SC Bill Would Allow Secession Debate if Feds Confiscate Legally Purchased Firearms

It’s been increasingly evident for years now that there are two Americas. Generally, left-leaning, more urban coastal strips that bracket the great flyover middle. And one of the clearest dividing lines that separates the blue from the red is the issue of guns and the right to keep and bear them.

The fear has always been that as this divide grew deeper and wider something might occur — politically or culturally — that would create a real, tangible, actual split. Now . . .

A trio of (South Carolina) House Republicans on Thursday quietly introduced a bill that would allow lawmakers to debate seceding from the U.S. “if the federal government confiscates legally purchased firearms in this State.” …

“Without a Bill of Rights, our nation is not what it is,” (Rep. Mike) Pitts said. “I see a lot of stuff where people even talk about totally repealing the Second Amendment, which separates us from the entire rest of the world.”

As you may remember from your fifth grade history class,

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union before the Civil War, voting in December 1860 to make the decision based on “increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery.”

While the media are almost sure to make plenty of hay about those crazy gun people and violent insurrection, South Carolina isn’t the first to contemplate a split.

Other states have proposed secession-related measures. In 2013, several counties moved to secede from Colorado and form their own state, an unsuccessful movement was in part driven by new gun control laws passed by the Democratic legislature.

A proposed ballot measure seeks to make California an independent nation, but proponents failed to gather enough signatures. Technically, the initiative would have formed a commission to recommend avenues for California to pursue its independence and delete part of the state constitution that says it is an inseparable part of the United States.

According to the AP . . .

South Carolina’s bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Jonathon Hill and Ashley Trantham, has no real chance this session, although Pitts said he would be sure to re-introduce it for debate next year. The deadline for bills to move from one chamber to the other is April 10.

Still, the move shows how seriously more than 100 million Americans take their civil rights. All of them. Including the right to keep and bear arms. But it’s one thing when left-leaning states like Colorado or California broach the subject. It’s sure to be seen (and portrayed) as quite another when a state like South Carolina makes such a move.

To much? Too soon?

comments

  1. avatar Tiger says:

    And we wonder why people call us gun nuts….. great idea guys. Really helps everything.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      I expect the media to make some connection between owning slaves and owning guns, at which point we say “no, that was the South Carolina Democrats, and today this is the South Carolina Republicans.” And then the whole thing is forgotten in the next news cycle over what Kim K wore to some pointless event for rich filthy people.

      1. avatar Flinch says:

        No state should be allowed to secede from the Union unless it takes Louisiana with it. And maybe Alabama too.

        If the other 49 states want to secede from Montana, that’s fine as well.

        1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Oh, how cute. Those icky fly-over states aren’t people right? They only put satellites into orbit so you can watch videos about how to eat Tide Pods, but they’re just dumb hicks, right? Fuck off, elitist shitbag.

        2. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          I’m trying to retire to Montana so I can secede from dumb shits being around me. Please follow through and reach my goals for me filch.

          P.S. Louisiana is pretty awesome. Casinos, unlicensed OC, CC, no open container laws, drive through daiquiris, hot sauces, Tony’s seasoning, Cajun Food . If it weren’t so hot, it could be my backup retirement location.

      2. avatar Mike says:

        I certainly hope not. I would NEVER whip my guns.

    2. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      So Tiger, why is the desire for freedom and fundamental civil rights now politically incorrect?

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        The “blue” folks have already made the “desire for freedom and fundamental civil rights” politically incorrect and they control the MSM, many large corporations, Academia, and K-12 education.

      2. avatar No one of consequence says:

        Because our betters on the left say so.

        1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          Its not just those on the left, you’re no one of consequence.

    3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Please elaborate. I honestly don’t know what exactly you are saying.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        I think our friend Tiger is saying “rabble rabble rabble I’m a leftist troll”. Or at least that’s what I take from it.

    4. avatar nativeson says:

      Nothing wrong with this idea. It’s the same principle that led to the American Revolution. When the government deprives it’s subjects or citizens of their unalienable rights, those people have a right to form their own government. This is particularly true when the right involved is central to preventing tyranny. The desire for freedom still burns in the hearts of millions of Americans. Good to see that on display in SC. I’d be tempted to relocate if the measure came about.

      1. avatar GunDoc says:

        Actually, it’s a needless law.

        The solution is simple, and the framework is already in place.

        No secession required. Not even exiling City States, as was my previous suggestion.

