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….”
The financial math certainly seems to bear this out.
“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast:..."
Oh please! You stretch citizens of the same country to include an ocean-distant monarchy and its soldiers and mercenaries and expect me to swallow that? Ludicrous.
THAT was a revolution by unrepresented subjects. You just keep on equivocating and citing other historical events trying to justify the ridiculous statement you made in the first place. A basic not-event description of "civil war" need not include historical events to cling to.
I have long felt that the people of the Union states prefer to call it a "Civil War" because in their own minds it justifies what they did.
It isn't accurate, but neither is much that has been said on the matter.
Again, as I explained before you jumped in, trying describing civil war in its most basic form without resorting to convenient historical events.
Those muslims that he[obama] has brought and is stii bringing over here still have to be accounted for. Except for a few that jumped the gun, he is making them keep a low profile and remain under the radar. I still maintain that he intends to arm them and unleash them upon the population. \I just can’t say when he is going to do it.
The 13 slave holding states declaring independence from the United Kingdom (A Union) are in exactly the same situation as were the 11 slave holding states declaring independence from the United States.
The only difference is that "King George III" won the war in 1865.
Thank you for the ping and thank you for the article.
“Nonetheless, it was a Civil War.”
___
A civil war is an action conducted by citizens of the same country for control of their government. Since the southern states seceded from the Union and formed their own government, “civil” doesn’t accurately describe the war that followed.
I would say that if Trump’s victory exceeds the Democrat margin-of-cheating, they will get the “go” sign shortly thereafter.
I didn’t respond to your historical citation because my original definition was sufficient. I defined and you’re still stuck in providing historical context to ‘demonstrate’.. You’re grasping at nonexistent straws now.
If you read the Oaths of Commissioned and Non Commissioned Officers alike you will notice first and foremost that is states: that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
That I will obey the President is secondary. This was written in that order intentionally. So let me repeat, if it does hit the fan, I don't think a vast majority of law/military will be going door to door collecting weapons. They will be on the side of freedom.
You neglect that the “Union” never accepted secession and held that the rebelling states were still citizens still subject to their force.
Civil war? My second grade teacher taught us it was the “War between the Americans and Yankees”.
It wouldn't surprise me to see some states secede in the next 5-10 years. However, I take a different track.
I think that it will be the "liberal" states that leave, rather than Texas, etc. I can easily see, for instance, the New England states splitting off on their own (then, failing miserably). Liberals move in herds, have the media on their side ("Hillary says Secession? Brilliant!!!") and are far more self-deluding.
Whereas, Texas, Alabama, etc are populated mostly by conservatives. 5 minutes on FR will convince you that trying to convince conservatives to agree on anything is like herding cats. Add in the media (Texas Secession? Buncha inbred hick redneck bigots, what are THEY thinking?) and the fact that most conservatives are practical - it's usually cheaper and easier to fix something that's broken than smash it into pieces - and I think another "southern revolt", while interesting to consider, fairly unlikely.
M —
IMHO, I would offer that Hillary is not campaigning (or even trying) because she has already been guaranteed the vote count in states that matter. After all it’s not who votes that matters, it’s who counts the votes.
Related: It would appear Steven Coonts (a tad late to the party) read your trilogy and wrote (quickly) a very time-sensitive version of EFAD, set in the present day.
Liberty’s Last Stand is the title
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01B6SEL5E/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
See you next time I am in JAX area.
p.s. Be a good time to prepare documentation that you have sold all the soon-to-be-offending items to in-state, anonymous private parties. “Nope, I don’t own those any more.”
buy this in Kindle version, especially if you are a Texan. Steven Coonts’ latest book - very topical to this thread.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01B6SEL5E/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
You have my respect and admiration. I enjoy your writing and try to find and read all your articles.
I would like your opinion on the following observation.
I am 76 years old and have watched America thread it’s way through many crisis. Including a nuclear exchanges from Russia due to misunderstood war game and the Cuban missile crisis.
I am now living in a country I no longer recognize with the very real possibility that we will elect Hillary, destroy the Supreme Court, and end our Liberty, all with the enthusiastic support of half of the population.
I contend any attempt to regulate or confiscate guns is unnecessary. THEY will have already won. The oppression can happen gradually.
We are too comfortable. We will continue to have our football and beers.
They are cleaver enough that there will never be a hill to be worth defending, to die over.
Unintended Consequences will remain a work of fiction
“This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.”
It’s irrelevant whether the Union accepted secession or not.
Regarding the article “A Candidate’s Death Could Delay or Eliminate the Presidential Election”
Snip:
“The presidential election could be delayed or scrapped altogether if conspiracy theories become predictive and a candidate dies or drops out before Nov. 8.”
“The scenarios have been seriously considered by few outside of the legal community and likely are too morbid for polite discussion in politically mixed company. But prominent law professors have pondered the effects and possible ways to address a late-date vacancy.”
Even here on Free Republic, there is a significant contingent that wants NO discussion of such a possibility, to the point of strongly asking posters to not bring up the topic.
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.