Civil War In The US?

[Burke]

First time I've seen this on a major network, discussing civil war as if it's only a matter of time:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/03/were-now-one-step-closer-to-america-coming-civil-war/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2H35m4sbt

[rivergator]

remember it is fox.

[ChartsandGrafs]

More stuff along those lines. Interesting to contemplate.

Most of the downtown shops, in fact, weren’t doing much business except the two gun stores. I’d been in one several days ago to pick a .22LR for an article I’d be writing for Shooting Illustrated, and decided to stop in at the other to see what the current political environment had left behind.

There were no less than six clerks working feverishly with the dozen or so customers, so I simply stepped to the side and walked the aisles. The cases of ammunition that typically lined the far wall were picked to pieces. There was a 100-round case of .50 BMG, and cases of European shotshells suitable for small game. The .223 Remington, 5.56 NATO, 7.62×39, 7.62 NATO, and 7.62x54R had sold out long ago, along with the bulk 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

A few pump shotguns remained along with a smattering of deer rifles, single-shots, and longer double-barreled shotguns suitable only for trap or skeet. Even the semi-automatic .22LR rifles like Ruger 10/22s were gone, along with all but one BX-25 magazine.

The customers in the shop were picking through what remained; lever-action rifles, oddball shotguns, and the smattering of name-brand centerfire pistols. One man was attempting to trade in an antique double-barrel shotgun for something more current.

I did speak to one harried clerk, briefly.

They didn’t know when they’d be getting anything back in stock, from magazines to rifles to pistols. Manufacturers were running full-bore, but couldn’t come close to keeping up with market demand.It wasn’t just the AR-15s, the AK-pattern rifles, the M1As, and the FALs that were sold out. It really hit me when I realized that the World War-era M1 Garands , M1 carbines, and Enfield .303s were gone, along with every last shell. Ubiquitous Mosin-Nagants—of which every gun store always seems to have 10-20—were gone. So was their ammo. Only a dust free space marked their passing. I’ve never seen anything like it.

Every weapon of military utility designed within the past 100+ years was gone. This isn’t a society stocking up on certain guns because they fear they may be banned. This is a society preparing for war.

http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/12/something-funny-happened-on-the-way-to-the-tyranny/

[ChartsandGrafs]

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Bass-Pro-Shops-out-of-stock-of-.22s-1613-courtesy-The-Truth-About-Guns.jpg

The Great Gun Buying Sales Surge continues. Actually, that’s not strictly true. The pace of ammunition and firearms sales has slowed to a crawl. The product pipeline has run dry. Bass Pro Shop in Foxboro Massachusetts is sold out of all popular ammo calibers: 9mm, .45, .38, .40, .223 and, get this, .22. As is every Bass Pro Shop in the Northeast. The sales guys report it’s now a case of just-in-time purchasing. “I put ammo on the shelves, I turn around and it’s gone,” a not-so-hassled anymore salesman told me. The firearm situation is no better. ARs? Nope. None. Smith and Wesson handguns are obvious by their absence. OK, there’s one S&W 460. Otherwise, you can have any handgun you want as long as it’s a Ruger revolver or a [very lonely] Walther. Anecdotal evidence suggest the Northeast is not alone. And the Foxboro sales manager reckons there’s no end in sight. Or, more precisely, no start point for attaining normal inventory levels.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/bass-pro-shops-out-of-almost-everything-firearms-related/

[Swampmaster]

if there is war, which side should I join? north, south, east, west?

[rpmGator]

We have had gun sale runs before. It is more of an indication to stock up before they ban something, than a want for war with the guy across the street.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Nobody outside of government wants war, but it's pretty obvious the government has not only prepared for war with the American people (militarized all major police departments across the country, is intercepting and monitoring over 1.5 billion pieces of electronic communications each day, has put on the books every Executive Order necessary to declare martial law and create an Executive Branch dictatorship, is buying up billions of rounds of ammunition for use by domestic alphabet agencies, etc...), but is also inching closer towards taking steps that will lead to direct conflict (gun bans).

The government hasn't made all these preparations just for the heck of it, and it sure as hell has nothing to do with that phoney war on terror scam they've been running the last ten years. These preparations are for us, after some unknown event occurs, if it ever does. It could be an economic collapse and a second Great Depression, or a staged false flag event of some type, or a surprise gun ban and seizures, or just garden-variety insurrection like we've seen in other places around the world recently.

Interesting times ahead. I recommend people prepare themselves mentally, if not in physical, financial, and material ways.

