A scenario for the second civil war

Forward Observer ^ | August 30, 2016 | Matt Bracken

[Noumenon]

Yes. My intention is to make it exceedingly unpleasant for my opponents should it come to that.

[from occupied ga]

I suspect that anticipation of your scenario is one reason that the government has moved so many MRAPS back to the US and given them to police departments. No place on a modern battlefield, but plenty good enough to oppress a civilian population armed only with small arms.

[Comment Not Approved]

"Go down fighting is all I can say."

Hope to get that chance. What I see more likely is a taser to the back of the neck while I'm pushing my shopping cart down the aisle at the supermarket. Then being whisked away as a problem to be eliminated. That planted kiddy porn on my computer won't win me much sympathy with the citizenry.

But I am preparing to fight all the same and ponder my role in all this as I sit at the reloading bench and pull the handle ... again, and again, and again.

Thanks, Travis. Love your work.

[ctdonath2]

Too direct. The Left has learned that straight-up bans & mass confiscation don’t work politically. The support isn’t there, the opposition is, and they know it. They’re already heading elsewhere: kill the supply chain, choke out businesses, end imports. Yes they’ll probably revisit _Heller_ and leverage the fact that (despite the footnote that says M16s _should_ be legal, just awaiting a suitable case) NFA & 922(o) have held up for decades. Remember the end of “Sundown at Coffin Rock”. I can’t quite rationalize how they’ll speed up that ending, but I’m sure it won’t be thru straight confiscation: too many are just looking for a frontal assault and want a showdown; the Left knows to avoid that.

[Dr. Sivana]

It is most commonly described as a war between citizens of the same country - nothing in that description says that it has to be along state or regional lines nor does it confine itself to a melee conflagration with no distinct geographical boundaries.

Actually, the part usually present in a true civil war in the traditional sense is trying to grab (or change) the seat of power and take the whole thing. The French Revolution was a Revolution. The October Revolution was a revolution.

By the more expansive definition, the Colonies' War for Independence would be a Civil War, as nearly all involved (save some French, Hessians and Injuns) were British subjects.

[Gaffer]

Equivocation. The raw basic definition is as I said. Extrapolating and expanding to specific events that fit your narrative doesn’t help. We differ.

[Dr. Sivana]

We do differ. But there was no equivocation.

[Big Red Badger]

Likely scenario,,,

Thanks.

[Wilderness Conservative]

it will be much like the Revolutionary War where Tories and Patriots often lived close to each other. Not a pretty scenario at all.

[Gaffer]

Try a definition that isn’t tied to some specific historical event for a place and setting that fits your interpretation. Describe it in words that set out the meaning without applying to selected history.

[ctdonath2]

Not possible. There is ZERO reason to delay/cancel the election short of extreme black-swan scenarios (and an elderly grandmother croaking from old age & stress & assorted diseases isn’t one). AFAIK every contingency has been addressed in Constitution & law.

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[DiogenesLamp]

The Civil War was started because of acts of attempted secession and aggression by secessionists attacking federal installations. Nonetheless, it was a Civil War.

That is the popular propaganda that has been encouraged by those in the wrong for over a century, but it is not accurate.

The Civil War was fought to keep $300 million in European Trade flowing through the port of New York and the Ports of New England.

An independent South would cost the New York Robber Barons grievous losses of income, and so they convinced their primary agent in Washington to launch a war to stop Southern independence.

The Civil war was started over money. Always follow the money.

[Gaffer]

You give reasons that could explain the actual forcing actions, but nonetheless the physical responses triggered the war.

[DiogenesLamp]

You have proposed a scenario that I have also been thinking about for awhile. That is indeed a plausible manner in which a confrontation could get started.

There are others, but this one certainly seems sound to me.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is most commonly described as a war between citizens of the same country - nothing in that description says that it has to be along state or regional lines nor does it confine itself to a melee conflagration with no distinct geographical boundaries. You are splitting hairs.

The South leaving the American Union is no different than the Colonists leaving the British Union. Neither was a civil war in which both combatants fought for control of the central government.

In both cases, one combatant fought for independence from the central government, while the other fought to subjugate those who would be free of control from the central government.

[Dr. Sivana]

Try a definition that isn’t tied to some specific historical event for a place and setting that fits your interpretation

I didn't think I had to. I used examples to demonstrate, not merely to define. I assumed you knew the classic definition. You also avoid calling the colonists' war a civil war, even though it fits your definition squarely.

A Civil War means a struggle within a nation for control of the country, possibly with the aid of outsiders who do not intend to take over the country personally. That struggle must be contracted, and not just take place among a small number of rulers and regular armed forces (that would be a coup).

That is why I used the French and Russian revolutions as examples of a classic definition of Revolutions that really were civil wars, a difference in kind, and NOT a small one. People don't call activities of the Basque a Civil War. They call the Spanish Civil War a Civil War.

In the case of the United States, it was still an open question as of 1859 what degree of sovereignty actually lies with the several states which formed These United States. The war settled that question.

[Louis Foxwell]

Locking the fox in the henhouse with the hens insures a fat fox and no eggs.

[sport]

That is what I intend to do. I am not brave. I am not courageous. I just am not going to one of Hillary’s camps. My front yard is as close as I will, under my own power, get to the truck[s].

[The Great RJ]

I have had the same nightmare with a President Hillary gutting both the First and Second Amendments. My scenario is that the US military who swear allegiance to the Constitution would step in and overthrow the tyrant.