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….”
That's probably true too. I don't think they anticipated the utter disaster it turned out to be.
I think World War 1 was similar, in that many of those people thought that would be over quickly, and it also turned out to be a massive disaster.
:)
I'm not 100% sure either, though I do think it's a strong possibility we've been tricked and have already received our 'mark', since many parts match up so precisely. Have we, unwittingly, sold our birthright for a bowl porridge?
I certainly wouldn't rule out a later 'level' of the prophecy of an actual 'marking' of a sign of some beast, as some believe John saw a image of the mark of Islam.
Yes, I don't think I suddenly came up with some sort of brilliance. Remember, the Germans said they were just following orders. I think the majority of American soldiers, if ordered to do so, will surely fire on American civilians.
Yes. But there is an effective countermeasure for MRAPS
I think that is exactly true. World War I was a horrible loss of life, and the cost was far greater than any benefit they thought they would earn from fighting it.
Yes, both WWI and the Civil War were mistakes caused by arrogance.
Got Tribe?
Ever read Bill Whittle’s essay “Tribes”?
Here it is if you haven’t:
That's why the census bureau did that extremely inquisitive "community survey" a couple of years ago—so that the overlords would know exactly which solidly republican, christian and/or white communities to "seed" with "refugees", illegal "children" and section 8's. They have already thusly ruined the neighborhood where we live, and to which we must continue to pay sizeable HOA dues for the by-laws until such time as we move away (soon), while the government-assisted implants do nothing to take care of their residences, control their kids or dogs, or pick up their trash. What scares us most is that in the possibility of an insurrection, the dues-payers will be handy targets. But in researching where limited income retired people could go next, we're coming up with the same dilemma: anywhere we thought we would like to live among patriots is already infiltrated, is in the process of being infiltrated, or will be infiltrated before Trump can stop it. If it's not infiltrated now, there is a terrorist training camp within 20 miles. Or it's so remote that there are no services (we are old and need some things like medical care).
I read all you books, and find your writing to be eye opening. For example, your article about the globalists and Islamists vs nationalists really opened my eyes. That being said, I can see no evidence of a scenario of a 2nd civil war, based on gun owners resisting the gutting of the 2nd amendment. I see no sign of that sort of zeal in the citizens. As long as the citizens have NASCAR, football, and dancing with the stars....I think they will sleep until we follow Europe’s path into sharia.
Where is the evidence patriots would rise up to defend the 2nd or the 1st Amendments? The American public is weak, gutless, self-indulgent and most important, leaderless.
How many Americans have been killed by radical American supporters of Islam? I can think of 100 very easily.
How many Americans have been killed by extremist supporters of the Constitution? I can think of none.
I feel for you and have noted some of the same things here. I'm not sure what to say, other than Trump is only a first step we need to start electing people far to the right of him, where ever we can, who explicitly target programs like Section 8 and Refugee Resettlement and bring a stop to them in some areas.
Look at states that are pretty Red. Being in a Red area in a Blue state has a limited half-life of freedom. Eventually the Statist Pukes will start going after the Freedomistas in their "control". Here in Washington and Oregon you can feel them getting ratcheted up to start attacking basic rights like gun ownership.
Eventually it's going to come down to a fight of some sort, so it's good to be where you think you want to fight. (In whatever sort of metaphorical way you wish to interpret that.)
No, I haven't. Thanks much from bringing it to my attention DW! Have a great holiday weekend.
Thank you, Jack Black. It’s in God’s hands. It’s our obligation to do due diligence, but when decision time comes, “He leadeth me.”
"...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..."
Thanks, looks like an excellent resource.
Emphasis on downloading this - I’m sure that YouTube will, at some point, be told to cut off access or remove the videos altogether.
That is a very good question, and my answer is probably not as good. As a resident of the People's Republic of Maryland, I would move to one of the states that was retained in the union. It would require a lot of family moves - as communists moves from Austin, TX, so the socialist hellhole of their choice, and as decent people moved from rejected former states to states that valued patriotism. I think it's worth it.
Due diligence is everything. I observed an issue with a neighbor years ago, one significant enough that my former neighbor is probably still behind bars, and that made me more aware of how much I need to pay attention. I learn from my mistakes.
I just want to say that it’s not just that all Swiss man are armed. They are more Federal than we are. Their cantons are much freer than our states. They don’t REALLY have a President. The country is run by 7 people (the Bundesrat) and each year, one of the 7 is chosen to be the President for ceremonial purposes. We could learn some things from Switzerland. (I far prefer my beloved America but we can still learn a few things from a very federal republic.)
That is not entirely one-sided. While soldiers rarely refuse orders, a part of that is senior officers being afraid to try issuing orders that might not be obeyed. Part of the reason that soldiers obey is that thugs in power, even Obama, are afraid to issue the most evil orders they can imagine, no matter how much they may relish the thought of doing so.
Gaffer & Diogenes - with all due respect, I must say the following:
1) I don’t know either of you.
2) I don’t have anything against either of you.
3) I am pretty sure that you are both bright and sincere people of good will.
4) That all being said, Travis McGee - Matt Bracken - has repeatedly (including in this thread) taken a great deal of time and effort to warn people about the possible consequences of various potential governmental actions. While I cannot speak for him, I am reasonably certain that having people on one of his threads that deals with potential problems in the FUTURE commenting interminably about the “unpleasantness” in this nation between 1861 and 1865 was not at the top of his list for making this post.
5) Speaking for ME - only - I am very tired of the interminable arguments over whether the Civil War (as it is popularly called) should be considered a civil war, or a revolt of some kind...or whether it should be called the “War of Northern Aggression” instead of the “Civil War.” I frankly don’t care WHY it started, WHAT it was over, or HOW you title that conflict - for all I care, call it the war of Hillary’s Sharted Tablecloth Masquerading as a Pantsuit.” Really, guys, WHO CARES? The war has been over for 151 years and about 4 months. Precious few alive now could have heard a first-hand account of any action during that period. It is done. It is over. Times have changed and that is not the issue that Matt Bracken put before us. How about stick to the topic - possible FUTURE government action, and what to do or not do about it? HMMM, how about it, guys?
Thanks.
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.