[mocgator]

if there is war, which side should I join? north, south, east, west?

Abacos..

[egator1245]

Sad, the man who said he would unite the country instead presides over this.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I also think these recent shootings are awfully suspicious. The government didn't spend all that money and time on MK-ULTRA mind control experiments for nothing back in the 50s and 60s. It's almost certain they wanted to have the ability to create a limitless pool of so-called "Manchurian Candidate" assassins who could be drugged, hypnotized, or programmed to carry out almost any order on command, including assassinations.

What better way to galvanize support for gun control legislation than carrying out a quick string of shocking public shootings utilizing your pool of drugged-out, MK-ULTRA killers? Follow it up with some corporate media propaganda about the perpetrator being a "lone wolf", present absolutely no evidence to the public, and presto, half the country will be so traumatized and scared, they'll support any measure you propose.

[rivergator]

Sad, the man who said he would unite the country instead presides over this.


right. it's Obama's fault because some nutjobs who have no idea what this country is about want civil war.

[108]

If you can't win the ballot box, fight?!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Sad, the man who said he would unite the country instead presides over this.

No, it's not sad that he said it. After all, he's the political equivalent of a used car salesman. It was his job to get elected. That's why his billionaire handlers financed his campaign and marketed him as a messiah on their cable channels.

What's sad, is the American people believed him when he said it. Any person with a brain the size of a walnut could see that he was being pushed heavily by the big corporate media in 2008. That should have been their first and only red flag. Why else would the American corporate establishment push Obama so energetically? He was their hired gun.

[wgbgator]

I'm not sure what is funnier, that some people actually think Civil War is a possibility or that some people seem to be trying to almost will it into fruition by talking endlessly about it (these being many of the same people who "felt" the Romney momentum and his coming electoral landslide win).

[ChartsandGrafs]

What's impossible about a Civil War in this country?

[wgbgator]

What's impossible about a Civil War in this country?

Well, first there would probably need to be something to fight and kill over other than losing an election.

[PIMking]

President Obama, the Gun salesman of the year

[rivergator]

Well, first there would probably need to be something to fight and kill over other than losing an election.

yeah, there's that.

[Burke]

I think we are going to have an economic collapse. What comes of it is less certain.

But people are learning that we really aren't a democracy and that the same govt that demands our obedience is in no way obedient to the Constitution.

[PIMking]

Nobody outside of government wants war, but it's pretty obvious the government has not only prepared for war with the American people (militarized all major police departments across the country, is intercepting and monitoring over 1.5 billion pieces of electronic communications each day, has put on the books every Executive Order necessary to declare martial law and create an Executive Branch dictatorship, is buying up billions of rounds of ammunition for use by domestic alphabet agencies, etc...), but is also inching closer towards taking steps that will lead to direct conflict (gun bans).

The government hasn't made all these preparations just for the heck of it, and it sure as hell has nothing to do with that phoney war on terror scam they've been running the last ten years. These preparations are for us, after some unknown event occurs, if it ever does. It could be an economic collapse and a second Great Depression, or a staged false flag event of some type, or a surprise gun ban and seizures, or just garden-variety insurrection like we've seen in other places around the world recently.

Interesting times ahead. I recommend people prepare themselves mentally, if not in physical, financial, and material ways.

Dont forget the millions of rounds that the SSI admin bought... Why would SSI need all that ammo?

[rivergator]

I think we are going to have an economic collapse. What comes of it is less certain.

But people are learning that we really aren't a democracy and that the same govt that demands our obedience is in no way obedient to the Constitution.


so who, specifically, do you plan to kill and why?

[g8trjax]

Well, first there would probably need to be something to fight and kill over other than losing an election.

What about a Zimmerman acquittal?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Well, first there would probably need to be something to fight and kill over other than losing an election.

Absolutely, and whatever that "something" is is very much possible.

A gun ban and seizure is potentially very dangerous. There's a small percentage of people out there who absolutely will not submit. And while this percentage is small in relative terms, it still represents a large group of spirited, defiant people. The government rounding up and killing these people, and government mercenaries being killed in return, could easily spark a wider conflagration, especially if the economy goes further into the toilet, government checks stop showing up, public services break down, food disappears from shelves, and people start feeling hopeless. We won't see anything like the last civil war between the states, but we could see a full-on insurrection from coast to coast and involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

I believe the government has been preparing for something of this nature.

[rivergator]

Absolutely, and whatever that "something" is is very much possible.

