The 2nd Civil War Scenario.

[Rattler]

Infringements to the 2nd Amendment will cause this to happen.  Yet the Democrats are hell bent on infringing, even eviscerating the right.

Very accurate predictions in this article by a Navy Seal.

 

https://readfomag.com/2016/08/bracken-a-scenario-for-the-second-civil-war/

[philoshop]

I really don't see another 'civil war' in our future. Another 'revolutionary war' is much more likely.

The former involves taking up arms against fellow citizens with whom you may disagree, while the latter involves taking up arms against a government with which you absolutely disagree. That those fellow citizens helped to put that particular government in place is not, in general, where my anger lies. We're a free and open society. The elected officials swear upon entering office to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and when they blatantly don't do that is when the fight starts.

[DirtTime]

If there is a new age war, it will be like nothing we have ever seen before. If you don't know what that means, you aren't paying attention and I am not going to spell it out for you. 

[Rattler]

Philo, you have to remember there will be many people in this land that will side with the government against those who wish to restore a constitutional system.  They will be the other side of the fight.  That's what will make it a civil war.

[Uptown Redneck]

There will be no Civil War for the simple fact that Americans are lazy and will do nothing to inconvenience themselves. The other reason there won't be any civil war is that most people don't care about things that don't concern them, Americans indifference will never allow for any sort of mass uprising. And finally the government, at the first sign of any sort of uprising, will crush those responsible before it can gain any support. 

Edited September 2, 2016 by Uptown Redneck

[Rattler]

Everything you said there, except for the last sentence, is certainly true of the Leftist Progressives in America.  That gives the supporters of the Constitution a big advantage.

The last sentence isn't accurate, as there is already a lot of support for reclaiming a Constitutional system and to crush them would mean killing millions.  That would encourage even more support.

[philoshop]

On 9/1/2016 at 9:09 AM, Rattler said:

Philo, you have to remember there will be many people in this land that will side with the government against those who wish to restore a constitutional system.  They will be the other side of the fight.  That's what will make it a civil war.

I'll agree to a certain extent. That sort of popular opposition, however, has little will, and little means of self-defense. A 'civil war' would be swift and brutal.

[Uptown Redneck]

19 minutes ago, philoshop said:

A 'civil war' would be swift and brutal.

Watching a Right Wing "Patriots" uprising swiftly and brutally crushed would be quite entertaining 

Kinda like watching Lavoy Finicum being put in his place by the FBI

[Big John]

It will not be swift but IT WILL BE BRUTAL! There are 300 Million guns in the hands of 100 million civilians the only problem is getting them working together, The Big East Coast cities will fall first the are already unarmed for the most part but when the states on the West side of the Mississippi hear what going on that is where the brutal is going to start. I don't know how the rest of you feel but for myself I took an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic. That is my first duty if there is a conflict that would mean anyone whose trying to eliminate the Constitution is my enemy, if other former and present Military side that way it may be a LONG drawn out war that we can not afford because that would give our enemies overseas a chance to attack us all and divided we wouldn't stand much of a chance. PRAY TO GOD THAT IT DOESN'T COME TO THAT!

[diplomat019]

Let me ask you something.  There was a jihadi bike rife right in our backyard.  It was well advertised on HNY.  It was a topic with tons of support.  The overwhelming majority of members who posted on the topic were all in favor of the ride.  I mean, there is a muslim extremist training compound in our own state!  Yet only 5 people went.  Not 5 people from this forum..5 people from WHOLE STATE!!!!!!  People were too busy turkey hunting instead.  

 

So if nobody will fight the leftist progressive backed extremists in NYS, how will there ever be a civil war?  People wouldn't drive 20 miles to ride on a compound that is believed to have extremist ties, yet there is going to be a civil war?

[Rattler]

That ride fizzled because the promoters were advised they were wrong about the place.  If the US Government turns on it's people and abuses it's power to install tyranny, people's anger and desire to revolt will not fizzle.  Did you read the article in the OP?

 

[diplomat019]

2 minutes ago, Rattler said:

That ride fizzled because the promoters were advised they were wrong about the place.  If the US Government turns on it's people and abuses it's power to install tyranny, people's anger and desire to revolt will not fizzle.  Did you read the article in the OP?

 

I did not read the article.  I will later. I was commenting on the other comments    But I will read the article tonight and give my opinion for whatever that's worth LOL 

 

but as far as a civil war. Im not even saying your wrong.  Could it come to that?   I pray not.  But who knows.  In my honest opinion.  Idk what would be the straw that broke the camels back.  What would be the moment that made people say enough is enough?   I think it would be such a slow process to that point that people wouldn't even care.  People wouldnt even realize because they been conditioned a certain way.  Am i making sense ? Lol. 