        The issue right now is the electoral stranglehold that relatively small geographical areas have on the rest of the state. And the problem is the “winner takes all” electoral vote system.

        A better, and more true to the original Founder’s intent would be to have each electoral vote (representing a congressional district within each state) go to the candidate which won in that district.

        Maine already does this. You would then see the stranglehold broken, and States like The Big Rotten Enchilada (Ka) and New Yuck Sh*tty, would suddenly not be such determining factors.

        This IS a solution, it IS attainable, and it IS a non-violent solution. Plus it would p*ss off the Leftists that want a straight up popular vote, as it more accurately and fairly represents the wishes of the people.

        Let’s start the process.

    5. avatar Lew Tripp says:

      Tell us brain child,what be your answer to repeal of 2A.

    6. avatar Gutshot says:

      Who cares? Do you think you will change lefty hearts and minds? If they had the power they desire, they would round you up and stick you in a re-education camp just for posting on a site like this. Wake the hell up. It is us and them. Period.

  2. avatar anonymoose says:

    Remember when Texas said they would secede when Obama was re-elected? We should just straight-up kick out California and NYC to save the rest of the country. We can always call on Kurt Russell if something goes wrong.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Not all of California. Just the SF Bay area, Los Angeles, parts of the coast in between, and maybe the Sacramento area.

      We want to keep San Diego – nice Navy base there.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        If the Leftist coastal cities were to secede into city-states, the effect on the balance of Congress would be a political earthquake.

        The Leftists would never be able to control the lower house again. They will be completely powerless in Washington, DC.

        And *that* would provide the motivation to finally split this country in two.

        You know, I think I’m liking the idea of coastal Leftist city-states…

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Problem is that the leftard areas are collocated with all the major ports. You can build an airport most anywhere not so for a seaport.

        The leftists have demonstrated they can take the best natural ports in the world and ruin/waste the resource by turning into yuppie residential “lofts” ghettos – NYC etc.

        1. avatar Ronnie Caldwell says:

          You have the entire gulf of Mexico and the Carolina coast for ports.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          He’s right –

          Gulf of Mexico, Charleston, South Carolina is a major port.

          You were talking about the west coast? San Diego is a *massive* port, with nice weather, to boot!

          If we split the country, we can expand existing ports in conservative-controlled areas to suit.

          And all that dredge material will make good aggregate for a big-ass WALL…

        3. avatar B-Rad says:

          If these states are so self supporting why the need for all the ports. How much are you thinking you’re going to bring in from China? Exporting energy would be to the Union states, food to the Union states, you’d have to import most of your manufactured goods from Mexico, Canada, China, and the Union states.

          Oh wait, companies will move to the Confederate states, and magic the factories in, and magic the money to pay for them. Or take loans from the NYC bankers, as that’s where the banks and money is.

          It’s far easier to make mouth noises than it is to actually deliver on them, the drunk guy at the end of the bar has an excuse of being drunk. The rural states have little infrastructure to support the ramp up from a agricultural economy to a modern one, the very reasons why the Confederate states lost the Civil War still exists. It’s not as bifurcated as it used to be, there are pockets of significant development, but it’s economically even less viable do to the cost of modern industrialization. The IMF would be happy to loan some money, only a few strings attached, don’t worry about it.

          You’d be better off looking for a Leprechaun and his pot of gold.

        4. avatar B-Rad says:

          The big ports would all be Texas ports, San Diego isn’t even a top 100 port. Its a big naval base, but that’s not the same thing.

          Most of the Texas ports are petroleum product import/export. Louisiana ports are big, but also petroleum based, Savannah has the largest container port in the south, most European car imports come through there, although that would change if the NE and West Coast are in another country.

          What kind of tariffs would be in place between the former national brethren? The reason car companies moved to the south was wages, Alabama and South Carolina were English speaking Mexico, cheap labor. If there isn’t free trade between the former states, what would manufacturers do?

          What do you do with the national debt, the blue states aren’t taking it all, so do you divide by 50, divide by where the money went, divide by population? And how are these new countries going to service that debt, you have to have a partner willing to loan the money, or forgive the debt.

          Long term, 150 years, some of this problem will solve itself, most coastal cities will be under water. Whether you think ocean levels rise because of man, or nature, they’re rising, so you could always wait it out.

        5. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Exporting energy would be to the Union states, food to the Union states,…”

          Really? Cutting off their power and food imports will ‘tame’ them into seeing things our way.

          Declare NYC sealed off. Anyone crossing bridges, in a tunnel, or swimming is now a target…

        6. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Long term, 150 years, some of this problem will solve itself, most coastal cities will be under water.”

          The coastal cities will not be standing around with their collective thumbs up their asses while the waters rise.

          We will see a massive dike system built, think along the lines of what they have in the Netherlands.

          In NYC’s case, what will likely see first is a railway trellis encircling the city, and there will be trains running non-stop hauling aggregate of some sort being dumped below the tracks. That builds the seawall.

          Over 50 years or so, that public works project will keep NYC dry, and create a lot of new real estate that can be sold to finance the dike. Imagine being able to build out NYC a good mile or so from where it is now…

        7. avatar B-Rad says:

          So:
          A: We exist in a global market, they’ just get their energy from Canada or someplace else.
          B: Where would you wall in NY, It would be south of Jersey, south of Philly, south of DC, west to central Pa, Western Ohio…This would not be city states, it would be country’s.
          C: In a shooting war, who would have the allies?

          You’d be better off playing the lottery, the chances that anything like this happening is less likely to happen. There is just a complete lack of understanding on TTAG about the reality of how the world works. It’s like people think magic is a real thing likely to fix it, do you have your wand?

        8. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Where would you wall in NY…”

          Did you read what I wrote?

          Declare NYC quarantined. First up, hunters with scoped rifles will cut the powerlines into the city, from miles away. Post notices anyone trying to leave on bridges or tunnels will be shot. A .50 cal round in the engine block of vehicles attempting to leave will clog the bridges and tunnels stopping any more traffic. Snipers will deal with those trying to leave on foot.

          Declare any boats in the water are targets. Sink them with .50 BMG and snipers can pick off the swimmers.

          At the most, 1,000 people can seal off the ‘Big Apple’.

          (Strictly hypothetical, of course…)

        9. avatar B-Rad says:

          What, is this Escape from New York, thats SciFi make believe? Quarantine a city of 10 million, you must have Harry Potter’s giant magic wand. They’ll be fine with it I suppose, and what would you define NYC as, again, what about New Jersey, Connecticut, the Atlantic Ocean, so then you’re talking about the Metro area, that’s 25 million people, you know, the population of Texas, 5 South Carolina’s, The SEC minus Florida.

          Sure, yeah, totally realistic.

        10. avatar Rick says:

          B-rad. Never counter people’s feelings with facts. They want their feelings to matter and be true. Trying explain actual true things to them is never going to work. I applaud your effort, but FEELZ is a powerful thing.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “Remember when Texas said they would secede when Obama was re-elected? ”
      Nope.

      1. avatar B-Rad says:

        There were “people” in Texas, Tennessee, etc, that posted on change.org, but every governor of those states said it was a stupid idea.

      2. A civil war is something we should avoid at ALMOST all costs. Such a war would be a bloodbath that would cost both sides more than most of us can imagine. There are actions that the free states can take to protect gun rights from federal laws that should be ruled unconstitutional:

        1) States have every right to govern their own state militias, completely separate from the federal government. One work around would be for the states simply to designate all adults not legally barred from owning firearms as members of the state militia – and then authorize them to own otherwise forbidden weapons.

        2) States could bring legal action to prevent seizures.

        3) States could move to arrest any federal representative confiscating firearms for theft.

        4) If all else fails, the free states could simply make it clear that they want a peaceful division. If whoever this future gun grabbing president is has half an ounce of wisdom, they would sit down and hammer out a deal.

  3. avatar Bloving says:

    So if the Red states would secede over guns and California will secede over what? That we won’t adopt their brand of insanity as the law of the land?
    🤠

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “…California will secede over what?”

      Open borders.

      The ‘right’ to inexpensive healthcare.

      The ‘right’ to good housing. (Apartment buildings for everyone. Except the ‘elites’. Some pigs are more equal than others, don’t you know!)

      Income inequality. Everyone’s paycheck will be tossed into one big pot and the total distributed equally among everyone. After all, it’s only ‘fair’. The ditch-digger works just as hard as the over-paid Google ‘engineer’.

      The ability to criminalize ‘hate speech’. After all, according to them, there is *zero* difference between hate speech and physical violence.

      Pretty much whatever is in the United Nations ‘Agenda 21’.

      Basically, what Venezuela is today.

      If you polled Democrats on that platform, the majority would vote for it.