A gun ban and seizure is potentially very dangerous. There's a small percentage of people out there who absolutely will not submit. And while this percentage is small in relative terms, it still represents a large group of spirited, defiant people. The government rounding up and killing these people, and government mercenaries being killed in return, could easily spark a wider conflagration, especially if the economy goes further into the toilet, government checks stop showing up, public services break down, food disappears from shelves, and people start feeling hopeless. We won't see anything like the last civil war between the states, but we could see a full-on insurrection from coast to coast and involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.

I believe the government is or has been preparing for something of this nature.


someone is seizing your guns?

[PIMking]

Well, first there would probably need to be something to fight and kill over other than losing an election.

well how about debt? wars in the middle east, going bankrupt but continue to give other countries money, and if they try to disarm the country that would be the the first shot. Those in the military swore to uphold the constitution not the man in the white house. If that man in the white house gives them orders to disobey the constitution I hope they do what they're suppose to and tell him to piss up a rope. I know some will but some wont, some will turn their weapons in peacefully and others wont. An American President killing Americans for a right given to them in the constitution that the government is breaking will be the tipping point.

[Matthanuf06]

so who, specifically, do you plan to kill and why?

I think it can occur two ways

1. Authoritarian militaristic government at home. In other words they try to disarm Americans, spy on Americans, control behavior, etc. Some of this is occurring now but nowhere near the size needed to fight back. In this case it would be the citizens vs. government backers. Not the police or military as it currently stands as many of those would defect and fight for freedom. The odds of this occurring to the point of widespread clashes: 1%. This requires legislative action, and while the government is getting bolder they won't be able to pass enough to anger enough people to fight. This can happen in the very near term

2. Economic collapse. Deficit/Debt is crushing and destroys the dollar. The government defaults for all intents and purposes (or pays off debt with a worthless dollar). Nanny state collapses as it cannot afford anything. Retirement and savings are worthless due to a crappy dollar. The government collapses as we know it. The fight here is amongst ourselves and whomever tries to fill the vacuum. Now don't get me wrong, people will still trade/barter, and perhaps with the crappy dollar ($1000 for a gal of milk!), but the military/police presence wouldn't exist and there would be the lack of a rule of law. Generally it would be similar to other collapses. Odds of this 10%. I think it is VERY likely we get close to it, but not quite there. Dollar declines, savings get crushed, inflation hits, etc. I think it's a certainty and the only way to pay off our debt, but I'm hopeful we solve the issue (probably with some sort of bailout) and we don't get hyperinflation. We probably still have a handful of years before this can take place, so I'm also hopeful that future leaders can fix this problem.

[ChartsandGrafs]

someone is seizing your guns?

Why, do you think the government will just wave a magic wand and make the guns it doesn't want in the hands of the people just disappear?

[rivergator]

Why, do you think the government will just wave a magic wand and make the guns it doesn't want in the hands of the people just disappear?

Oh, OK.
But, I'm curious, if "the government" doesn't want us to have guns, why do we have more of them than any country on earth?

[wgbgator]

well how about debt? wars in the middle east, going bankrupt but continue to give other countries money, and if they try to disarm the country that would be the the first shot. Those in the military swore to uphold the constitution not the man in the white house. If that man in the white house gives them orders to disobey the constitution I hope they do what they're suppose to and tell him to piss up a rope. I know some will but some wont, some will turn their weapons in peacefully and others wont. An American President killing Americans for a right given to them in the constitution that the government is breaking will be the tipping point.

Well I'm sure there are numerous fantasy reasons like these that would trigger a civil war. Maybe an alien invasion too?

[Matthanuf06]

Oh, OK.
But, I'm curious, if "the government" doesn't want us to have guns, why do we have more of them than any country on earth?

Because there isn't really that much that can be done in the normal political process. IMO they are laying the groundwork via things that can pass, such as domestic spying. But it won't ever hit the fan unless there was some sort of mandate to pry the guns out of our fingers. I can't see it happening.

[Dreamliner]

This is exciting. Technically, this would be the second civil war we've ever had, the first being in 1775.*

*not a typo

[ChartsandGrafs]

Oh, OK.
But, I'm curious, if "the government" doesn't want us to have guns, why do we have more of them than any country on earth?

Because the government has been unwilling and unprepared to do anything about it until now. It's getting closer, though. Militarized police, fusion centers, Department of Fatherland Security, NDAA, Patriot Act, drones overhead, 24/7 surveillance of the people, anti-gun propaganda in the media, alphabet agencies armed to the teeth, etc...

