Skip to comments.
A scenario for the second civil war
Forward Observer ^
| August 30, 2016
| Matt Bracken
Posted on 08/31/2016 5:49:41 AM PDT by Travis McGee
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241 next last
To: Travis McGee
Yes. My intention is to make it exceedingly unpleasant for my opponents should it come to that.
21
posted on
08/31/2016 6:23:37 AM PDT
by
Noumenon
(We owe them nothing: not respect, not loyalty, not obedience.)
To: Travis McGee
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.
22
posted on
08/31/2016 6:25:41 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
To: Travis McGee
"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.
23
posted on
08/31/2016 6:26:49 AM PDT
by
Comment Not Approved
(When bureaucrats outlaw hunting, outlaws will hunt bureaucrats.)
To: Travis McGee
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.
24
posted on
08/31/2016 6:28:48 AM PDT
by
ctdonath2
("If anyone will not listen to your words, shake the dust from your feet and leave them." - Jesus)
To: Gaffer
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.
25
posted on
08/31/2016 6:29:25 AM PDT
by
Dr. Sivana
("History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."--Karl Marx)
To: Dr. Sivana
Equivocation. The raw basic definition is as I said. Extrapolating and expanding to specific events that fit your narrative doesn’t help. We differ.
26
posted on
08/31/2016 6:31:43 AM PDT
by
Gaffer
To: Gaffer
We do differ. But there was no equivocation.
27
posted on
08/31/2016 6:32:57 AM PDT
by
Dr. Sivana
("History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."--Karl Marx)
To: Travis McGee
Likely scenario,,,
Thanks.
28
posted on
08/31/2016 6:34:23 AM PDT
by
Big Red Badger
(UNSCANABLE in an IDIOCRACY!)
To: Travis McGee
it will be much like the Revolutionary War where Tories and Patriots often lived close to each other. Not a pretty scenario at all.
To: Dr. Sivana
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.
30
posted on
08/31/2016 6:35:09 AM PDT
by
Gaffer
To: Don Corleone
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.
31
posted on
08/31/2016 6:37:11 AM PDT
by
ctdonath2
("If anyone will not listen to your words, shake the dust from your feet and leave them." - Jesus)
To: sauropod
32
posted on
08/31/2016 6:38:21 AM PDT
by
sauropod
(Beware the fury of a patient man. I've lost my patience!)
To: Gaffer
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.
33
posted on
08/31/2016 6:40:28 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
To: DiogenesLamp
You give reasons that could explain the actual forcing actions, but nonetheless the physical responses triggered the war.
34
posted on
08/31/2016 6:41:43 AM PDT
by
Gaffer
To: Travis McGee
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.
35
posted on
08/31/2016 6:42:20 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
To: Gaffer
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.
36
posted on
08/31/2016 6:45:22 AM PDT
by
DiogenesLamp
("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
To: Gaffer
Try a definition that isnt 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.
37
posted on
08/31/2016 6:45:26 AM PDT
by
Dr. Sivana
("History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."--Karl Marx)
To: tbw2
Locking the fox in the henhouse with the hens insures a fat fox and no eggs.
38
posted on
08/31/2016 6:47:57 AM PDT
by
Louis Foxwell
(Stop the Left and save the world.)
To: Travis McGee
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].
39
posted on
08/31/2016 6:48:05 AM PDT
by
sport
To: Travis McGee
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.
40
posted on
08/31/2016 6:48:11 AM PDT
by
The Great RJ
("Socialists are happy until they run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson