Posted on 08/31/2016 5:49:41 AM PDT by Travis McGee
MATTHEW BRACKEN is a former Navy SEAL (BUD/S Class 105), a Constitutionalist, and a self-described “freedomista”. He’s the author of several books, including Enemies Foreign and Domestic. This is the first part in a series of different author’s thoughts on the next civil war. Here’s what Bracken sees as a potential scenario for the next American Civil War.
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights does not “grant” Americans the right to armed self-defense, it simply recognizes and affirms this God-given human right. The Constitution, including the Bill or Rights, is a very succinct document that was written in plain English intended to be fully understandable by ordinary citizens, requiring no interpretation by judges. Article III of the Constitution discusses the responsibilities, powers and limitations of the Judiciary, including the Supreme Court.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is a super-legislature authorized to amend the Bill of Rights by a simple majority vote among its nine lifetime-appointed justices. In fact, Article III Section 2 explicitly grants to Congress the power to regulate which cases the Supreme Court may adjudicate at all. However, in the current political climate, with a toothless Congress abdicating its power to the Executive and Judicial branches, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will be reined in and confined within its Constitutional limits.
My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton victory in November 2016, followed in 2017 by the appointment of a Supreme Court justice politically to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The Second Amendment will then be gutted using a specious argument such as that the militia has “evolved” into the modern National Guard, meaning that there is no longer a right for private citizens to individually keep or bear arms. Liberal politicians and the collaborating liberal mainstream media will be in full-throated agreement with this false interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Subsequently, some states will ban semi-automatic pistols and rifles capable of taking a detachable magazine, meaning that nearly all semi-automatic firearms will become “illegal” with the stroke of a pen. Firearms confiscation raids against gun collectors and outspoken “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” activists will then take place with the intended purpose being to strike fear into holdouts. But instead of forcing gun owners into compliance, the confiscation raids will be the trigger for a new civil war. There will be casualties among both citizens and law enforcement as these confiscation raids are increasingly met with armed resistance.
The First Amendment will likewise be gutted, using the argument that the “bitter clingers” who are still advocating the “obsolete” interpretation of the Second Amendment are supporting terrorism when they argue that law enforcement has no valid legal or moral reason to engage in gun confiscation raids. Freedom-oriented writers will declare that the federal government is in breach of contract with the people, because the rogue Supreme Court had no authority to unilaterally nullify key elements of the Bill of Rights.
Millions of Americans who still support the original interpretation of the Second Amendment will consider those who advocate the new interpretation to be traitors and domestic enemies of the Constitution. Writers who argue that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment is invalid, and that citizens are therefore morally justified in opposing the new gun laws by force of arms will be arrested for “inciting violence” and “encouraging terrorism.” Websites which promulgate these views will be banned and shut down.
At that point, with no other options available to oppose the emerging hard tyranny, a guerrilla insurgency will emerge, and some of those responsible for limiting the Bill of Rights will become victims of sniper attacks. Targeted individuals will include national politicians, prominent “journalists” and federal law enforcement personnel who vocally support or even simply enforce the new gun bans. These deadly sniper attacks will typically involve a single shooter firing a single shot from long range. Federal law enforcement will be given the impossible task of predicting who will become the next sniper from among scores of millions of Americans. Gun confiscation raids and arrests for “inciting violence” will escalate, and so will the retaliatory sniper attacks.
The start of Civil War Two will probably be pegged to the assassination of a prominent judge or politician who is held responsible by “constitutional originalists” for invalidating the First and Second Amendments. The new tyranny will not back down in the face of these sniper attacks, but will double down in its efforts to disarm the resistance. Arrests and disappearances of “constitutional extremists” will be countered with even more sniper attacks against key supporters of the new tyranny. Civil War Two could resemble the “Dirty War” in Argentina during the 1970s, with recalcitrant “constitutionalists” becoming the victims of secret government special-action units. It’s difficult to imagine the final outcome of an American “dirty civil war,” but it’s impossible to imagine the forces of tyranny successfully disarming the American people.
It’s well known that Switzerland has never been invaded by a foreign power, largely because of its national policy of providing adult male military reservists with modern battle rifles, which they keep at home for their entire lives. It’s less well understood that Switzerland has also never seen the emergence of a tyranny, and for the same reason: a would-be tyrant would not survive for long in Switzerland. Likewise, would-be tyrants in the United States might have a strong desire to disarm the American people, but any widespread attempts to do so will, at the very least, result in a prolonged and bloody dirty civil war.
“…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….”
To answer that ask yourself three questions
Many thanks
And you gloss over a pre-Civil war letter to someone you say is in 1848. Look, you’re just pissed because of another thread we tangled on. I get that. But I don’t go looking for ANYTHING you’ve posted and ache to contract what you say. You’re just not that important.
I consider my points to be extremely relevant "TO THE TOPIC OF CIVIL WAR IN THE US."
Secondly, I do not have a vendetta against you, my position is the same as it has been for at least the last eight months, and you are but the latest person who has taken a stance opposite mine. (And not doing a very good job of it either.)
If you were arguing on the same side as me, I would not change my arguments or positions to contradict you. I would agree with you. However, you took up a position opposite me, so I treat you just like I treat other people who take up positions opposite with me.
I usually beat them into the ground with facts, evidence, and reasoning.
Oh, and persistence. Also relevant to any discussion about a modern Civil War.
Why don’t you two take your childish argument somewhere else so us adults aren’t pestered by it? I swear you are both behaving like hemorrhoids.
When people say one thing and do another, we generally refer to this as "Hypocrisy."
It also demonstrates a lack of character.
Ken Burns is but the latest indoctrinated Liberal lackey firming up the propaganda that the North Eastern (Globalist) power block wants people to believe.
I agree. I tried to stop. I’ll comment no further. Thanks :0)
ping
You illustrate why it is reasonable to think so.
I agree with you. I was supporting your hypothesis
You sure do! And like your other positions of which I have became acquainted in the last few days, it is also incorrect.
I have no interest in picking a bone with you because we argued about another issue, I am arguing with you because I consider the causes and consequences of the 1861 war to be very relevant to the same problems we are facing today.
Where is the center of power in this nation? It is in the corridor between Washington D.C. and Boston. *THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENT.*
Where are the propaganda corps who have been throwing our elections located? They are mostly in New York. *THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENT.*
There is an elite cadre of "Aristocrats" who have became wealthy over the years through their ability to keep Federal dollars flowing into industries and organizations over which they have control. (We nowadays call this "Crony Capitalism", and it has echos of Nazism.)
They *OWN* the media. That's why it is liberal and has always been Liberal.
As I ponder this issue, I am waking up to the idea that this power block has it's roots back in the mid 19th century. Indeed, it appears to have it's roots in the election of 1860, and Lincoln was it's first unabashed agent of this "Mercantilist" coalition.
This issue is much bigger than you, and you flatter yourself to think that I am being contentious with you because you and I disagree about how corrupt Brazilian cops robbed some American swimmers and then held them for hostage.
I would be arguing this same position had I never heard of you prior to today.
Your line of thinking almost exactly mirrors mine. Like it or not (and I don’t, really), it confirms my conclusion that WTSHTF uniformed officials must be treated as the enemy.
It isn't childish, it is extremely relevant in explaining how we got into the mess we are currently in, but one must posses more than the attention span of a child to become aware that this iceberg has more than just a tip.
I work with a wide sweep of history. I try to understand the connections between events, and how they lead to the circumstances we face now.
In order to get an idea of what to expect, you need to have a good grasp of the dynamics that led up to it.
Thank you.
Fine. Take it somewhere else.
High five.
Your 2nd grade teacher was wrong. It was the war between Americans and d@amn Yankees.
bttt
BTTT
They are going to kill you anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.