comment: >
  
  
  most states are not even uniformly culturally aligned anymore and there are stark political differences even within each state
  
  This is really important.  California, for example, sent more votes to Trump than most every other state, blue or red.
  Where I live in rural Washington state (but still on the coast) we have a pretty even mix of ideologies.
context: This is a non issue equivalent to the gays in bathroom or covid.
  Nothing will happen and dems will say we tried. Republicans will win because of 2nd amendment. People stay occupied with a non issue. >
  
  
  Nothing will happen and dems will say we tried. Republicans will win because of 2nd amendment. People stay occupied with a non issue.
  
  This is the most likely outcome. The law has already been enjoined statewide. With the post Bruen legal landscape I doubt it's going to survive.
  Democrats will get to say that they tried.
  However, it won't necessarily end there. Democrats absolutely loath Bruen, and many elected Democrats have never met a gun control law that they didn't like, so I expect there to be a multi-year effort of massive resistance where Illinois Democrats try to be creative to get around the 2nd Amendment. >
  
  
  expect there to be a multi-year effort of massive resistance where Illinois Democrats try to be creative to get around the 2nd Amendment
  
  And not just in Illinois either, California and New York are also edging towards finding a way to get around the 2nd Amendment. >
  
  There is no functional or procedural process for the US to become 'separated America'. Unfortunately I fear that the growing polarization and unwillingness to listen and compromise with each other may lead us to a point of open violence. 
  I earnestly hope that doesn't happen though. >
  
  Not having a process doesn't mean we can't easily make one. >
  
  The southern states tried to make one...didn't turn out well for them. Expecting a civil dissolution of the US into separate entities is naive and exceptionally unlikely. >
  
  "It didnt happen when it was tried that one time 150 years ago, so it won't happen now" isn't a very good rebuttal. >
  
  Ok, fair. Let me try it another way then. 
  In the 1860s, when this was last tried, the country very much was effectively a close association of states rather than one fully unified nation. Most Americans identified by their state vs as Americans and most never traveled far from home. The Civil War was the catalyst that changed that, and after the war it very much became a more unified nation. Obviously there were still plenty of issues and there still are.
  The country as a whole therefore has grown and developed interdependently and the states actually rely on each other a great deal. For one state to want to leave, or a group of them, it would cause negative impacts on the remaining states which would incentivize an attempt to keep them from leaving through the use of force. That is essentially true regardless of what state is being discussed or the reason for leaving.
  Now, add to that most states are not even uniformly culturally aligned anymore and there are stark political differences even within each state and the complexities of the US separating peacefully become unlikely. It would effectively have to happen at the county level (or lower) and trying to codify boundaries would almost certainly compel the use of force somewhere.