[Dreamliner]

On domestic drones, I'm predicting there will be lots of stinger missiles under Christmas trees this year.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Well I'm sure there are numerous fantasy reasons like these that would trigger a civil war. Maybe an alien invasion too?

Even in an attempt to mock someone, you don't make any sense.

How would an alien invasion trigger a civil war?

[PIMking]

Well I'm sure there are numerous fantasy reasons like these that would trigger a civil war. Maybe an alien invasion too?

AREA 51 :ninja:

[Matthanuf06]

Even in an attempt to mock someone, you don't make any sense.

How would an alien invasion trigger a civil war?

Yeah it makes no sense. An alien invasion would be a dream scenario for the left in terms of government control. They'd be salivating over martial law.

Of course the aliens would just wipe us all out, so it would be moot.

[Dreamliner]

But an alien invasion would bring this country together. Aren't you people constantly wringing your hands about how we're so divided, as if that were a bad thing ?

[rpmGator]

When people see that their kids will get shot at for a change, the want for civil war will go away. Funny how one side never considers that all sides get people killed for real, when they talk this crap.

[wgbgator]

Yeah it makes no sense. An alien invasion would be a dream scenario for the left in terms of government control. They'd be salivating over martial law.

Of course the aliens would just wipe us all out, so it would be moot.

See that's the essentially problem with you guys. Your whole ethos is based on the idea that the "left" (or whoever) wants to take your guns and have the government control everything. You guys seem genuinly surprised when you meet resistance from actual people on the "left" to these notions you hold, but rather than mitigate your fears, its seems to further fuel the imagined conspiracy.

[Matthanuf06]

See that's the essentially problem with you guys. Your whole ethos is based on the idea that the "left" (or whoever) wants to take your guns and have the government control everything. You guys seem genuinly surprised when you meet resistance from actual people on the "left" to these notions you hold, but rather than mitigate your fears, its seems to further fuel the imagined conspiracy.

By definition the left wants big government. And by definition that means control.

[ChartsandGrafs]

But people are learning that we really aren't a democracy and that the same govt that demands our obedience is in no way obedient to the Constitution.

Future Americans will know we were never a democracy. They will know it was all just an elaborate media and public education-generated hoax. The American people can't be allowed to know that now, while they still have the arms and limited freedom to rebel, but they will be allowed to know that after the full spectrum surveillance control grid is in place, when they've been disarmed and have no chance at successfully rebelling.

Sometime between now and then, the gloves are going to come off and truth will be revealed for all to see. It will be common knowledge that we were always a plutocracy, with a government that practiced nothing but oligarchical collectivism.

[ChartsandGrafs]

But an alien invasion would bring this country together. Aren't you people constantly wringing your hands about how we're so divided, as if that were a bad thing ?

The idea of an alien invasion to consolidate government control goes way back to early last century.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK-XATA-5gs

[wgbgator]

By definition the left wants big government. And by definition that means control.

See what I mean? And who's definition - yours?

[rivergator]

By definition the left wants big government. And by definition that means control.


That's the absurdity of it. You can say how the left wants to control your lives, so you just go by that kind of stuff.

[philnotfil]

We are too intermixed geographically to have a meaningful civil war. We could end up with a bunch of people killing each other, but it won't be any kind of civil war with two or three or five sides fighting each other. What do Gainesville and Belle Glade really have in common? What about Tallahassee and Miami? Why would Texas and Alabama work together against Wyoming and West Virginia? Where would the lines be drawn?


Has anyone else read Effinger's "All The Last Wars At Once"?

Found a pdf, but it loads really slow- iadicicco.com(pdf) (http://ny.iadicicco.com/Finished/20,000%20Ebooks/George%20Alec%20Effinger/George%20Alec%20Effinger%20-%20All%20the%20Last%20Wars%20at%20Once.pdf)

[ChartsandGrafs]

See that's the essentially problem with you guys. Your whole ethos is based on the idea that the "left" (or whoever) wants to take your guns and have the government control everything. You guys seem genuinly surprised when you meet resistance from actual people on the "left" to these notions you hold, but rather than mitigate your fears, its seems to further fuel the imagined conspiracy.

LOL, "imagined".

Just because you're uneducated on the subject doesn't mean it's all imagined by those who are.

Your resistance isn't genuine, it's static. It's misdirection. You don't actually believe you're fooling anyone, do you?

