Debate Now I'm Leaving! Who Is With Me?

[Foxfyre]

Anyone who watched the short lived TV series, Utopia, knows how this "New America" is going to turn out.

Well I watched a bit of Utopia and I am a student of American history. So I don't know how this "New America' is going to turn out if we manage to attract enough people with the will to get into the spirit of the discussion. Or those doing their damndest to derail it may prevail. We'll just have to see how it turns out.

Why would it turn out any different? A bunch of people trying to establish their own version of utopia, protected by a "new constitution." Only what are you going to do with the belligerents who refuse to conform? They're not going to leave willingly like the ones banished on the TV show.

In the end, it will end the same. Discombobulated and ended ubruptly for lack of interest and funding.

Well, if you're mind is made up then you no doubt won't enjoy doing the exercise. I hope you find a thread more to your liking.

 

[Foxfyre]

Personally, I think a constitution would be as worthless as the paper it is written on since most who form such rules and policies are looking out for themselves somewhere down the road.
I liken it to The Walking Dead. Apocalypse happens. Little groups here, big groups there, all doing what works for that one particular group. Trying to run a country this size with ONE set of laws might not fit what is right for each little group (state or town or village within that particular state).

This is way over my head and will give me a headache trying to express what IS in my head but I cannot post it well enough like some here are so good at.

So no. I would not be interested in ANY large government or "constitution".....the one now...or the one being formed. It's worthless.

I'm sure glad the Founders were more optimistic than that. I just happen to be one of those stubborn fools who doesn't easily acknowledge that something can't be done. I happen to believe God gives us no poison for which there is no anecdote somewhere. And he doesn't give us problems that have no solutions. It just requires some hard work to find them sometimes.

 

[Gracie]

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Correct.

The OP lays out very-well a couple of parameters worth thinking about, but it should be painfully clear that in a world of 7+ billion people, where most of the inhabitable part of this world is pretty heavily populated, that any kind of insurrection requires:

a.) a plan
b.) dedication
c.) a physical infrastructure
d.) firepower
e.) allies

The American insurrection of the 1770s (which we call our Revolution) had a plan and certainly a huge amount of dedication, but little physical infrastructure was there. Without the allies we found in the Germans and the French, I doubt we would have survived the Revolutionary War. Seeing that his army was sorely lacking, Washington himself asked Prussian General Steuben to take over the training of the fledgling army.

The point I am making is that insurrections do not happen in a vacuum.

Because let's be real here: by theorizing that a group of states would secede from a US Government that would be highly unlikely to take it lying down, we are talking about insurrection - which means bloodshed, tears and tragedy. Which means that a lot of the Basketcases would also be dead basketcases. Just to keep a grip on reality, here..

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. We first have to decide what sort of nation we want to have and who wants to be a part of it. THEN you start figuring out how to make it happen. Trying to do the logistics without knowing what it is you want to accomplish won't get us there.

Oh, uh, sorry about that.



But in my humble defense, if you look at your posting no. 2, you get pretty deep into nuts and bolts stuff of a country after is is formed, which means we have to get through and survive the insurrection, right?

I disagree. My Post #2 points to issues that have to be debated and whatever compromises are necessary agreed on before we know what to write into the new Constitution.

I think those joining New America will not be the type to want to continue to give the government the power to take whatever of our resources it wants as it takes now, but the new government will have to be funded. No doubt some compromise and give and take will be necessary to accomplish agreement on how to do that.

Already one member has expressed his concern over not including the 14th amendment in the original document and expressed his reasons for that. And while I probably disagree with him on that particular issue, it is THAT kind of intelligent debate I was shooting for with this thread. It is an important issue and it is probably some kind of compromise would have to be hammered out after all the pros and cons are fully aired.

Well, ok.

First, the new constitution would need no amendments. The things that we call amendments in the US Constitution would be enshrined in the original articles of the Constitution of the Breadbasket Basketcase States of America.

The question would then be as to the wording and scope,and also, whether anything is missing.

Is that intelligent enough for you?