      What else did I miss? I covered a few of the main points…

      1. avatar B-Rad says:

        For ever dollar paid into the federal coffers, South Carolina gets $7.87 back, and that deficit has been true since 1981. They are in fact the largest taker state in the country.

        California gets back $.94 per dollar, so they’re subsidizing South Carolina.

        Its not just blue states that are givers, the top 10 states are, Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, Kansas, New York, Colorado, Utah, New Jersey, Oklahoma. That’s pretty even mix.

        Some of that is military spending, but only a bit, $.31 of the $7.87 for South Carolina.

        Plus, you don’t need to pass a resolution to potentially debate a thing in the future, its pure virtue signaling.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Watch how fast South Carolina can adapt to the new way of doing ‘business’…

        2. avatar B-Rad says:

          They’d have to adapt, as they’d be missing 72% of their current operating income. But its good that you think it’d be easy this time.

        3. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          How B-Rad, you have literally no idea how those numbers break down. By all means let’s continue to assume “California” (coastal enclaves of dumbassery) is subsidizing other states. Not that rural California is subsidizing the whole state. Not that places in rural America or suburbia where people work for a living are subsidizing theses cities that can’t even pave a road on budget. Get a grip.

        4. avatar B-Rad says:

          Right, its primarily 5 counties in California subsidizing the rest, there are 800k millionaires in California. San Francisco county in 2015 paid more in federal taxes than the entire state of South Carolina, more as in 5X more, and there are only 864k people there, yes in 2015, almost 5k claimed INCOME over $1million, and almost half had assets over $1 million. In the 90’s the bay area was minting 1k millionaires a week, its down to only about 200 now, tech has created the largest fortune in the history of the world, in 40 years.

          California paid into federal taxes $405 Billion in 2015, South Carolina, $24 Billion.

          You can look up dated tables my MSA at https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/wp2.pdf but like I said, its dated to 2004.

          But your going to offset that with what exactly? That’s just the reality of trying to pay for a largely funding South Carolina 8X of their tax burden and borrowing from China, still mainly Canada and Britain as foreign debt owners, but China is whose been buying for the last 15 years.

        5. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Ah yes, the tech industry that magically exists completely separate from all infrastructure and public spending. The same industry that exists separate from any special legal, legislative, or taxation peculiarities. The same industry that totally has nothing to do with profiting from stolen IP or slave labor. The same industry that produces fabulously wealthy people who *NEVER* cheat on taxes.

          Kind of like real estate right? When a shit shack in the Bay sells for $2 mil, you don’t have a million plus in assest. You have an *OVERVALUED* shit shack in the Bay Area.

          This is the problem with these big cities. They become so self-aggrandized and full of themselves, they don’t know which way is up. The amount they pour into the federal coffers is irrelevant when they cause twice as much fiscal damage.

        6. avatar Rick says:

          Again, you’re countering FEELZ with facts, you’re never going to override the need and want of they’re feelings with plain facts and data.

        7. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Facts without context are as useless as tits on a bullfrog. The fact is that California is the most indebted state in the country both in terms of state debt (over $700 billion) and debt-to-income ratio (around 2.34 to 1). They also rank among the worst in terms of fiscal solvency (43 in the U.S. according to the Mercatus Center). So no, the relevancy of California’s cash generating ability is moot when they only make money, by spending even more money.

          Most of the personal debt is tied up in mortages, namely around the big cities there which has been been caused and continuously exacerbated by the tech industry. So you have an industry which has made a few people fabulously wealthy, while forcing the surronding area to support it and become debt-slaves. Nice.

  4. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    So far the feds have put it on states to implement gun laws….but I still want to know how state laws trump the Bill of Rights..
    Right of the PEOPLE…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

    1. avatar Armed Partisan says:

      The original Constitution of the Republic was essentially re-written with the implementation of the 14th Amendment (never properly ratified), which essentially nullified the various state constitutions by subjugating them to fiats from the “federal” circuit courts, and thusly, to the Central Government. This has been a double edged sword for and against individual liberty, by granting rights and citizenship to former slaves, they’ve also claimed the power to grant rights and privileges to illegal aliens; they can extend civil rights, like as determined by the Heller decision to the districts or “states” which do not value them, through MacDonald via the 14th, or they can oppress the people through the same mechanism, as with the majority of SCOTUS decisions.

  5. avatar Mad Max says:

    I think it should be the other way around. The red states/counties should vote to kick the blue states/counties out of the Union.

    It is clear that the “blue” Democrats/Leftists/Communists don’t support the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, so out with them.

  6. avatar Gary says:

    I hope someday soon states form on each other to restore the intent of the America’s the founding father’s had. The decades of professors teaching children to not think proactively to get the grades; have let socialism gain a gathering. National dependency endorsed by the DNC have degraded the principles of a Republic to the point it’s near death. It’s now people who want a Republic verses people who want a Socialist State. People who want freedom will need a landscape to form on & it will be America. The last terra of freedom. It just won’t be a coastline. Also as before, there won’t be enough capitol to fight the trillions of the left. If there had been term limits and money limits America perhaps might have made a success. But the founders could not fathom the greed and lack of character man has embraced. A Godless country.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      There are some “red” areas on the map above connecting the coasts to the heartland. We best fortify the “red” in those areas.

      1. avatar Flinch says:

        You got a lot of work to do. Three fourths of the red on that map covers areas with less than 10 people per square mile.

        All of Alaska is red. Priceless.

        1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          Hogwash, just because most of the people live in the blue parts, and 70% of GDP happens in those areas, and most of the military bases, as well as most of the enlisted folk; we’ll be perfectly fine selling them food. Since they have the coasts and all the money, we don’t need to pay for a military, just our borders to keep out the dirty brown people.

        2. avatar You're brain on knowledge says:

          Wife Flour

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “…Hogwash, just because most of the people live in the blue parts,…”

          Nope, it’s about 50-50 for all practical purposes. Lower house representatives are assigned by population, and the House balance has been teetering D to R for about 40 years now…

        4. avatar Mad Max says:

          How much of the GDP in the blue areas is generated by money changing, crony capitalism, and bureaucracy?

          How much of the red areas GDP is created by making things and producing food and other commodities?

          In other words, if money became useless, which areas would have the physical and natural resources to survive without the other?

  7. avatar Armed Partisan says:

    Clearly, honorable secession is not possible, since the Central Government will use the combined might of the remaining “states” to blockade, invade, starve, and bombard your population into submission. Law plays no part in this action, and they can do whatever they want to you, because “might makes right” is the law of empires.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Why don’t we “gerrymand” a new “United States” from the map above?

      It looks technically possible.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        Or just get state based electoral colleges in place. Think of the local government you would get if the largest cities didn’t have their thumbs on the scales? Plenty of good deplorable people in the flyover go underrepresented.

        1. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

          State-based ECs would only be good for governor’s races. Otherwise, the individual state legislatures play the same role as the House and Senate at the federal level do.

      2. avatar Armed Partisan says:

        Because the blue areas are held in sway by bribery and taxes, and without this intravenous drip of support from the red areas, tens of thousands of lazy, stupid and greedy blue staters will die of starvation and cold, and they will fight for the ability to keep feeding on the rest of us. They will follow any demagogue that promises them more, which is why they vote for the “blue” party (which is actually red) in the first place.
        They are dependent on the red areas for taxes, and have a large (around half, if not larger) percentage of the population overall; that means that they have millions of possble conscripts for a zombie hoard of soldiers they can send against any part of the country that wishes to be independent of the central government’s abuses (and taxes), which is why we need to keep our arms.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          “that means that they have millions of possble conscripts for a zombie hoard of soldiers they can send against any part of the country that wishes to be independent of the central government’s abuses (and taxes), which is why we need to keep our arms”;

          …and marksmanship skills!

          It helps to conserve ammo in these situations. Make every shot count.

        2. avatar B-Rad says:

          Actually the fiscal reality is fundamentally the opposite of what your saying.

          South Carolina is the worst taker state, Utah is among the most fiscally successful, but the view of conservatism between Utah and South Carolina is very different. In fact, the SEC states are the worst. You might have a point if you punt them into their own 2nd world nation.

          So you’d end up with New England, Pacific Rim, Upper Midwest, Desert Southwest, SEC Football Nation, and the Mountain West. Or South: Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba.

      3. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        Might be easier to just take out the trash. Take a look at how red Maine is. In fact take a look at what surrounds that cesspool called Massachusetts.

        1. avatar B-Rad says:

          Maine is pretty darn purple. Look at the population, just in the small counties in the Downearstern part of the state around Portland, that’s 80% of the population. Piscataquis County is 4 times larger and only has 16k people, 1/45th the population. Aroostook County is massive yet only has 68k people, 200k less than Cumberland County. Looking at the map doesn’t tell you much of the actual story.