[wgbgator]

LOL, "imagined".

Just because you're uneducated on the subject doesn't mean it's all imagined by those who are.

Your resistance isn't genuine, it's static. It's misdirection. You don't actually believe you're fooling anyone, do you?

I'm not the one who has any vested interest in imagining a heaven or hell on earth. You are. To you anything bad that happens or conflicts with your POV is something standing in the way of freedom and thereby enslaving humanity. So, yes my clashing with you must be misdirection or farce from where you sit.

[Matthanuf06]

See what I mean? And who's definition - yours?

Not mine. Are you for big government? High taxes? High spending? Entitlements? Patriot Act? NDAA? All big government and all results in control over its citizens. I'm not making these things up.

[Matthanuf06]

That's the absurdity of it. You can say how the left wants to control your lives, so you just go by that kind of stuff.

I just go by that kind of stuff? What does that mean? It's clear the US government has been pushing for, enacting, legislating, executive ordering items that increase the size of government and its control over its citizens. I'm not blaming just Obama. Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc all were doing the same.

[Dreamliner]

Not mine. Are you for big government? High taxes? High spending? Entitlements? Patriot Act? NDAA? All big government and all results in control over its citizens. I'm not making these things up.

Apparently, he voted for Obama again.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm not the one who has any vested interest in imagining a heaven or hell on earth. You are. To you anything bad that happens or conflicts with your POV is something standing in the way of freedom and thereby enslaving humanity. So, yes my clashing with you must be misdirection or farce from where you sit.

You went from not making any sense about aliens triggering a civil war to not making any sense about, wait, what? Heaven or hell?

Dude, where do you come up with this crap?

[wgbgator]

Not mine. Are you for big government? High taxes? High spending? Entitlements? Patriot Act? NDAA? All big government and all results in control over its citizens. I'm not making these things up.

Well, you are defining "big government" as a binary position that just so happens to be against your prefered policy outcomes i.e "small goverment." That's probably fairly convenient for you.

[wgbgator]

You went from not making any sense about aliens triggering a civil war to not making any sense about, wait, what? Heaven or hell?

Dude, where do you come up with this crap?

Well, at the very least, I guess now you understand how I feel when I encounter your posts.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm sensing a Saul Alinsky/Rules for Radicals vibe in this thread.

[Matthanuf06]

Well, you are defining "big government" as a binary position that just so happens to be against your prefered policy outcomes i.e "small goverment." That's probably fairly convenient for you.

No I'm not. Clearly it's a scale. I even mentioned that its a remote possibility that the govt took enough control to forcibly remove guns in a militaristic state to cause an internal war. So clearly I think govt could get bigger. It's not binary.

But I don't see how you can see the size and scope of our govt and not conclude that it is huge. Sure it can get bigger, so what?

[wgbgator]

I'm sensing a Saul Alinsky/Rules for Radicals vibe in this thread.

Why would I need that when, I'm just the hopeless defender of the status quo, right? Sounds like you should be reading it, because you probably never have. Because not only do you have horrible ideas, you have no understanding of how to achieve them.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Why would I need that when, I'm just the hopeless defender of the status quo, right? Sounds like you should be reading it, because you probably never have. Because not only do you have horrible ideas, you have no understanding of how to achieve them.

You're right. Please teach me in the ways of government worship. I desire to be a closet communist like you.

How do I achieve this goal?

[Juggernautz]

Well since we have already had a civil war between the South & the North, the next one should be between the East & the West.

[Dreamliner]

Reminds me of the old North-South college all-star game. Really stuck in my craw that it was pretty much the Deep South against virtually the rest of the country.

[Dreamliner]

Just a reminder: our Civil War wasn't actually a civil war. Our Revolutionary War was.

[Lawdog88]

I think we are going to have an economic collapse. What comes of it is less certain.

But people are learning that we really aren't a democracy and that the same govt that demands our obedience is in no way obedient to the Constitution.


One of the most true things you have ever posted, Burke.

[g8orbill]

I would not be surprised to see this happen

[rivergator]

I just go by that kind of stuff? What does that mean? It's clear the US government has been pushing for, enacting, legislating, executive ordering items that increase the size of government and its control over its citizens. I'm not blaming just Obama. Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc all were doing the same.

I thought you were blaming it on the left?

[Matthanuf06]

I thought you were blaming it on the left?

I am. Bush was a big government necon. He was on the "right" on social issues, which in reality is a distortion of the left/ right paradigm. Bush was a big government control freak by every measure.

