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….”
Many of them held state charters to issue currency, so that would be yes.
You can only do so much with that, and it is very unwieldy.
(Actually, the past few years have taught me at least that about the only societal organization with any credibility at all outside of immediate family are those "friends and neighbors"....and maybe not all of them.)
That is the conclusion to which I have come as well. If things go bad, you need alliances with good and competent people.
I consider it prudent to keep a neighborhood map, since I do not know everyone in the area. Those with an Obama bumper sticker or other ties to the culture of parasites are marked prominently, since I know their morals. I feel safer knowing something about each family's trustworthiness.
While we are on the subject, if you haven't heard of this, I thought you might find it interesting.
I figure the feds have been letting them get away with this because first, they are Liberals, and second, because they are relatively harmless.
But this is the same threat to federal power as that represented by "Sanctuary Cities" and that represented by legalizing Marijuana.
I moved out of the city so I wouldn't have to worry about neighbors in close proximity, but I am surprised by your level of due diligence in creating your own situational awareness.
I'm not so sure about that.
I think, of necessity, any such war would be more asymmetrical and "stealth" than in times past.
Fair enough.
Of course, in order to not be painful and costly it also will have to be of relatively short duration. That supposes a responsible Congress will take prompt and effective control via impeachment and conviction of federal officials shown to act contrary to the Constitution. It also supposes a corrupt government will be denied the opportunity to use military and federal law enforcement in pursuit of its goals.
It will be in essence a political coup that is completed very quickly.
My rationale for stating it “would be” painful and costly instead of “could be” includes the fact that I have little faith Congress will perform its duty and believe it possible that the integrity of the military will be compromised in the event. I also believe there will be significant anti-American elements roving “within the wire” effectively misleading and disrupting sensible efforts to maintain or restore calm. We should expect those elements will do everything possible to compromise our infrastructure and gasoline and food distribution systems, as well as reduce medical resources. If the marketplace is significantly disabled it is entirely possible local law enforcement will be threatened and extended perhaps to the point of becoming ineffective.
And that is before any consideration of hostile international forces that may come into play. Most adult American males who have any military training or have spent time abroad quickly concluded that 9-11 was an amateur operation, albeit successful. That was then and this is now.
Of the two outcomes above, I like the best case I attribute to you. {;^)
And the last one that will ever happen.......
There ain't going to be no civil war as long as the so called patriots have their jobs that pay their mortgages, their truck payments, the college tuition for their older kids and the weekend soccer games for the girls..........
Where were the "patriots" when the ranchers of Klamath Basin had their water shut off in 2013?
Any so called "patriots" from this site drive off to Nevada to help Ted Bundy back in 2014?
Sorry but people are going to be too busy to participate in the next civil war.............
You mean like 1st Samuel 15:2-3?
Some time ago, I thought most military people would not fire on Amercan Civilians. Now, I am convinced that only a few wouldn’t. I don’t know that for sure, it’s just my opinion.
I had this conversation with someone. Similar conclusions.
Something along those lines.
Perhaps with a touch of fire and brimstone thrown in.
I have no doubt this is true. I believe the Bible verse, the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil. (1st Timothy 6:10) These ass hats were perfectly willing to see 600,000 Americans dead, just to keep their cash cow going.
I am very cynical of politicians and elitists, and I tend to think they are malicious, before I think they are ignorant and stupid. They may be that too, but most of them have evil intentions.
Unfortunately, I think you are right. Then we will have to see what a pistol can do against an army.
Things go downhill rapidly from there.
Can you think of one state that already has more active duty military forces stationed in it, than Texas? They are already there.
I think if things are going to go downhill from there, then things might go downhill from there, in a big hurry.
I think the "fire and brimstone" comes into play, after their demise. 🔥😖
The King James Version says that it is “the number of a man” (Revelation 13:18).
I think the translators got it right, in this case.
And 13:17, "so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark..."
Just my 2 cents. :)
It could go either way, so I keep the options open.
Kind of like the moon landing. :)
Forty and six years has the prophecy house of merchandise been in building.
Buyers, sellers... symbiosis. Judgment begins at the den of thieves. That could explain the sign of the prophet Jonah. Those who sold doves were forced to pay attention when their seats were overturned.
Matthew 21
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Heart of the earth: where its treasure is, what it values most. Where thieves break through and steal...
Solution to MRAPs: http://madogre.com/OldMadOgre/Interviews/myths_molotovs.htm
Maybe they win most of the time, but it is WAY cheaper and faster to make a Molotov than an MRAP. Also, once a few dozen end up as flaming coffins, the willingness of people to get in one and go after fellow citizens will diminish.
There are 400 million guns in this country, and another 1.5 - 2 million every month. Look for 4 million/month starting in November if Illary is (s)elected. Good luck trying to take more than a small fraction.
I think that is somewhat unfair. I don't think any of them, including Lincoln, thought that stopping independence for the South would cost them 750,000 (the latest updated number) lives.
All of their behavior indicates they thought this would end quickly and with little bloodshed. They were shocked that the Southern defenses were so strong, and that the Southern will would be so determined.
What they thought would be a cheap and short war turned into a massive disaster.
I will point out that often when we have had "super genius" leaders, they tend to make the sort of blunders that a less "brilliant" man would not have made.
I am very cynical of politicians and elitists, and I tend to think they are malicious, before I think they are ignorant and stupid. They may be that too, but most of them have evil intentions.
Evil is a pretty simple way to describe their motivation. It is not entirely accurate, but it is close enough.
I can’t seem to find a time they didn’t accept such orders. World wide, all armies, rare is it to find a story where the military refused orders.
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.