Has nothing to do with intelligence. But I am one who wants the Bill of Rights in place at the signing. So we're already at a point of disagreement that would have to be worked out.

Uh, the Bill of Rights was a necessary stop-gap to get the 13 colonies to sign-on, which is kind of ridiculous, since they could have simply been enshrined in the original document as part of the normal articles of governing. But that is just cosmetic: what is in a Constitution is law is law is law and therefore binding.

One would think that if you want to start with a fresh slate, then you can just as well format the Constitution first without amendments. Amendments should come later, WELL AFTER ratification.

But on that subject: do you want your new Republic to appoint judges, or elect them, and maybe with term-limits?

 

[Statistikhengst]

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.

I wonder where the term "rolling" came from. Isn't "rattling" more appropriate?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. We first have to decide what sort of nation we want to have and who wants to be a part of it. THEN you start figuring out how to make it happen. Trying to do the logistics without knowing what it is you want to accomplish won't get us there.

Oh, uh, sorry about that.



But in my humble defense, if you look at your posting no. 2, you get pretty deep into nuts and bolts stuff of a country after is is formed, which means we have to get through and survive the insurrection, right?

I disagree. My Post #2 points to issues that have to be debated and whatever compromises are necessary agreed on before we know what to write into the new Constitution.

I think those joining New America will not be the type to want to continue to give the government the power to take whatever of our resources it wants as it takes now, but the new government will have to be funded. No doubt some compromise and give and take will be necessary to accomplish agreement on how to do that.

Already one member has expressed his concern over not including the 14th amendment in the original document and expressed his reasons for that. And while I probably disagree with him on that particular issue, it is THAT kind of intelligent debate I was shooting for with this thread. It is an important issue and it is probably some kind of compromise would have to be hammered out after all the pros and cons are fully aired.

Well, ok.

First, the new constitution would need no amendments. The things that we call amendments in the US Constitution would be enshrined in the original articles of the Constitution of the Breadbasket Basketcase States of America.

The question would then be as to the wording and scope,and also, whether anything is missing.

Is that intelligent enough for you?

Has nothing to do with intelligence. But I am one who wants the Bill of Rights in place at the signing. So we're already at a point of disagreement that would have to be worked out.

Uh, the Bill of Rights was a necessary stop-gap to get the 13 colonies to sign-on, which is kind of ridiculous, since they could have simply been enshrined in the original document as part of the normal articles of governing. But that is just cosmetic: what is in a Constitution is law is law is law and therefore binding.

One would think that if you want to start with a fresh slate, then you can just as well format the Constitution first without amendments. Amendments should come later, WELL AFTER ratification.

But on that subject: do you want your new Republic to appoint judges, or elect them, and maybe with term-limits?

Again, New America is starting out as a far more complex and diverse people than was the case when the first Constitution was signed and ratified. So I want the Bill of Rights in place at the beginning.

As for judges, I have absolutely no preference how we get them so long as they are qualified to understand and apply the intended application of the law. I do want a constitutional provision that explicitly forbids judges to change existing law or write their own law. I do not want Presidents or other politicians or bureaucrats to be able to use the courts to bypass the will of the people.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oh, uh, sorry about that.



But in my humble defense, if you look at your posting no. 2, you get pretty deep into nuts and bolts stuff of a country after is is formed, which means we have to get through and survive the insurrection, right?

I disagree. My Post #2 points to issues that have to be debated and whatever compromises are necessary agreed on before we know what to write into the new Constitution.

I think those joining New America will not be the type to want to continue to give the government the power to take whatever of our resources it wants as it takes now, but the new government will have to be funded. No doubt some compromise and give and take will be necessary to accomplish agreement on how to do that.

Already one member has expressed his concern over not including the 14th amendment in the original document and expressed his reasons for that. And while I probably disagree with him on that particular issue, it is THAT kind of intelligent debate I was shooting for with this thread. It is an important issue and it is probably some kind of compromise would have to be hammered out after all the pros and cons are fully aired.

Well, ok.

First, the new constitution would need no amendments. The things that we call amendments in the US Constitution would be enshrined in the original articles of the Constitution of the Breadbasket Basketcase States of America.

