain true to their guns, I don't see Montana sticking beside them. It is way too dependant on Federal aid programs to remove itself from the equation. This is just a case of a governor with nothing to say making a loud 'look at me' remark. He knows it will never happen, he knows its an empty threat, but he wants the public attention.

I would love to be wrong on this, but I highly doubt it, and even if I am, there is no way that the state could stand on her own two legs with out outside assistance. The first thing I see the US government doing is putting up a trade embargo against the country of Montana, so she is crippled at the knees from the onset.

Add to the fact that the last 5-10 years in Montana has seen the level of left-leaning people move in and start to sway the balance of it traditionally being a right state, and you can expect the next few years to take Montana the opposite direction from what you are after or a current governor is proclaiming. It is changing and as a firearms owner, I am not happy with the direction of the change, so I am leaving as soon as possible.
Texas is also the only State that can be factioned into 2 or 3 states by federal law. I remember not so long ago Eastern Washington State voted to split it's state and it didn't pass. As for now, Montana's libertarian stance government with slight Right-leaning is probably one that's closest to what our forefathers would imagine but your right that Montana being a border state to Canada, relatively close to Washington and also the northern midwest and California diaspora would make it a left-leaning state in a couple years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2008, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Road Warrior
2,016 posts, read 5,573,267 times
Reputation: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Relevant to the intial topic:

From The Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

If later states' admission papers say otherwise, isn't that discrimination??

It's not as much about jurisdiction as it is about money, about 200 years later in the founding of our nation, we started to give up more rights for federal funding and protection, as you give the feds more power, they take away more civil and state liberties. Our founding fathers warned us ...
"that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The government should only be there to protect life, liberty and "property" and when your government starts taking that away from you, in thus they are becoming destructive. Back 200 years ago it was possible for a group of individuals to come up with small arms and defend themselves against military troops such as the history of Tennessee where volunteer force was so effective and wreaked such havoc on the British troops, Cornwallis made the threat that if the Tennesseans did not desist from their opposition to the King, the British Army would march over the mountains to lay waste to the land with "fire and Sword," and hang their leaders. In response to that threat over one-thousand more volunteers came forth to defeat the British at King's Mountain. Btw that's where I'm moving next year, Tennessee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2008, 06:40 PM
 
722 posts, read 1,106,697 times
Reputation: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Here is what most people don't realise about the 2nd Amendment:

It wasn't written with the intent that as an armed citizen you could defend yourself from criminals or from foreign invaders, altho either are useful enough. It was written with the intent that Americans could take up arms against our own government in the event that said government became repressive.
[/b][/indent][/indent]
Although I admit I worry about our government most times, I am not too sure how good I would about taking up arms with my fellow citizens in the chance that the government did become repressive. I would almost rather take my chances with the military than some of my neighbors as far as guns go. I mean, Dick Cheney seems more dangerous as a friend than a foe. How many of his enemies has he shot in the back? Yikes. I know a guy here who owns several guns and has even mistaken his wife for an intruder and pulled a gun on her. Now, does he need a gun? Really. What happens when he mistakes the postman for his wife. I dunno.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2008, 08:45 PM
 
Location: SHERIDAN
269 posts, read 828,086 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzfan View Post
Radek says:



It's clear you have taken your rationale for the Civil War (and slavery) straight from those who believe in the white supremicist movement. Next you'll probably tell us that the holocaust never occured.

I am weary of you people that have invaded this great state and have polluted it with your whacko thoughts and beliefs. The depth of your paranoia cannot be measured by me but it's plain for all to read.

The sorry fact is that this thread seems to be encouraging others of your ilk to move here. I believe you need help.
TAKE YOUR MEDS MAN-YOUR WAY OUT THERE!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2008, 10:02 PM
 
Location: The Hi-line
139 posts, read 471,515 times
Reputation: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyoman View Post
TAKE YOUR MEDS MAN-YOUR WAY OUT THERE!
Nah, Wyoman, I have to concur with Grizzfan on this and support his rant. There are far too many wackos moving...or rather hiding...in Montana these days. Someone has to speak up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2008, 07:03 PM
 
Location: SHERIDAN
269 posts, read 828,086 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetMech72 View Post
Nah, Wyoman, I have to concur with Grizzfan on this and support his rant. There are far too many wackos moving...or rather hiding...in Montana these days. Someone has to speak up.
respect your opinion jetMech-good to see a comment that has a trace of a sense of humor! Montanans will always be free and outspoken-even the gov-who seemed to start all this? Bet he's gettin a chuckle or 2? God bless you guys an gals in the big sky!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2008, 06:47 AM
 
5 posts, read 6,883 times
Reputation: 10
Default Montana to Secede

In lieu of Heller v. Washington D.C. Montana is threatening to secede if the case is decided as a collective right versus as an individual right. The following is a letter written by the Secretary of State, Brad Johnson of Montana, delivered to the Washington Times about possible outcomes of the Heller decision.
-----------------
albertjames

Montana Alcohol Addiction Treatment
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:08 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top