Western Rifle Shooters Association

Do not give in to Evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Rhodes: Montana Moves Closer to Secession

Dirt Rhodes Scholar has the details on Montana's sovereignty resolution, as recently introduced in their Legislature.

Read it all, including the comments section, in which a bold Westerner asserts:

The largest employer in Montana is the hospital and health industry. Montana also has a very large elderly population. So, secede from the Union and you lose all current SS and medical health benefits, and all future health and welfare benefits. Plus any other federal employment. In addition, one of the chief source of jobs and economy is from dams and hydroelectric power sold to the "the other 49" states, which would also be jeopardized. Montana is a "net receiver" of funding , which means it receives more money from the federal government that it provides. So take away all the subsidy too.

All because a couple of "cowboys" want to shoot their guns.


That boy's looking for a face-to-face meeting at the intersection of Tar and Feathers.

Audentes fortuna juvat.

18 Comments:

Blogger Chris said...

So, that is someone arguing against secession? Because, as I gather, Montana depends on the Federal Government? Who introduced the idea that Montana should secede?

February 18, 2009 at 3:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or at least a claimed westerner.

But alas, it is possible he is a real Montana resident. Missoula has some imported metrosexuals sipping lattes around the college campus.

February 18, 2009 at 3:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris said:

"Who introduced the idea that Montana should secede?"

As with the Kentucky Resolutions, it is a statement of principle - that the states are not helpless subsidiaries of the national government, that the Constitution was a compact between the states, and that they reserve to themselves sovereignty, and if the national government treats them as mere subsidiaries, the states can and will consider the compact dissolved.

February 18, 2009 at 4:27 AM  
Blogger Nels said...

The person you are quoting is correct: Montana is dependent on the Federal government, and the other states. If they turn their strong words into strong action, it will cost them. On the other hand, it will probably gain them a lot of very capable immigrants. It could be a great thing in the long run, if they last so long.

February 18, 2009 at 4:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The naysayers here remind me of the control-freak daddy who keeps warning his young one, when the young one yearns to spread his wings, that he'll have to pay his own way...and that it's a scary and dangerous thing...and that he really doesn't NEED to...and that he can stay right there as a serf/servant/ward where it is nice and cozy and warm and he doesn't have to burden himself with all that nasty old freedom.

Freedom isn't free. I moved to Montana to live in the last of the free states. I make my home in Montana. I run a business in Montana. I will stand with my neighbors and defend my new home. If the rest of the world wants to live in a Socialist Utopia, I say they should. Free people have the absolute right to self determination. If dissolution of the Union is the only escape from the quagmire of socialism, so be it!

There seem to be two nations called the U.S. of A.. One lives in perpetual welfare status, as envisioned by Franklin Roosevelt, not withstanding his long-winded assurances that it wasn't his intent to create wide spread dependency. The other is a nation of people who have had burden after burden heaped upon them and told repeatedly that it is their duty to carry it. They have carried it reluctantly and with long endurance. As the Declaration of Independence says, people are more apt to suffer evils while they are sufferable, than they are to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

What if...the good people of the State of Montana decide to simply drop ruck? What if they stand eye to eye with the bully in the school yard and say NO? Will there be a fight? Probably. Will they lose? That is possible. Should they do it anyway? What would a Free MAN do?

Longbow

February 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM  
Blogger idahobob said...

GO, Montana!!!!

Bob
III

February 18, 2009 at 4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha ha.

I got my self covered.

I own a house and a business in so. America. Have a little cabin also.

If nedded, i"ll just move.

Uzi.

February 18, 2009 at 10:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That boy's looking for a face-to-face meeting at the intersection of Tar and Feathers.

The commenter you refer to is speaking an opinion based on facts, but you want to beat him up while he exercises free speech. Do you want to pass a new alien and sedition act too, to criminalize and oppress accurate criticism of government? Because that's what you're talking like: a government.

February 19, 2009 at 1:08 AM  
Anonymous future Montana resident said...

My wife and I are planning on moving there after I retire from the military, and this is exactly why! I can't wait to be amongst freedom loving, true Americans again!

February 19, 2009 at 2:18 AM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

Anonymous:

Somewhere along the way, the canard that "expression of opinion exempts the speaker from accountability for that speech" entered the zeitgeist.

Horsefeathers.

Someone who expresses an opinion supporting continued subservience to the tyrants in Washington deserves the same treatment that a King's Man would have received in 1775 for his exercise of free speech in favor of King George III.

February 19, 2009 at 3:14 AM  
Blogger Stewart said...

Concerned American said...

"Anonymous, somewhere along the way, the canard that "expression of opinion exempts the speaker from accountability for that speech" entered the zeitgeist.

Horsefeathers.

Someone who expresses an opinion supporting continued subservience to the tyrants in Washington deserves the same treatment that a King's Man would have received in 1775 for his exercise of free speech in favor of King George III."