The question would then be as to the wording and scope,and also, whether anything is missing.

Is that intelligent enough for you?

Has nothing to do with intelligence. But I am one who wants the Bill of Rights in place at the signing. So we're already at a point of disagreement that would have to be worked out.

Uh, the Bill of Rights was a necessary stop-gap to get the 13 colonies to sign-on, which is kind of ridiculous, since they could have simply been enshrined in the original document as part of the normal articles of governing. But that is just cosmetic: what is in a Constitution is law is law is law and therefore binding.

One would think that if you want to start with a fresh slate, then you can just as well format the Constitution first without amendments. Amendments should come later, WELL AFTER ratification.

But on that subject: do you want your new Republic to appoint judges, or elect them, and maybe with term-limits?

Again, New America is starting out as a far more complex and diverse people than was the case when the first Constitution was signed and ratified. So I want the Bill of Rights in place at the beginning.

As for judges, I have absolutely no preference how we get them so long as they are qualified to understand and apply the intended application of the law. I do want a constitutional provision that explicitly forbids judges to change existing law or write their own law. I do not want Presidents or other politicians or bureaucrats to be able to use the courts to bypass the will of the people.

But that's the point, Foxy. Getting what we call the bill of rights in at the beginning means it's just as easy to write them into the original document and not tack them on as the 1st ten amendments. If the founders could have gotten all of the colonies to agree to the 10 amendments before the original signing, surely they would have been in the articles of the Constitution and not tacked on later.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree. My Post #2 points to issues that have to be debated and whatever compromises are necessary agreed on before we know what to write into the new Constitution.

I think those joining New America will not be the type to want to continue to give the government the power to take whatever of our resources it wants as it takes now, but the new government will have to be funded. No doubt some compromise and give and take will be necessary to accomplish agreement on how to do that.

Already one member has expressed his concern over not including the 14th amendment in the original document and expressed his reasons for that. And while I probably disagree with him on that particular issue, it is THAT kind of intelligent debate I was shooting for with this thread. It is an important issue and it is probably some kind of compromise would have to be hammered out after all the pros and cons are fully aired.

Well, ok.

First, the new constitution would need no amendments. The things that we call amendments in the US Constitution would be enshrined in the original articles of the Constitution of the Breadbasket Basketcase States of America.

The question would then be as to the wording and scope,and also, whether anything is missing.

Is that intelligent enough for you?

Has nothing to do with intelligence. But I am one who wants the Bill of Rights in place at the signing. So we're already at a point of disagreement that would have to be worked out.

Uh, the Bill of Rights was a necessary stop-gap to get the 13 colonies to sign-on, which is kind of ridiculous, since they could have simply been enshrined in the original document as part of the normal articles of governing. But that is just cosmetic: what is in a Constitution is law is law is law and therefore binding.

One would think that if you want to start with a fresh slate, then you can just as well format the Constitution first without amendments. Amendments should come later, WELL AFTER ratification.

But on that subject: do you want your new Republic to appoint judges, or elect them, and maybe with term-limits?

Again, New America is starting out as a far more complex and diverse people than was the case when the first Constitution was signed and ratified. So I want the Bill of Rights in place at the beginning.

As for judges, I have absolutely no preference how we get them so long as they are qualified to understand and apply the intended application of the law. I do want a constitutional provision that explicitly forbids judges to change existing law or write their own law. I do not want Presidents or other politicians or bureaucrats to be able to use the courts to bypass the will of the people.

But that's the point, Foxy. Getting what we call the bill of rights in at the beginning means it's just as easy to write them into the original document and not tack them on as the 1st ten amendments. If the founders could have gotten all of the colonies to agree to the 10 amendments before the original signing, surely they would have been in the articles of the Constitution and not tacked on later.

That is something that could be argued yes. I honestly don't care how it is done so long as it gets done.

But I guess I am pretty stuck to the formal system that we have making constitutions that lay out the administrative roles, duties, requirements, and limitations of government and then you have the bylaws which lay out the practical application of those constitutional requirements. The Bill of Rights are not procedural but are principles that must be held inviolate. So I favor a separate document for those but backed and defended by the full authority of the Constitution.

