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….”
This is just getting ridiculous. It fit the basic definition like it or not. Deal with it.
BTTT!
People have a bit of hope and enthusiasm with Trump, but they let that cloud the fact that while Trump may change a lot of things he still may not be time to prevent catastrophe. Like Reagan, he has both parties against him. Congress will subvert his every move. He has lots of power as Prez, but we will find one diabolical deed after another from the States, federal courts, and the Supreme Court. They will kick what is already high gear into warp speed if Trump is elected.
“I know a lot of cops and many military folks. As a matter of fact Jr in in the Army. I really find it hard to believe that those groups would/could support a 2nd Amendment tear down.”
The vast majority of military I meet exiting right now are left-wingers. Left-wing. Previously, the military was right-wing. The education system has dumbed them down and brainwashed them badly.
I recently had the ‘pleasure’ of discussing ethics with a bunch of them. They are convinced that “authority is authority” and that “If they say to do something you have to do it”, and we were discussing firearm confiscations.
Your thesis on the true cause of the Civil War intrigues me.
Were there no ports in the South that could have been used? Did trade have to go through northern ports?
I agree with the money angle, but seek clarification.
On that we both agree. Just as soon as they know that they will not be able to steal it, watch out! Here it comes!
I got a chuckle out of that one. It is kinda Tonto turning to the Lone Ranger and saying, “What do you mean we....”
Judges-—>journos-—>politicians
I’m still in my 30s. Natural death isn’t in the near future barring a Vince Foster incident.
That is very discouraging.
Disagree.
The formation and recognition of the "alt-right" as pretty much a "proto-gang," albeit one NOT populated by functional illiterates, tells me "They" may be clever enough, but lack the capabilities.
yeah, this is as close to their socialist utopia as they have gotten. They're not going to give up their power without a fight.
We have a tyrannical pRESIDENT that rules by decree, arms our enemies and is flooding the country with enemies in the form of "refugees", muslims and illegals and the Republican majority congress does nothing to stop him. W
No they didn't. If Lincoln hadn't been able to provoke a reaction at Sumter, he was going to provoke a reaction somewhere else.
The financial Titans of the New York area needed Southern Independence stopped, and the only way to stop it was to go to war, so Lincoln was going to war one way or the other.
You are aware that he sent what the Confederate government believed to be a belligerent Naval force to stand 10 miles off the coast of Charleston? Multiple warships and armed men were sent, in clear violation of the armistice the two sides had with each other.
The Confederate forces surrounding the fort believed they would be trapped between two pincer forces with the Warships at sea and the Fortress at their backs. This would have been a very untenable position for them.
They did not start firing at Ft. Sumter until word had reached them that a Union Warship (The USS Powhatan, I think) was sighted as having joined the ships that were already there.
Even Major Robert Anderson who was in charge of Ft. Sumter felt this was a dirty trick by Lincoln.
I had the honor to receive by yesterday’s mail the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, dated April 4, and confess that what he there states surprises me very greatly…I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country. It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned...
I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon’s remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. That God will still avert it, and cause us to resort to pacific measures to maintain our rights, is my ardent prayer.
Lincoln started the war with a deliberate dirty trick intended to induce a Confederate Military response so that he could claim the moral high ground of not having fired first.
Lincoln was a shrewd man, and he applied his political skills to the initiation of a war that his Financial Elite backers in the New York power structure needed.
It settled the question as a matter of force, but it did nothing to settle the philosophical understanding established by our own Declaration of Independence that people have a right to leave a government which they believe no longer serves their interest.
The conclusion of the US civil war merely re-iterated the old adage that "Might makes right."
Every definition of civil war with which I am familiar requires the goal of both sides to be the capture of the government of the entire nation, not an establishment of a separate government.
A war of Independence is not a "civil war" insofar as someone is trying to take over control of the entire nation. What we had in 1861 is more a case of a wife trying to leave an abusive husband, and he then forceably drags her back against her will.
I would like to see the liberal states expelled from the Union. Any state that still supports the evil communist who is currently defiling our White House has no potential to contribute to a free country and should be voted out of the union.
Go look up a definition that doesn’t cite historical examples.
You’re just delving into trivia and diversion. There are some very mighty stretches of absurdity going on here with you and the other proponents who argue against a very simple definition of civil war.
My FIRST contention that the classical American Civil War was just that - a civil war between citizens of the same country. It wasn’t predicated on region or anything beyond both sides being citizens of the same country.
I can’t help it if you guys can’t accept that definition. Your bleats don’t make what you say so.
The Union *DID* accept secession. They did so on July 4, 1776. They wrote a document in which the stated explicitly that it was a natural and God given right to become independent of a nation that no longer served their interest.
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.
What you mean is that Lincoln rejected this fundamental and natural law based principle expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
But prior to Lincoln, the *UNION* accepted secession. The *UNION* was founded on it.
Exactly right. The United Kingdom didn't accept secession either.
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.