Concerned American, I understand your anger, but I have to side with anonymous on this. Freedom of conscience, and of speech, is as vital and elemental a liberty as the right to bear arms - and as hard-won.

The history of the world is a sad history of persecution of people for their thoughts, convictions, and speech, and every dictatorship ALWAYS crushes dissent and contrary views.

And often it is done by use of "unofficial" supposedly non-government actors, like the Brownshirts of Nazi Germany, who beat people, smashed windows, and burned books. Every oppressor strives to force the very thoughts of the people into its own mold.

Tar and feathering a tax collector is one thing - that the Sons of Liberty did with glee and a clear conscience since that tax collector was taking actions that violated their rights - he was a functioning tool of oppression.

Surely, if they were alive today, they would probably be tar and feathering IRS agents, and perhaps also tar and feathering men such as Rep. Bobby Rush, who has introduced legislation, HR 45, designed to treat Gun Owners as undermenchen and enslave them at the point of a gun. That is an act, not mere opinion.

But tar and feathering a man for his beliefs - initiating force against him because you disagree with his political or social stand, however contemptible, is not in keeping with the moral high ground or the principles of liberty.

I'm not saying it didn't happen in the Revolution, or won't happen in our time, but that does not make it right. We need to retain the moral high ground.

If he is running to tell the Red Coats where you and your fellow Minute Men are planning to ambush them, that would be one thing. But his simply voicing his support for the King is another.

I think Sam Adams immortal rebuke of such men is the better way to go:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

As Sam Adams knew, the best response is one of contempt, ridicule, and t most refutation of his position - not to threaten him. Frankly, at this late stage of events, if he does not yet get it, He is NOT WORTH YOUR TIME.

Let him go away from us in PEACE. We seek not his counsel nor his arms.

And just as sunlight is the best disinfectant, I think the responses to Mr. Bottlecap took care of business by calmly refuting his argument. That is far more powerful than threatening him.

Stewart

February 19, 2009 at 5:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People This is just a Smart State protecting the rights of its people. Look at the big picture.

February 19, 2009 at 5:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Somewhere along the way, the canard that "expression of opinion exempts the speaker from accountability for that speech" entered the zeitgeist.

Horsefeathers.


This speaker may have means, motive, and opportunity -- but until he has intent to physically act he has not committed a crime. Desiring to rob a bank is not a crime. Advocating bank robbery is not a crime. Actually robbing a bank is a crime. The burden is on you to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, and until you do the commenter is innocent.

Someone who expresses an opinion supporting continued subservience to the tyrants in Washington deserves the same treatment that a King's Man would have received in 1775 for his exercise of free speech in favor of King George III.

Those acts of public torture and maiming by mobs were wrong then, too. This is not the moral high ground. This is not the kind of due process you would want for yourself.

February 19, 2009 at 6:46 AM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

Anons & Stewart:

You are right.

It is wrong to tar-and-feather someone for merely speaking in support of a statist regime.

I stand corrected.

What happens, howver, when that speech moves to action, and that King's man votes to empower the state to seize

- your property via taxation

- your firearms via unconstitutional laws, and

- your freedoms via hate speech laws and other abominations.

May I morally punish that quisling at that point?

February 19, 2009 at 2:05 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

I don't believe that we will have a problem. We still export a lot of grain, tons of coal, and a lot of electricity to that power hungry Seattle area. Yes, we are a bit independent, and we are also working on a balance budget. Why should we support those states that fail to reign in their deficit spending?

We would survive, and enjoy being here while we do it. Duffers need not move here or apply.

February 19, 2009 at 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happens, howver, when that speech moves to action, and that King's man votes

Voters are not quislings, collaborators with the enemy; they are the enemy itself. Responsibility for crime runs all the way back to voters who have intent to hire thugs to enforce their will on others.

However, I believe the burden of proof is on you to distinguish between voters who have intent to tax, and voters who are merely defensively picking the least evil. A confession like "behavior so-and-so offends me and there should be a law against it" would be good evidence. Anyone who votes in support of punishment for victimless "crimes" like gay marriage, drugs, or working without a green card, has confessed.

In practice, I think voters should be forgiven. The French revolution was evil.

February 19, 2009 at 8:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gay marriage, drugs, or working without a green card

Whether these actions and attitudes are proper behavior, vice, or sin, is a matter for you to work out with your conscience. Liberty does not ask that you agree with other people's moral conclusions. Liberty merely requires that you give other people similar freedom to work out how to get to Heaven or Hell for themselves, free of the threat of conversion to a religion by the sword.

February 19, 2009 at 8:32 PM  
Blogger idahobob said...

Mark,
You stated that "Duffers need not move here or apply".

Your definition of "Duffers", please.

Bob
III

February 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home