A scenario for the second civil war

Forward Observer ^ | August 30, 2016 | Matt Bracken

[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….”

[papertyger]

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.

Refs for research? I've never heard of this angle before.

[Crusher138]

I have been pondering a split based on monetary issues.

Let’s say that the printing of worthless money combined with the discovery that our gold reserves are much less than expected or reported leads to hyper-inflation.

In response a state - let’s say Texas - decides to protect their citizens’ finances by issuing a gold based currency that works “side by side” with US dollars. The stability of this new currency leads many to cash out and buy Texas Lone Stars.

The feds get upset and threaten to cut off Federal Aid. The State of Texas decides to confiscate Federal property as financial recompense. The Feds send in troops to secure their “property.”

Things go downhill rapidly from there.

[amorphous]

“This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. "

Not that I think I have any special wisdom, far from it, but it may be that this prophecy has already been fulfilled, at least on one level (most prophecy has multiple levels).

...calculate the number of the beast...

6 + 6 + 6 = 18, 1 + 8 = "9"

Calculating the Number for Your Name

...for it is the number of a man...

The beast is government. Government (the beast) has issued each of us our number (i.e., our SSN). Our number is composed of "9" digits (i.e., 'the number of a man')

What are the odds?

It goes without saying how difficult living in our country today, would be without a SSN.

[DiogenesLamp]

You’re still trying miserably to resurrect your absurd assertion. Of course secession isn’t precluded by a union that was freely joined, but THAT is not what happened. Lincoln went against all the wishes of the founders, IMO.

A right granted by God may not be forsworn by scribblings on paper by men.

There is no means by which you can legally bind a people and compel them to give up a right granted by God.

The founders of this nation clearly recognized that Independence is a right granted by God, and as such it may not be subjugated to "contracts", or "agreements" to abrogate it.

It is absolute, and unalienable.

[Charles Martel]

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.

Seems like the question is open for review each time hostilities flare.

[B4Ranch]

This is #1 of 96 videos on the subject. It might be an idea to download them all considering what's been happening.

Long Range Shooting.

Published on Sep 9, 2012

Snipers, hunters, target shooters, ladies and gentlemen... Finally, Rex Reviews releases this long awaited free online long range shooting / sniper tutorial. TiborasaurusRex will walk you through everything you will need to know about sniper ammunition and cartridge selection, rifle and equipment options, basic and advanced external ballistics, making effective ballistic charts, rangefinders and distance determination, long range marksmanship, shooter / spotter team dynamics and communication, choosing a FFP, making the shot, spotting the shot, and much more.

This course goes far beyond what is covered in the U.S. Army FM23-10. So, if you can't make it to Quantico or the AMTU to learn these long range shooting skills, this video tutorial series will have you covered. We will get you set up to make amazingly accurate first round shots at 1 mile and beyond. Do you want to be able to zap that white tail buck at 1,275 yards and be confident it will be a nice clean kill? Watch this series!

All law abiding men and women in the free world who treasure their rifles MUST have these long range shooting skills for the continuation of our shooting culture and for the future preservation of our wonderful nation! Peace is beautiful, insure it by sharing these marksmanship skills with your friends and families to exponentially increase our nations already robust defense stature.

WHAT IS A PATRIOT?

PATRIOTS are not "Revolutionaries" trying to overthrow the government of the United States.

PATRIOTS are "Counter-Revolutionaries" trying to prevent the government of the United States,
from overthrowing the Constitution of the United States. - Unknown Author

[JimRed]

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.

A head to head confrontation with better armed and trained troops is not advisable. We need to discover those WHO GIVE THE ORDERS. Learn who they are, where they live and work, their travel habits and recreation, their vulnerabilities. They must have "accidents" or simply disappear. Cut off the head and the snake will die.

[Gaffer]

You just are disintegrating in your arguments, however I might agree or disagree with them, from the original assertion and definition I put forth you felt you just had to contradict.

You have a beef with me about something else (we both know what) and that prompted you to enter into all this - and you lose.

[DiogenesLamp]

You told me about documents signed by people likely dead when Lincoln pursued that war.

I gave you a link to a document written by Lincoln himself in his own handwriting in which he asserted that secession is the right of all people.

You just do not like that fact.