 

[Carla_Danger]

This discussion is intended as a hypothetical based on a 'what if' concept. Those who don't enjoy using imagination and creativity to discuss an idea or concept will probably not enjoy participation in the exercise. Those who do are encouraged to have fun with it, but while the process can be light hearted, the concept within it is not. It is quite serious.

The hypothetical:

I have acquired a quite large tract of land in central Kansas, the geographic center of the continental United States. And I propose a new Declaration of Independence that will announce our secession from Washington DC and will form a new nation with a new government seated on my tract of land that I will donate for that purpose.

The Declaration will contain all the necessary eloquent language and statements of our beliefs, purpose, and reasons for secession as did the original, but can be summarized something like this:

Whereas the government of the United States of America has long violated the principles therein, has far exceeded its authority, and has become oppressive and detrimental to the people by reinterpreting or ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America, it has become necessary to disassociate ourselves from that government.

We will take the best of the existing U.S. Constitution as the model for a new nation. This Constitution will be 'cleaned up' so that the original intent of the various articles and Bill of Rights will not be easily misinterpreted. (All other existing amendments would have to be debated and re-adopted.) And a new Constitution will reflect a society that has moved beyond the patriarchal and racial assumptions of our historical past and secure the rights of all on an equal basis.

The government will be charged to secure the unalienable rights of the people, among which are life, liberty, property, and pursuit of one's own prosperity and happiness.

The central goverment will also provide the common defense, promote (not provide) the blessings of liberty to all, enact such legislation as is necessary for various states to function as one nation. The government will also restore the power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have and live their lives as they choose to live them without central government interference.​

So who is with me? Who would like their state to join with others who want a do-over and a chance to get it right this time?

Rules for this discussion:

1. No ad hominem or personal attacks directed to members, political parties, or ideologies (liberals, conservatives, etc.) The topic is not what other members or Republicans/Democrats, etc. think, want, hope for, or any other such personal observations. Keep it civil and on topic.

2. Words can mean different things to different people. Do not assume that a term used by one person means the same thing it means to another and be prepared to define the terms used in your argument.

3. Links can be useful but are not required. If you do use them, post a illustrative paragraph or two that makes the point you want to make with the link or explain in your own words a summary of what your linked material will tell us.


THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED:

You have an opportunity to participate in a process of disassociating with the current U.S. government and forming a new nation. Would you be interested in representing your state? No yes or no answers please. Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

Hey, more power to ya! I think we should build a fence around Kansas. LOL!

 

[Foxfyre]

This discussion is intended as a hypothetical based on a 'what if' concept. Those who don't enjoy using imagination and creativity to discuss an idea or concept will probably not enjoy participation in the exercise. Those who do are encouraged to have fun with it, but while the process can be light hearted, the concept within it is not. It is quite serious.

The hypothetical:

I have acquired a quite large tract of land in central Kansas, the geographic center of the continental United States. And I propose a new Declaration of Independence that will announce our secession from Washington DC and will form a new nation with a new government seated on my tract of land that I will donate for that purpose.

The Declaration will contain all the necessary eloquent language and statements of our beliefs, purpose, and reasons for secession as did the original, but can be summarized something like this:

Whereas the government of the United States of America has long violated the principles therein, has far exceeded its authority, and has become oppressive and detrimental to the people by reinterpreting or ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America, it has become necessary to disassociate ourselves from that government.

We will take the best of the existing U.S. Constitution as the model for a new nation. This Constitution will be 'cleaned up' so that the original intent of the various articles and Bill of Rights will not be easily misinterpreted. (All other existing amendments would have to be debated and re-adopted.) And a new Constitution will reflect a society that has moved beyond the patriarchal and racial assumptions of our historical past and secure the rights of all on an equal basis.

The government will be charged to secure the unalienable rights of the people, among which are life, liberty, property, and pursuit of one's own prosperity and happiness.