        2. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

          The map’s color means little. I think it was every county but one in New York state is against the SAFE Act. NY is mostly red if you go by the counties. But the few blue areas, Albany and NYC, have significantly more people.

        3. avatar Rick says:

          Right, and in America, people are citizens, not just landowners, and definitely acres. It’s not 1 acre 1 vote.

        4. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          @B-Rad Downeast is actually the upper coastal portion of Maine. It comes from sailing terminology IE: “sailing downwind towards the East”.

          Yes the Portland area is 80% of the population, that’s why we refer to it derisively as “Little Massachusetts”. As a pocket of Libtardism none of them will know what to do when the SHTF.

        5. avatar Rick says:

          So you’re saying that 8 out of 10 people in the entire state are in that area, but they don’t count because they’re not on your team. It’s only small minority of rural people that count.

          OK, gotcha.

  8. avatar Moltar says:

    Fun question of the day: What do you think would be happening now if we had stayed with the original Articles of Confederation rather than ratifying the Constitution?

    Ok now on to the real post. If states want to leave the union by all means let them. Let every state that wishes to become its own nation and then watch and see which states thrive and which fall into decay. That’s the only way we’ll see exactly what liberal policies will do to a nation. Sure you can say Venezuela, Germany, Russia, Laos, Vietnam, China, North Korea, uhhh what was I talking about again? Oh yeah you can show liberals failed nation after failed nation and their retort will always be the same.

    “That happened there and it will never happen here.” or some variation of that. They will never understand exactly what their masters are working towards unless they experience it first hand. Right now it’s fun to think about everyone being truly equal and everything being provided for you but in actual practice you’ll all be dirt poor and starving.

    1. avatar B-Rad says:

      Economically, you putting in Venezuela and Germany together, or politically, or what? You can’t get a more inverse relationship than that.

  9. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

    Some people want to secedeao they can take care of their own stuff for themselves.

    Other people want to secede in a snit because they can’t tell everydamn body else exactly what to do enough.

    These seem different to me.

  10. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

    Some people want to secede so they can take care of their own stuff for themselves.

    Other people want to secede in a snit because they can’t tell everydamnbody else exactly what to do enough.

    These seem different to me.

  11. avatar neiowa says:

    Most of the issues identified, including the “bluezones” would be resolved by correcting the apportionment of house representatives/districts. Only an idiot would argue that a person not eligible to vote should be counted for apportionment of house rep as we have been doing for decades. Stop counting (or eject) 30million illegals and 15million resident aliens and totally fix the problem. That = SIXTY (60) Congressmen (of 435) that are in the wrong state/location due to fraud. And this also distorts the presidential electoral college putting recent socialist (and rinos) in the Whitehouse.

    Komifornia that would be something over 5million squatters which means the state has STOLEN at least SEVEN (7) congressmen from other states (Red). Same for Chiraqu, NYC, Houston, and every other major urban cesspool. Get rid of 5million + aliens in Ca and the place would again be livable with adequate water, roads, clean air and reasonable housing costs. Might be worth visiting.

    You wondered why the progs are in a lather over plan to ask nationality on the 2020 census?

    A correct census would also prove that ALL the population growth in the US in recent decades has been aliens. The same as the rest of the civilized Western world.

  12. avatar Lowell says:

    No, there are Americans, and there are FAKE-Americans.

    Real Americans are citizens. Citizens take on the responsibility of the common defense and civic action. Not coincidentally, this type of person is generally suburban to rural.

    FAKE Americans are rabbits/pets that want to be taken care of. They want to be subjects/slaves and have others run their lives and do the heavy lifting. Not coincidentally, this is generally a surplus person that only exists only because of the excess resources available in the large cities which allow them to make a living doing useless things that produce nothing. In a prolonged economic collapse, they will migrate to other areas or even countries in search of easy resources, or starve.

    In a civil war after gun confiscation is attempted, their end will be a bit messier than that.

    1. avatar Lowell says:

      The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans
      https://www_anonymousconservative_com/blog/vox-quotes-sociobiology/

      ” ‘ From Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by E.O. Wilson

      The availability and quality of food can also move groups along behavioral scales. Well-fed honeybee colonies are very tolerant of intruding workers from nearby hives, letting them penetrate the nest and even take supplies. But when the same colonies are allowed to go without food for several days, they attack every intruder at the nest entrance. In general, primates also become increasingly intolerant of strangers and aggressive toward other group members during times of food shortages.’

