Y’all are discussing this scenario of a “civil war”. Perhaps you should read some history to see what that means.
During the Revolutionary war, it meant Loyalists in towns dominated by Revolutionaries were were harassed and their houses were burned (and vice versa - look at the history of those who signed the Declaration of Independence). This occurred far from the battlefields.
During the War between the States, the war wasn’t just between the northern and southern armies - it was ‘Bleeding Kansas’ and the atrocities of the raiders in Missouri (both sides).
In Argentina, both sides had “death squads”.
We appear to be building towards a civil war, but the next civil war will not be limited to a militarized force surrounding a geographic area (e.g., town, city, State) — it will be nation wide, neighbor against neighbor. It will be between those who believe that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the FedGov, and those who believe it interferes with building a FedGov that will ensure Social Justice (and Environmental Justice, and ...).
After some instigating incident where the FedGov steps over the line and cracks down, all restraints will be discarded -— targets will not be limited to the militarized forces doing the cracking — it will include “soft targets” [there are more of them, and they are softer].
Liberals publicly advocating a crackdown on the right with armed forces, whether politicians, legislators, newspaper editors, columnists, TV News anchors, will become targets of retribution [you want a war, here it is]; and then the target list will grow to include bureaucrats enforcing liberal policies.
Consider - if a militarized FBI or EPA or IRS force stormed your friend’s farm, what would be more effective resistance - retribution against the individual members of that militarized force, or against the EPA/IRS bureaucrat that ordered it? It wouldn’t be a militia that did it (with their FBI infiltrators), it would be a harder to find lone individual.
It will be very bloody.
Precisely. There are two competing versions of the future that are becoming of a size unable to share the same geographic space. This town just won't be big enough for the both of us.
You're exactly right that the next civil war won't be neat matches of tank divisions grappling for terrain, all set up according to respected rules and utilizing classic order of battle. They make it sound as though it would be a gentleman's duel that will be fought according to established doctrine and will end once one side is outmaneuvered and forced to concede defeat.
What they don't tell you is that in a real civil war, people will take power tools to each other, drill holes in their heads and leave the bodies hanging from bridges and power lines.
It will be everywhere, and not just where people assume it will be. The educated, urban Iraqis were far crueler to their captured enemies than the illiterate, warlike Afghans. The people least accustomed to fighting will be the ones most eager to push the limits once the fight arrives. Liberals may not make great warriors or organized opponents, but God help you if wind up caught up in one of their mobs once things start going sideways. What they'll lack in skill they'll make up for in viciousness. Many liberals will be shocked at just how far they've been conditioned to hate their opponents, and what that hate will make them capable of.
Certainly, the right won't be playing with kid gloves either. Once the tit-for-tat starts it will get very messy, and no one, be they man or woman, elderly or child, will be safe.
Roger that.