[pleasenotcalifornia]

I would like to add that under the premises and scenarios written by Bracken that many police and armed forces personnel would refuse to carry out their orders to disarm their fellow citizens.

Therefore the government would seek to bring in foreign police and armed forces to supplant our domestic police and troops. Added to this would be a government drive to recruit police and armed forces out of the millions of Muslim refugees that will be here.

Hillary and friends would have no qualms about crushing her domestic opponents in a cruel and brutal manner by whatever means necessary.

[Gaffer]

What I see is a largely unreadable handwritten document that speaks of “The President” in the third person. Further, it has no date nor signature.

[DiogenesLamp]

Refs for research?

I'll have to search them up again, but in my experience, evidence seldom convinces anyone of anything. Too many people have too much emotion invested in what they prefer to believe.

I've never heard of this angle before.

Why on earth would anyone on the Union side want people to know about this? It makes Lincoln look like a monster who deliberately triggered a war that killed 750,000 people to protect the financial interest of Wealthy Robber barons in the North East.

There is a good reason that people don't talk about those soldiers and ships Lincoln sent to Charleston. It doesn't fit the narrative they wish people to believe.

Here is one link that covers some of the material.

[DiogenesLamp]

In response a state - let’s say Texas - decides to protect their citizens’ finances by issuing a gold based currency that works “side by side” with US dollars. The stability of this new currency leads many to cash out and buy Texas Lone Stars.

They cannot do that. The US Constitution specifically prohibits a state from producing currency.

If such a thing is attempted, I predict that the power blocks in the North East (and now elsewhere) in whose interests this Federal spending fountain has been gushing for the last century and a half or so, would launch an immediate war through their agents in control of FedZilla.

If you dare expose the Ponzi scheme they have created by their support of borrowing and spending Federal policy, they will attack you with everything they've got, which means everything the Federal Government has, plus the New York based media system.

[DiogenesLamp]

You just are disintegrating in your arguments, however I might agree or disagree with them, from the original assertion and definition I put forth you felt you just had to contradict.

My arguments are clear and correct. If anything it is your understanding of the concepts involved that has disintegrated.

You have a beef with me about something else (we both know what) and that prompted you to enter into all this - and you lose.

When I noticed it was you making these arguments, I thought to myself "This guy is wrong about this as well."

If you scan through my posting history, you will find I have been making these very same points for a long time before you and I ever conflicted on the Corrupt Brazilian police issue.

[papertyger]

A second civil war would be painful and costly....

I'm not so sure about that.

I think, of necessity, any such war would be more asymmetrical and "stealth" than in times past.

[Jim Noble]

I think to have a full CWII the chain of command would have to be divided over the correct response to events, as was the case in 1861.

[Gaffer]

And what you don’t address is my question about authenticity, date and provenance of your “evidence”. Show me the date, who signed it and in what context it is cited where you found it.

By your own admission you are thread jumping http://www.freerepublic.com/help.htm#guidelines
and continuing some kind of vendetta that is absurd.

[DiogenesLamp]

What I see is a largely unreadable handwritten document that speaks of “The President” in the third person. Further, it has no date nor signature.

Yes, Lincoln's handwriting is messy, but you are grasping at straws in your attempt to reject the fact that Lincoln wrote those words. Lincoln did in fact write those words.

If you can't read it, I gave you the link to the source, and you can just hit the button that says "Transcript."

Do a text search on the Transcript, and you will find the relevant text.

After that, you will have to argue that people entrusted with keeping some of Lincolns documents are liars or something.

If you are an honest man, you will come to the conclusion that in 1848 Lincoln believed people had a right to secede from governments that they believed didn't suit their interests, but by 1861 he had decided to claim that he didn't believe this.

[Gaffer]

Please tell me what Lincoln did, NOT in 1848, but during the conduct of what we seem to dispute as the Civil War even Ken Burns acknowledges. Go away

[DiogenesLamp]

And what you don’t address is my question about authenticity, date and provenance of your “evidence”. Show me the date, who signed it and in what context it is cited where you found it.

It's from a speech he gave to congress. Do you expect Lincoln to sign speeches he wrote for himself?

You can grasp for straws that this is not an authentic statement from Lincoln, but the truth is that it is.