Over the past few weeks I have been thinking and reading on the "2nd amendment sanctuary counties" that have been springing in places like Washington, Colorado and now Virginia. And everyone is aware of the so called sanctuary cities that disobey federal immigration law.

I was wondering about the historical precedence for cities, counties and even states disobeying federal law and found a few (there are probably more).

- The backlash against the "Revenue Act of 1764", this backlash / disobedience at times turned violent with colonists taking out their anger on the tax collectors and was one of key reasons our forefathers sought independence from the crown.

- The "Whisky Rebellion", while a smaller scale the direct involvement of federal troops, while it certainly did not escalate to the level of the revolution I would say it laid the ground work for the lawlessness that has existed for 100+ years in the Appalachian region concerning the production of alcohol.

- The "Fugitive Slave Act", many areas in the north passively disobeyed this federal law and some areas actively did so as they did in Boston in 1854 where the crowd broke into the jail and freed a slave.

As I said I am sure there are others but most of the above situations led to outright conflict pitting brother against brother so to speak (and in some cases literally)

With the sanctuary cities the republicans (before Trump) whined about them but really did not have the courage to actively fight them. If they would have done so when they first started emerging I believe we would not be seeing the widespread prevalence of them like we do now.

Now with the "2nd amendment Sanctuary counties" we are seeing almost 30% of the counties in VA, CO and WA announce they will not enforce the state laws (in place or proposed). Unlike the Republicans I don't believe the Democrats will just sit on their thumbs...although in WA and CO they have not taken actions so far. I believe this has to come to a head in the near future as the Dems can't let this slide.

So where does this end? We are already seeing the Balkinization (sp) in many states with the rural parts of the state do not support or even like those in the major cites.

It has been said and I would agree that we are seeing more political polarization than any time in our history since the Civil War.

This is more of a intellectual exercise (or as my wife puts it "mental masturbation") than it is a chicken little rant but I am curious how you all see this ending? And how you seeing it playing out

Answers like "well we have all the guns" or "bring it snowflake",while entertaining , does not really provide the detail I am looking for...

The original rule & purpose was given in Numbers 35:9-34.

The final solution occurred years later on a cross as explained in Hebrews (example Heb 10:11-14).

I truly hope that provides some peace to you.

quote:

Originally posted by FHHM213:
The original rule & purpose was given in Numbers 35:9-34.

The final solution occurred years later on a cross as explained in Hebrews (example Heb 10:11-14).

I truly hope that provides some peace to you.

So for those of us who don’t care what some ancient book says... Huh?

quote:

Originally posted by creslin:

So for those of us who don’t care what some ancient book says... Huh?

Well then, I guess you just do what is right in your own eyes. That has always worked very well.

Self righteous much?
For the real answers check out Spider-Man issue 34 and Led Zeppelin 4.

The answer is painfully simple. The democrats will simply ignore the fact that they are hypocritical pieces of SHIT and continue harboring illegal non-citizens while attacking the concept of Americans trying to protect a constitutional right through the exact same concept. The crooked msm will fully support them in their illegal activities by reporting heavily on the latter while completely ignoring the former.

I hate the thought that there could be another bloody conflict within our borders, but every day that passes makes me think we are inexorably edging that way. What would the military do? What would the National Guard do, seeing as how they are in essence citizen-soldiers and not cut from the same cloth?

If we collectively don’t get our shit together, the leftists that want totalitarian control over the entire country won’t cease in their efforts to stomp on and pervert the wishes of the founding fathers.

Divisiveness, its what Americans do best, until some foreign power decides to fuck with us, then we band together and kick ass.

The country has always been divisive, it's the product of a free people.

Don't worry, embrace freedom until it's taken away, then will be the time to take up arms.

For those in non-free states, they'll need to wait some more.

With regard to the 2nd Amendment, I think the next step is mass civil disobedience.

Done well, organized unified civil disobedience with strong leadership will move the needle. Done poorly, it will result it demonization by the government & media that will "justify" the government's brutal & violent suppression of the the uprising, which I suspect would galvanize the civilian masses against the government and straight into civil war.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
Self righteous much?

And what would you label “doing what is right in your own eyes”?