The central goverment will also provide the common defense, promote (not provide) the blessings of liberty to all, enact such legislation as is necessary for various states to function as one nation. The government will also restore the power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have and live their lives as they choose to live them without central government interference.​

So who is with me? Who would like their state to join with others who want a do-over and a chance to get it right this time?

Rules for this discussion:

1. No ad hominem or personal attacks directed to members, political parties, or ideologies (liberals, conservatives, etc.) The topic is not what other members or Republicans/Democrats, etc. think, want, hope for, or any other such personal observations. Keep it civil and on topic.

2. Words can mean different things to different people. Do not assume that a term used by one person means the same thing it means to another and be prepared to define the terms used in your argument.

3. Links can be useful but are not required. If you do use them, post a illustrative paragraph or two that makes the point you want to make with the link or explain in your own words a summary of what your linked material will tell us.


THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED:

You have an opportunity to participate in a process of disassociating with the current U.S. government and forming a new nation. Would you be interested in representing your state? No yes or no answers please. Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

Hey, more power to ya! I think we should build a fence around Kansas. LOL!

Kansas is the geographical center of the lower 48 which is why Kansas was selected for the seat of government. And we lived there for a lot of years. Good folks in Kansas.

But Kansas does not have enough population or area or resources of its own to make a really viable country. So it will be necessary for other states to secede with it. Hopefully 49 other states.

 

[Faun]

Anyone who watched the short lived TV series, Utopia, knows how this "New America" is going to turn out.

Well I watched a bit of Utopia and I am a student of American history. So I don't know how this "New America' is going to turn out if we manage to attract enough people with the will to get into the spirit of the discussion. Or those doing their damndest to derail it may prevail. We'll just have to see how it turns out.

Why would it turn out any different? A bunch of people trying to establish their own version of utopia, protected by a "new constitution." Only what are you going to do with the belligerents who refuse to conform? They're not going to leave willingly like the ones banished on the TV show.

In the end, it will end the same. Discombobulated and ended ubruptly for lack of interest and funding.

Well, if you're mind is made up then you no doubt won't enjoy doing the exercise. I hope you find a thread more to your liking.

Right now, I like this one, thanks.

You've now violated the Kansas state Constitution and have brought the Kansas National guard down on you. You've also violated the U.S. Constitution and have the U.S. military bearing down on you. How do you propose lasting longer than Utopia lasted on TV?

 

[Carla_Danger]

This discussion is intended as a hypothetical based on a 'what if' concept. Those who don't enjoy using imagination and creativity to discuss an idea or concept will probably not enjoy participation in the exercise. Those who do are encouraged to have fun with it, but while the process can be light hearted, the concept within it is not. It is quite serious.

The hypothetical:

I have acquired a quite large tract of land in central Kansas, the geographic center of the continental United States. And I propose a new Declaration of Independence that will announce our secession from Washington DC and will form a new nation with a new government seated on my tract of land that I will donate for that purpose.

The Declaration will contain all the necessary eloquent language and statements of our beliefs, purpose, and reasons for secession as did the original, but can be summarized something like this:

Whereas the government of the United States of America has long violated the principles therein, has far exceeded its authority, and has become oppressive and detrimental to the people by reinterpreting or ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America, it has become necessary to disassociate ourselves from that government.

We will take the best of the existing U.S. Constitution as the model for a new nation. This Constitution will be 'cleaned up' so that the original intent of the various articles and Bill of Rights will not be easily misinterpreted. (All other existing amendments would have to be debated and re-adopted.) And a new Constitution will reflect a society that has moved beyond the patriarchal and racial assumptions of our historical past and secure the rights of all on an equal basis.

The government will be charged to secure the unalienable rights of the people, among which are life, liberty, property, and pursuit of one's own prosperity and happiness.

The central goverment will also provide the common defense, promote (not provide) the blessings of liberty to all, enact such legislation as is necessary for various states to function as one nation. The government will also restore the power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have and live their lives as they choose to live them without central government interference.​

So who is with me? Who would like their state to join with others who want a do-over and a chance to get it right this time?