      Know the mechanism. Pleasure/dopamine shuts off the amygdala. The amygdala, once shut off, functions differently, and produces less drive to conflict. But the amygdala discomfort which drives conflict also drives one to sacrifice for loyalty, which is what produces the high rearing drive. Fail to rear your child optimally, and that is your amygdala acting up. And the amygdala is also the brain structure which is responsible for sexual arousal.

      So alter that one structure’s function using resource availability, and you alter the drive to conflict. But you also alter loyalty, rearing drive, and sexual drive, and together that is the full suite of r/K drives. It is the K suite of aggression/competitiveness/protectiveness, monogamy, two-parent high rearing, which produces later sexualization of offspring, and loyalty to group. And it is the r-selected suite of conflict-aversion, promiscuity, single-parent low-rearing, which produces early sexualization of young, and no drive to group loyalty.

      ….As you delve into it, you will begin to see the difference between the builders of civilization and the destroyers of it. You will see the embrace of family and love for the young, and selfish destruction of all of it. You will see the creation and embrace of one’s culture and national identity, and a burning desire to destroy it. You will see the desire to let everyone attain their own happiness, vs the drive to destroy happiness for everyone. You will see early America, vs modern day Venezuela. As you get to the bottom, you begin to see good vs evil.”

      Even if like me, you don’t believe in evolution, this is valuable information about the effects of the sin nature on living things. How it destroys people, and how those people in turn destroy whole civilizations.

  13. avatar Wild Bill says:

    South Carolina, sanctuary state for The Constitution.

  14. avatar LRP Totin Mrs says:

    Three little words for South Carolina….GO FOR IT! Because a gun totin’ US would do jest fine:

    1. The newly formed red union would grow most of the food and produce most of the energy and raw materials, so without red the blue would starve.
    2. Enterprise would relocate from the ostensibly business unfriendly blue states to the more lassez-faire red, so red would have all the jobs.
    3. Job growth and immigration as of late has been from blue states to red. This is an implicit endorsement of red US
    4. The red union would have a more powerful military
    5. The fractured geography of the newly formed blue union would be a logistical nightmare

    Again to South Carolina…GO FOR IT.

  15. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I don’t use the word hate to often. But I hate the fact that the North Easterners that have moved down to the tri county area of Florida I live in. Have completely fucked it up.
    Given the chance to move to a “Free” state that has seceded. Id be there in a heartbeat.

  16. avatar Texican says:

    Secession is a viable plan when necessary. Just don’t be as polite as the South was and you’ll eventually win if force of arms are required. For those who think the question was settled let me give an analogy. Suppose you were a member of a shooting range/club and things were great in the beginning. Your membership, ammo, and rental guns were inexpensive and safety rules were followed. But then a new board of directors was elected and they raised the prices astronomically And allow unsafe practices to go on. You decide to discontinue your membership and politely say so. The board then tells you, you can’t leave and you have to pay what we say. You say that you’re leaving anyway and go home. Then the board sends lackeys with guns to force you to comply. What do you do then? It’s the same principle applied to states. No one should be allowed to force you to have a relationship with them if you choose otherwise.

  17. avatar Mutt says:

    As long as the federal government can dole out money, it will grow in power. In order to reduce its power, we must somehow reduce its ability to dole out money.

    Would there have been an American revolution in 1776 if 50% of the colonists were getting a check every month from the British government?

  18. avatar Salty Bear says:

    Secession is an idea whose time is long overdue. A state that wants to secede, but holds off because of fear of violence from the federal government is like a woman who fears leaving her abusive husband because she’s afraid he’ll kill her – it just further illustrates the need and justification for leaving.

    There is literally nothing more “American” than secession. If we don’t have the right to freely associate, then we are slaves, and a government that forces us to be a part of it is good for what, exactly?

  19. avatar CZJay says:

    There are a bunch of counties in California that are trying to become their own State [New California].

  20. avatar MT Guy says:

    In Montana and Idaho, we would love to cut off the water spigot to Portland, OR. Oh, and the electricity from our dams as well.

  21. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    California has people talking of secession, so no reason why other states can’t. I doubt the government would be able to do much though if the South decided to secede today, as a majority of the infantry soldiers are pulled from the Southern states and the Southern states and flyover states have the most armed populations.

  22. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    We need to smash up California like peanut brittle and force the big cities to become their own political entities. Secession definitely needs to be on the table, as does denying the ability to vote to anyone who is on the dole. The takers can not live without the makers, and have no place telling us how to live our lives.