[philoshop]

1 hour ago, diplomat019 said:

I did not read the article.  I will later. I was commenting on the other comments    But I will read the article tonight and give my opinion for whatever that's worth LOL 

 

but as far as a civil war. Im not even saying your wrong.  Could it come to that?   I pray not.  But who knows.  In my honest opinion.  Idk what would be the straw that broke the camels back.  What would be the moment that made people say enough is enough?   I think it would be such a slow process to that point that people wouldn't even care.  People wouldnt even realize because they been conditioned a certain way.  Am i making sense ? Lol. 

We have an 'unalienable right' to protect ourselves, and to speak our minds. When someone messes with that it will get nasty.

[Uptown Redneck]

Following up on diplomat's post concerning the bike ride the organizers blamed the lack of support on the weather, it was rainy and cold. If it was a little rain and cold that kept the so called "patriots" at home how would you expect these so called defenders of the constitution to survive the hostile conditions of a drawn out war?

Once again all you phony patriots love to talk your nonsense but when the time comes you all find reasons to do nothing. It must be nice living in your little right wing conspiracy filled world where you all talk your tough nonsense but when the time comes to act (as in the quoted bike rally) you all simply stay home.  

[diplomat019]

53 minutes ago, philoshop said:

We have an 'unalienable right' to protect ourselves, and to speak our minds. When someone messes with that it will get nasty.

Ok.  So what is it that will make you say enough? Is your right to protect yourself being infringed at this time?   I often hear that within our circle.  Was the safe act not enough?  Will a complete ar ban be it?   I want to know what  is it that will make someone actually do somethig?   Not talking about posting stuff on a forum   Im talking about physical action   A civil war wont be fought over a hunting forum   What will make someone not talk and actually do something physical?  My example of the jihadi bike ride is a perfect example   A lot of talk about this and that yet NOBODY did a thing!!!!   Makes u think that a) either nobody cared ) people were scared c) people dont really believe all they say.  Cause if u think muslims in our own backyard are actively trying to kill us and convert you to honor shria law, then you would combat that   

 

  Also We have a football player making a silent- non violent protest and he is being told to shut up.  Idk where u stand on that but if you truly believe in being able to speak your mind as an unalienable right then you must be upset over that.  The principal of speaking your mind in america should supercede the words imo.  Especially in a non violent protest.  

Edited September 3, 2016 by diplomat019

[philoshop]

1 hour ago, diplomat019 said:

Ok.  So what is it that will make you say enough? Is your right to protect yourself being infringed at this time?   I often hear that within our circle.  Was the safe act not enough?  Will a complete ar ban be it?   I want to know what  is it that will make someone actually do somethig?   Not talking about posting stuff on a forum   Im talking about physical action   A civil war wont be fought over a hunting forum   What will make someone not talk and actually do something physical?  My example of the jihadi bike ride is a perfect example   A lot of talk about this and that yet NOBODY did a thing!!!!   Makes u think that a) either nobody cared ) people were scared c) people dont really believe all they say.  Cause if u think muslims in our own backyard are actively trying to kill us and convert you to honor shria law, then you would combat that   

 

  Also We have a football player making a silent- non violent protest and he is being told to shut up.  Idk where u stand on that but if you truly believe in being able to speak your mind as an unalienable right then you must be upset over that.  The principal of speaking your mind in america should supercede the words imo.  Especially in a non violent protest.  

I'll have to unpack this post before I respond, because it's not very clear to me, and I've had a couple of beers. ;-

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Where are we all going to meet when this happens? Do you guys have my back? I have yours. 

[diplomat019]

8 minutes ago, philoshop said:

I'll have to unpack this post before I respond, because it's not very clear to me, and I've had a couple of beers. ;-

hahahahah   i had a couple vodkas too

[Uptown Redneck]

3 hours ago, diplomat019 said:

Ok.  So what is it that will make you say enough? 

Nothing! All these "arm-chair phony patriots" will do is just what they are doing now. They will sit hidden behind their computer keyboards and talk of just how brave they are when in reality they will do absolutely nothing.  

[Big John]

OH LOOK A TROLL!

 

[Rattler]

If you guys would take a minute and read the short article I posted in the OP, many of your questions would be answered there.  The author of the article explains quite clearly what will start it.

[diplomat019]

I read the article last night.  The scenario the author lays out would take a whole lot. I guess it could happen but i think my chances of winning the lotto would be greater.  Snipers?   Guerilla war?  Almost sounds like a story   

 

We already had had a prequal to this with malheur.  They had virtually no physical support in the grand scheme of things.   All this talk about infringement yet they only had a couple dozen people there.  And zero HNY members which was shocking to me because they had so much support on the forum.  Thats why i keep asking what is it that will make someone say enough and really do soemthing?   

 

 

13 hours ago, ELMER J. FUDD said:

Where are we all going to meet when this happens? Do you guys have my back? I have yours. 

Are you serious or joking?   Ill answer this as if your serious.   Asking a question like this over a public forum is bananas.    If you want to be proactive you do it silently.   Im serious.  Havent you watched goodfellas?   Jimmy always told henry to never talk over the phone.  

Edited September 3, 2016 by diplomat019

[Big John]

FOr those who haven't

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….”