Rules for this discussion:

1. No ad hominem or personal attacks directed to members, political parties, or ideologies (liberals, conservatives, etc.) The topic is not what other members or Republicans/Democrats, etc. think, want, hope for, or any other such personal observations. Keep it civil and on topic.

2. Words can mean different things to different people. Do not assume that a term used by one person means the same thing it means to another and be prepared to define the terms used in your argument.

3. Links can be useful but are not required. If you do use them, post a illustrative paragraph or two that makes the point you want to make with the link or explain in your own words a summary of what your linked material will tell us.


THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED:

You have an opportunity to participate in a process of disassociating with the current U.S. government and forming a new nation. Would you be interested in representing your state? No yes or no answers please. Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

Hey, more power to ya! I think we should build a fence around Kansas. LOL!

Kansas is the geographical center of the lower 48 which is why Kansas was selected for the seat of government. And we lived there for a lot of years. Good folks in Kansas.

But Kansas does not have enough population or area or resources of its own to make a really viable country. So it will be necessary for other states to secede with it. Hopefully 49 other states.

Is this a joke? If not, good luck.

 

[Nosmo King]

Might I suggest you choose a better tract of land first. You need access to the sea so that your "country" can't be strangled before it even gets a chance to begin.

I agree. It's a long walk to the beach from central Kansas, and the lobster bisque there has got to suck.

I'd go if there was a chance our new 2nd amendment excluded rapid fire weapons.

Well can I put you down to represent your state then Nosmo? I don't see why anything would necessarily have to be off the table for discussion, though I think those who are leaning toward the new Declaration of Independence probably would not agree to federal control of rapid fire weapons, but would not interfere with a state that chose to regulate that.

I don't believe that weapons designed for a battlefield have any place on the streets of a civilized nation. They serve no purpose but to create an arms race among citizens.

We can have all the bolt action rifles, revolvers and shot guns we absolutely need for sport and home defense. But rapid fire weapons have wrought more tragedy than benefit.

 

[Foxfyre]

This discussion is intended as a hypothetical based on a 'what if' concept. Those who don't enjoy using imagination and creativity to discuss an idea or concept will probably not enjoy participation in the exercise. Those who do are encouraged to have fun with it, but while the process can be light hearted, the concept within it is not. It is quite serious.

The hypothetical:

I have acquired a quite large tract of land in central Kansas, the geographic center of the continental United States. And I propose a new Declaration of Independence that will announce our secession from Washington DC and will form a new nation with a new government seated on my tract of land that I will donate for that purpose.

The Declaration will contain all the necessary eloquent language and statements of our beliefs, purpose, and reasons for secession as did the original, but can be summarized something like this:

Whereas the government of the United States of America has long violated the principles therein, has far exceeded its authority, and has become oppressive and detrimental to the people by reinterpreting or ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America, it has become necessary to disassociate ourselves from that government.

We will take the best of the existing U.S. Constitution as the model for a new nation. This Constitution will be 'cleaned up' so that the original intent of the various articles and Bill of Rights will not be easily misinterpreted. (All other existing amendments would have to be debated and re-adopted.) And a new Constitution will reflect a society that has moved beyond the patriarchal and racial assumptions of our historical past and secure the rights of all on an equal basis.

The government will be charged to secure the unalienable rights of the people, among which are life, liberty, property, and pursuit of one's own prosperity and happiness.

The central goverment will also provide the common defense, promote (not provide) the blessings of liberty to all, enact such legislation as is necessary for various states to function as one nation. The government will also restore the power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have and live their lives as they choose to live them without central government interference.​

So who is with me? Who would like their state to join with others who want a do-over and a chance to get it right this time?

Rules for this discussion:

1. No ad hominem or personal attacks directed to members, political parties, or ideologies (liberals, conservatives, etc.) The topic is not what other members or Republicans/Democrats, etc. think, want, hope for, or any other such personal observations. Keep it civil and on topic.

2. Words can mean different things to different people. Do not assume that a term used by one person means the same thing it means to another and be prepared to define the terms used in your argument.

3. Links can be useful but are not required. If you do use them, post a illustrative paragraph or two that makes the point you want to make with the link or explain in your own words a summary of what your linked material will tell us.


THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED:

You have an opportunity to participate in a process of disassociating with the current U.S. government and forming a new nation. Would you be interested in representing your state? No yes or no answers please. Explain why or why not and the advantages and/or problems/issues you would see in such a process.

Hey, more power to ya! I think we should build a fence around Kansas. LOL!

Kansas is the geographical center of the lower 48 which is why Kansas was selected for the seat of government. And we lived there for a lot of years. Good folks in Kansas.

But Kansas does not have enough population or area or resources of its own to make a really viable country. So it will be necessary for other states to secede with it. Hopefully 49 other states.

Is this a joke? If not, good luck.

It is what it says it is. Have a nice evening.

 

[Foxfyre]

Might I suggest you choose a better tract of land first. You need access to the sea so that your "country" can't be strangled before it even gets a chance to begin.

I agree. It's a long walk to the beach from central Kansas, and the lobster bisque there has got to suck.

I'd go if there was a chance our new 2nd amendment excluded rapid fire weapons.

Well can I put you down to represent your state then Nosmo? I don't see why anything would necessarily have to be off the table for discussion, though I think those who are leaning toward the new Declaration of Independence probably would not agree to federal control of rapid fire weapons, but would not interfere with a state that chose to regulate that.

I don't believe that weapons designed for a battlefield have any place on the streets of a civilized nation. They serve no purpose but to create an arms race among citizens.

We can have all the bolt action rifles, revolvers and shot guns we absolutely need for sport and home defense. But rapid fire weapons have wrought more tragedy than benefit.

But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong.

But as a member of the Constitutional convention you would certainly be allowed to plead your case for central government control of certain kinds of weapons.

 

[BULLDOG]

I am sorry. In your poll, I don't see "pineapple". Maybe there was a software failure??



Now, as to the actual, uhm, declaration of Independence, have you decided if your blessed stretch of territory has enough firepower to defend itself, should the USA not necessarily like seeing Cowtown, Kansas secede?

I move for a Gandhi like resistance – simply refuse to participate until we are allowed our own governance.
Are you ready and willing to obliterate those who are willing to live in peace?

Are you talking about military firepower alone? Or are you including other kinds of passive resistance, like, oh, say, refusing to pay taxes. That sort of thing.

Which of course brings us to the question of whether or not a sovereign country would be allowed to use infrastructure without paying their fair share of the maintenance and repair.

And how about mineral rights and the use of water that belongs to the US?

Just wondering how this would be handled.

Don't worry about that. If Cliven Bundy can squat on all that land and get away with it, I'm sure the US. will give up just as easily for a whole new country.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Might I suggest you choose a better tract of land first. You need access to the sea so that your "country" can't be strangled before it even gets a chance to begin.

I agree. It's a long walk to the beach from central Kansas, and the lobster bisque there has got to suck.

I'd go if there was a chance our new 2nd amendment excluded rapid fire weapons.

Well can I put you down to represent your state then Nosmo? I don't see why anything would necessarily have to be off the table for discussion, though I think those who are leaning toward the new Declaration of Independence probably would not agree to federal control of rapid fire weapons, but would not interfere with a state that chose to regulate that.

I don't believe that weapons designed for a battlefield have any place on the streets of a civilized nation. They serve no purpose but to create an arms race among citizens.

We can have all the bolt action rifles, revolvers and shot guns we absolutely need for sport and home defense. But rapid fire weapons have wrought more tragedy than benefit.

But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong.

But as a member of the Constitutional convention you would certainly be allowed to plead your case for central government control of certain kinds of weapons.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

 

[Foxfyre]

Might I suggest you choose a better tract of land first. You need access to the sea so that your "country" can't be strangled before it even gets a chance to begin.

I agree. It's a long walk to the beach from central Kansas, and the lobster bisque there has got to suck.

I'd go if there was a chance our new 2nd amendment excluded rapid fire weapons.

Well can I put you down to represent your state then Nosmo? I don't see why anything would necessarily have to be off the table for discussion, though I think those who are leaning toward the new Declaration of Independence probably would not agree to federal control of rapid fire weapons, but would not interfere with a state that chose to regulate that.