  23. avatar David 6 says:

    I live in Georgia & want Georgia to leave the Union as well if they try to appeal the 2nd Amendment. I was in the military & swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic. I was never relieved of my oath & I will willingly give my life in defense of the Constitution. I hope & pray ALL active, reserve & inactive military will honor the oath they swore.

  24. avatar Johnnyreb says:

    I forget the name of the federal court case that changed us to the red blue situation we have now in regards to how Congressmen are apportioned within a state. But what used to be is that many if not most states they were apportioned by district, by geography, and not by simple population numbers. So that cities could not “rule” their rural counties within a state. And Congressional districts were much the same. But that case changed all that, and put the power into the hands of the cities. by making making it all about the numbers only, so many people per seat in the state house and in Congress. And in these modern times, doing it that way, the city will always dominate. It is also why election districts are always being redrawn, due to changing population numbers.

    Say for instance in the Arkansas legislature, it was 1 state rep per county, period. Then that means Little Rock gets 1 state rep. And my own county, with 12,000 or so people, also gets 1 state rep. But now Little Rocks gets multiple reps, and my rural county gets lumped in with several others to share a single rep.

    There are 75 counties in Arkansas, and 100 state reps.

    Just like how our Senators were once mostly elected by their state legislatures but are now elected by popular vote due to an amendment to the Constitution made just after WWI. It has changed how our government works and whose voices they are most disposed to pay heed to.

    Why are we seeing so many different states with movements to secede? To break up their state? Remember, the South did not vote to leave the Union until it became clear that even as a unified block, they would be outnumbered and outvoted in the House and the Senate. Just like all those red counties in California who know damned well that their votes mean nothing as long as they are in the same state with those blue cities who are in effect ruling as a tyranny in all but a small geographic area in California.

  25. avatar Warlocc says:

    You guys that think “The red states would be FINE- better off even!” are crazy.

    At this point, most states are ridiculously interdependent beyond comprehension.

    1. avatar Hoosier Ed says:

      @Warlocc: True, but that is a double edge sword. See my comment about TX. If they decide to go their own way, that state has one HUMONGOUS trump card over the rest of the states: most of the nation’s gasoline is refined in TX. And before you say that the U.S. would send forces to secure those refineries, I’m sure the citizens of that great state would not allow them “easy access.”

  26. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Confiscate my gunz,,. REALLY,,you’d better wait until I’m in of my “,fuck it all , I give up moods”, right now is not a good time. Juss sayin

  27. avatar Hoosier Ed says:

    I tend to think if/when the assumed “Revolution II” starts, it will be similar to what happened in the former Soviet Union. A relatively bloodless break away. Most Americans do not have the stomach for hardcore bloodshed. Texas will probably be the first to make the move, and the most likely to be successful; prompting other nearby states to throw in their lot with Texas. Moreover, Texas is large, very conservative, and has abundant natural resources. However, if SC wants to start the conversation first, so much the better.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Hurrah for the Bonnie Red/White/Blue flag that bears a single star?

      1. avatar Hoosier Ed says:

        God bless Texas!!!

  28. I love seeing that red/blue county map. Not one blue county in Oklahoma.

  29. avatar Jacobite says:

    There aren’t two Americas. ‘Red areas’ are America and ‘Blue areas’ aren’t. The US Democratic party is anti-white, anti-Christian, and anti-European/Christian/Western Civilization.

  30. avatar david kershaw says:

    WTF….no one is talking about confiscating guns.

    1. avatar Hoosier Ed says:

      @david Kershaw: Not yet, but give the Libtards time. Disarmament is the ultimate goal of the Left.

  31. avatar Lawrence Ness says:

    Where do you people get this nonsense about the government taking away your guns? Even over here on the far left, that is not an issue that anyone is debating. The problem is the opposite: many gun owners refuse to hang on to their guns – they want to sell them to anyone, no questions asked (via the so-called “gun show loophole”), and they flow like a river into the eager hands of criminals and Central American drug lords (see homicide rates for Honduras and Guatemala, which drive immigration into the US). For licensed dealers, policies that allow people to have guns if their applications cannot be approved in 3 days have a similar effect. This is especially a problem for buyers with criminal histories, where assembling court and other records takes time.

  32. avatar John J. says:

    Satan wants us disarmed worse than ever. I wonder why

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email