Why do you think that little tree was given that peculiar telling name many years ago?

quote:

Originally posted by FHHM213:

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
Self righteous much?

And what would you label “doing what is right in your own eyes”?

Why do you think that little tree was given that peculiar telling name many years ago?

You can do me- and yourself- a big favor, by not speaking in riddles. Speak plainly. Say what you have to say. Here's a hint for you- if members have to look up bible verses in order to get whatever point you're trying to make, you're being too vague.

I have an idea of what tree you're referring to, but some others here won't get it right away. Speak plainly when you post in this forum.

quote:

Originally posted by FHHM213:

quote:

Originally posted by creslin:

So for those of us who don’t care what some ancient book says... Huh?

Well then, I guess you just do what is right in your own eyes. That has always worked very well.

The man asked basically "how do you guys see this playing out here in the next few years?"

He was not asking for any sort of moral example of whether or not this sanctuary stuff should be a thing (which is what you sort of (but not really) provided).
I looked up your quotes.
They do not pertain at all to the discussion at hand.

The first one boils down to "if someone gets killed - give that dude a trial".
The second one is just... cryptic.. but kinda just says "jesus died for you".

You're welcome to your own beliefs. Go nuts with them.
But as has been stated by the mods multiple times - If someone posts a thread asking for something specific... don't chime in with non-pertinent posts.
And while the OP stated no "bring it snowflake" posts... while your post is not that - it's equally useless.

Back to the matter at hand.

When it comes down to it, whatcha' gonna' do when the Po-Po comes for you? In other countries, registration led to confiscation and then destruction. It happened over a matter of years and the firearm owners eventually went along with it.

Could that happen here?

H&K-Guy

How to Avoid Civil War: Decentralization, Nullification, Secession

https://mises.org/wire/how-avo...lification-secession

It's becoming more and more apparent that the United States will not be going back to "business as usual" after Donald Trump leaves office, and it is easy to imagine that the anti-Trump parties will use their return to power as an opportunity to settle scores against the hated rubes and "deplorables" who dared attempt to oppose their betters in Washington, DC, California, and New York.

This ongoing conflict may manifest itself in the culture war through further attacks on people who take religious faith seriously, and on those who hold any social views unpopular among degreed people from major urban centers. The First Amendment will be imperiled like never before with both religious freedom and freedom of speech regarded as vehicles of "hate." Certainly, the Second Amendment will hang by a thread.

But even more dangerous will be the deep state's return to a vaunted position of enjoying a near-total absence of opposition from elected officials in the civilian government. The FBI and CIA will go to even greater lengths to ensure the voters are never again "allowed" to elect anyone who doesn't receive the explicit imprimatur of the American intelligence "community." The Fourth Amendment will be banished so that the NSA and its friends can spy on every American with impunity. The FBI and CIA will more freely combine the use of surveillance and media leaks to destroy adversaries.

Anyone who objects to the deep state's wars on either Americans or on foreigners will be denounced as stooges of foreign powers.

These scenarios may seem overly dramatic, but the extremity of the situation is suggested by the fact that Trump — who is only a very mild opponent of the status quo — has received such hysterical opposition. After all, Trump has not dismantled the welfare state. He has not slashed — or even failed to increase — the military budget. His fights with the deep state are largely based on political issues, and not on major policy disagreements. Trump, for example, sides with the surveillance state on matters such as the prosecution of Edward Snowden.

His sins lie merely in his lack of enthusiasm for the center-left's current drive toward ever more vicious identity politics. And, more importantly, he has been insufficiently gung ho about starting more wars, expanding NATO, and generally pushing the Russians toward World War III.

For even these minor deviations, we are told, he must be destroyed.

So, we can venture a guess as to what the agenda will look like once Trump is out of the way. It looks to be neither mild nor measured.

And then what?

In that situation, half the country — much of it from the half that calls itself "Red-State America" may regard itself as conquered, powerless, and unheard.

That's a recipe for civil war.
The Need for Separation

But how can we take steps now to minimize this polarization the damage it is likely to cause?

The answer lies in greater decentralization and local autonomy. But as long as most Americans labor under the authoritarian notion that the United States is "one nation, indivisible" there will be no answer to the problem of one powerful region (or party) wielding unchallenged power over a minority.

Many conservatives naïvely claim that the Constitution and the "rule of law" will protect minorities in this situation. But their theories only hold water if the people making and interpreting the laws subscribe to an ideology which respects local autonomy and freedom for worldviews in conflict with the ruling class. That is increasingly not the ideology of the majority, let alone the majority of powerful judges and politicians.

Thus, for those who can manage to leave behind the flag-waving propaganda of their youths, it is increasingly evident that something other than repeating bromides about teaching high-school civics, reading the Constitution, or electing "strong leaders" will have to be done.

As I've noted in the past, the notion of increasing local autonomy through nullification and secession has long been gaining steam in Europe, where referendums on decentralization are growing more frequent.

And conservatives are increasingly seeing the writing on the wall. Among the more insightful of these has been Angelo Codevilla. In 2017, Codevilla, writing in the Claremont Review of Books, laid out a blueprint for local opposition to federal power and noted:

Texas passed a law that, in effect, closes down most of its abortion clinics. The U.S. Supreme Court struck it down. What if Texas closed them nonetheless? Send the Army to point guns at Texas rangers to open them? What would the federal government do if North Dakota declared itself a “Sanctuary for the Unborn” and simply banned abortion? For that matter, what is the federal government doing about the fact that, for practical purposes, its laws concerning marijuana are being ignored in Colorado and California? Utah objects to the boundaries of national monuments created by decree within its borders. What if the state ignored those boundaries? Prayer in schools? What could bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., do if any number of states decided that what the federal courts have to say about such things is bad?

Now that identity politics have replaced the politics of persuasion and blended into the art of war, statesmen should try to preserve what peace remains through mutual forbearance toward jurisdictions that ignore or act contrary to federal laws, regulations, or court orders. Blue states and red states deal differently with some matters of health, education, welfare, and police. It does no good to insist that all do all things uniformly.

And by 2019, the need for separation was becoming more urgent. Last week Codevilla continued in this line of thinking:

[A]fter the 2020 elections ordinary Americans will have to deal with the same dreadful question we faced in 2016: How do we secure and perhaps restore our fast-diminishing freedom to live as Americans? And while we may wish for help from Trump, we have to look to ourselves and to other leaders for how we may counter the ruling class’s manifold assaults now, and especially in the long term...

The logical recourse is to conserve what can be conserved, and for it to be done by, of, and for those who wish to conserve it. However much force of what kind may be required to accomplish that, the objective has to be conservation of the people and ways that wish to be conserved.

That means some kind of separation.

... [T]he natural, least stressful course of events is for all sides to tolerate the others going their own ways. The ruling class has not been shy about using the powers of the state and local governments it controls to do things at variance with national policy, effectively nullifying national laws. And they get away with it.

For example, the Trump Administration has not sent federal troops to enforce national marijuana laws in Colorado and California, nor has it punished persons and governments who have defied national laws on immigration. There is no reason why the conservative states, counties, and localities should not enforce their own view of the good.

Not even President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would order troops to shoot to re-open abortion clinics were Missouri or North Dakota, or any city, to shut them down. As Francis Buckley argues in American Secession: The Looming Breakup of the United States, some kind of separation is inevitable, and the options regarding it are many.

It is notable that Codevilla's strategy is not marked by grandiose gestures of independence or a yearning to re-create the alleged glorious military victories of the days of yore. Such were the mistakes of the Confederates in the mid-nineteenth century.

Interestingly, Codevilla's more sensible approach shares quite a bit in common with the strategies recommended by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his essay "What Must Be Done." The idea is to assert local control and refuse cooperation with federal policymakers. But with restraint. Hoppe writes:

It would appear to be prudent ... to avoid a direct confrontation with the central government and not openly denounce its authority or even abjure the realm. Rather, it seems advisable to engage in a policy of passive resistance and non-cooperation. One simply stops to help in the enforcement in each and every federal law. One assumes the following attitude: “Such are your rules, and you enforce them. I cannot hinder you, but I will not help you either, as my only obligation is to my local constituents.”