I don't believe that weapons designed for a battlefield have any place on the streets of a civilized nation. They serve no purpose but to create an arms race among citizens.

We can have all the bolt action rifles, revolvers and shot guns we absolutely need for sport and home defense. But rapid fire weapons have wrought more tragedy than benefit.

But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong.

But as a member of the Constitutional convention you would certainly be allowed to plead your case for central government control of certain kinds of weapons.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I agree. It's a long walk to the beach from central Kansas, and the lobster bisque there has got to suck.

I'd go if there was a chance our new 2nd amendment excluded rapid fire weapons.

Well can I put you down to represent your state then Nosmo? I don't see why anything would necessarily have to be off the table for discussion, though I think those who are leaning toward the new Declaration of Independence probably would not agree to federal control of rapid fire weapons, but would not interfere with a state that chose to regulate that.

I don't believe that weapons designed for a battlefield have any place on the streets of a civilized nation. They serve no purpose but to create an arms race among citizens.

We can have all the bolt action rifles, revolvers and shot guns we absolutely need for sport and home defense. But rapid fire weapons have wrought more tragedy than benefit.

But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong.

But as a member of the Constitutional convention you would certainly be allowed to plead your case for central government control of certain kinds of weapons.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns therefore you have just conceded that there is no need for the BCSA at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well can I put you down to represent your state then Nosmo? I don't see why anything would necessarily have to be off the table for discussion, though I think those who are leaning toward the new Declaration of Independence probably would not agree to federal control of rapid fire weapons, but would not interfere with a state that chose to regulate that.

I don't believe that weapons designed for a battlefield have any place on the streets of a civilized nation. They serve no purpose but to create an arms race among citizens.

We can have all the bolt action rifles, revolvers and shot guns we absolutely need for sport and home defense. But rapid fire weapons have wrought more tragedy than benefit.

But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong.

But as a member of the Constitutional convention you would certainly be allowed to plead your case for central government control of certain kinds of weapons.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in this entire secessionist concept.

"But should Texas be able to tell Pennsylvania it has to allow them? Or should Pennyslvania be able to tell Texas it can't have them?

The liberty I see as the norm in New America would allow those who choose the better policy to have it, and those who are wrong in our eyes the right to be wrong."​

Our Constitutional Rights only exist because We the People uphold the rights of each other. That is the principle that makes it work. If I don't uphold your right to bear arms I lose my own right to bear arms and vice versa.

We are guardians of each other's rights and we have a duty to uphold each other's rights.

The fallacy of believing that everyone has the "liberty" or "freedom" to do whatever they want without the need for the support of others to uphold their "liberty" or "freedom" is little more than a delusion.

For example your "liberty" to breed pigs in your backyard will disappear as soon as your neighbors object to the squealing, stench and flies.

Even if your BCSA "Constitution" grants the explicit "liberty" to raise pigs in your backyard there will be enough other people who believe that "liberty" doesn't override their "liberty" to live in peace and not have to smell pigs and deal with flies. Without their "support" for your "liberty" rights they will be revoked in a heartbeat.

So there is no "liberty as the norm" in the BCSA because it just doesn't work that way in reality.

Yes, the social contract in my own town or area will determine whether it is acceptable to raise pigs in the back yard. If everybody chooses to raise pigs then fine, nobody's pigs will bother anybody else and that is the way it should be. If the majority do not want the smell and the flies, etc. then that too will be the way it is. But the people involved should decide that and not the people in the next town or some politician or bureaucrat in the central government.

So likewise if a state wants more lenient gun laws than another state, that is the way it should be.

A restoration of the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment would accomplish that.

Under the current US Constitution local authorities already have the right to impose zoning laws for both pigs and guns therefore you have just conceded that there is no need for the BCSA at all.

While I do not agree that the U.S. Constitution provides any authority to anybody in the federal government to regulate zoning laws anywhere, we are not discussing what the current U.S. Constitution does or does not allow.

This discussion is how we want a new nation to be and the authority we want a new government to have.