Consistently applied, no cooperation, no assistance whatsoever on any level, the central government’s power would be severely diminished or even evaporate. And in light of the general public opinion, it would appear highly unlikely that the federal government would dare to occupy a territory whose inhabitants did nothing else than trying to mind their own business. Waco, a teeny group of freaks, is one thing. But to occupy, or to wipe out a significantly large group of normal, accomplished, upstanding citizens is quite another, and quite a more difficult thing.

Some will be unable to break out of the mindset that the United States must forever be governed by a singular national policy. They will insist any attempt at decentralization of this sort must necessarily result in violence.

Writing at The American Conservative, Michael Vlahos, for example, appears unconvinced that violence can be avoided. But even he concedes the violence is unlikely to take the form of mass bloodshed as seen in the 1860s:

Our antique civil wars were not bound to formal rules, yet somehow they held to well-etched bounds of expectation. American society today has very different norms and expectations for civil conflict, which certainly will constrain how we fight the next battle.

Today’s America no longer embraces a national landscape of an industrial-lockstep battlefield (think Gettysburg, D-Day). Our next civil war — as social media so eloquently reminds us — will enact its violence on a battle campus of equal pain, if less blood.

Many devotees of perpetual federal supremacy, of course, won't admit even this. Any attempt at decentralization, nullification, or secession is said to be invalid because "that was decided by the Civil War." There is no doubt, of course, that the Civil War settled the matter for a generation or two. But to claim any war "settled things" forever, is clearly nonsense.

It is true, however, that if the idea of a legally, culturally, and politically unified United States wins the day, Americans may be looking toward a future of ever greater political repression marked by increasingly common episodes of bloodshed. This is simply the logical outcome of any system where it is assumed the ruling party has a right and a duty to force the ways of the one group upon another. That is the endgame of a unified America.

It’s a nice idea, but how does it happen? All firearm dealers are federally and locally licensed, and open to inspections. Any dealers out there selling unregistered machine guns? The only one I knew of was Wish.

quote:

Originally posted by FHHM213:

Why do you think that little tree was given that peculiar telling name many years ago?

The Singing Bush?

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
How to Avoid Civil War: Decentralization, Nullification, Secession
...

Not even President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would order troops to shoot to re-open abortion clinics were Missouri or North Dakota, or any city, to shut them down.
...

Not even for a moment do I believe this statement. Kudos to the author for trying to be civil and gracious to the enemy, though.

Our country is more divided than it’s ever been & about many issues. There is resentment about Gen-X’s from the Y’s & millennials. The LGBTQ vs the strait community, liberals vs conservatives, Democrats v. Republicans and even Men v. Women. I don’t see any one person or political party that can solve these issues & make all content.

We have 6 major mass media corporations than control over 90% of what the average American ingests daily and they do have an Agenda. Notice how some issues are promoted while others suppressed? > No coincidence! As long as folks are continued to be told that guns are a problem, they’ll be politicians legislating against them all in the name of public safety. Our country is awash with rules & laws. Some we break daily when we exceed the speed limit or bring 22 items to the checkout lane with a limit of ten. Eventually, there will be some laws you just don’t care about. It’s up to you as to when that time comes..

With the division as bad as it is today I believe it would take either a horrible war of a huge natural disaster to pull us all back together as Americans.
Until then I think we will see a lot more "sanctuary cities" for everything from gun rights and possibly religious persecutions.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
With the division as bad as it is today I believe it would take either a horrible war of a huge natural disaster to pull us all back together as Americans.
Until then I think we will see a lot more "sanctuary cities" for everything from gun rights and possibly religious persecutions.

Not even then would the Left stop their march towards their end goal of global communism. Their motto is "Never let a crisis go to waste.". The thinking people on the Left, the ones who know they will be in power, are cold and calculating and will never give up their quest for more control and power. The others, the useful idiots, either think everything will be rainbows and free bubble-up or that they will be controlling others. Both of the latter group will be really surprised if the first group ever gets their way.

We are two countries now - The Left and The Patriots. There will be no coming together until the media and schools stop their leftist programs and propaganda and begin preaching and teaching something resembling objectivity.