[rivergator]

I am. Bush was a big government necon. He was on the "right" on social issues, which in reality is a distortion of the left/ right paradigm. Bush was a big government control freak by every measure.

You define the left as government control of private lives and then decide that conservatives who do are really on the left.
I don't.

Who's trying to add more and more restrictions to abortion, for example? Is that the left, too?

[G8trGr8t]

Well since we have already had a civil war between the South & the North, the next one should be between the East & the West.

how about the middle against the ends? the NE could migrate to europe and join their socialistic dream and California could just join Mexico.

[Matthanuf06]

You define the left as government control of private lives and then decide that conservatives who do are really on the left.
I don't.

Who's trying to add more and more restrictions to abortion, for example? Is that the left, too?

Because actions mean more than words. Look, Fox, MSNBC, Obama, CNN, Bush, et al can tell you all day long that they are liberal or conservative, but that doesn't make it so. Policies and actions make it so. And all those entities attempt to define left and right in terms that make very little sense...

Not every single position that the GOP or Democrat party attempts to enact is bad, or equally bad, or what not.

The Dems are less big government in certain areas and the GOP is in other areas. So what? The end result is it seems like the "small government" position always conveniently loses. Drugs, abortion, taxes, wars, fees, ndaa, patriot act, etc.

It sounds like you fell for the trick. You actually think there is meaningful difference between the parties, yet all "consensus" is always on the side of government.

[wgbgator]

You're right. Please teach me in the ways of government worship. I desire to be a closet communist like you.

How do I achieve this goal?

I know, how would a book about confronting concentrated political power in a democratic society be useful to someone like you? Your current tactic of calling people sheep on internet message boards is working just fine. Bullying people anonymously is a great way to start the revolution.

[Dreamliner]

I know, how would a book about confronting concentrated political power in a democratic society be useful to someone like you? Your current tactic of calling people sheep on internet message boards is working just fine. Bullying people anonymously is a great way to start the revolution.

Does being beaten about the head and shoulders, on the internet, really make you want to kill people ?

[rivergator]

Because actions mean more than words. Look, Fox, MSNBC, Obama, CNN, Bush, et al can tell you all day long that they are liberal or conservative, but that doesn't make it so. Policies and actions make it so. And all those entities attempt to define left and right in terms that make very little sense...

Not every single position that the GOP or Democrat party attempts to enact is bad, or equally bad, or what not.

The Dems are less big government in certain areas and the GOP is in other areas. So what? The end result is it seems like the "small government" position always conveniently loses. Drugs, abortion, taxes, wars, fees, ndaa, patriot act, etc.

It sounds like you fell for the trick. You actually think there is meaningful difference between the parties, yet all "consensus" is always on the side of government.

So why are you so determined to blame it on the left?

[Matthanuf06]

So why are you so determined to blame it on the left?

That's the point. George Bush is on the left. So is Obama. Sure Obama is further left. And sure they disagree on some issues, but they agree far more than they disagree. Both are big government war mongering leftists.

[rivergator]

That's the point. George Bush is on the left. So is Obama. Sure Obama is further left. And sure they disagree on some issues, but they agree far more than they disagree. Both are big government war mongering leftists.

nah. that's just making people fit definitions.

Like saying I've decided that Jeffrey Dahmer is a conservative because he killed and ate people.

[wgbgator]

No I'm not. Clearly it's a scale. I even mentioned that its a remote possibility that the govt took enough control to forcibly remove guns in a militaristic state to cause an internal war. So clearly I think govt could get bigger. It's not binary.

But I don't see how you can see the size and scope of our govt and not conclude that it is huge. Sure it can get bigger, so what?

Clearly? So there's an objective scale of "small" and "big" government that everyone agrees on? Or is this scale one of your devising, in which "left" is all the things you oppose as "big government," with the more functions it takes on, however non ideological they are (like domestic surveilance) being evidence of drifting further "left." Basically, all you've done is define things in your favor so anything resembling totalitarianism is "left." Again, that's pretty convenient for you.

[bluelang]

So the economy is going to collapse and then we'll have a civil war to fix the economy?

Seems legit.

[rivergator]

So the economy is going to collapse and then we'll have a civil war to fix the economy?

Seems legit.

Yeah, apparently we're going to have a civil war because of the economy and the price of milk is too high. No, wait, it's because Obama is trashing the constitution and taking our guns. No, wait, it's because the federal govt has been plotting this tyranny for decades. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan ... they've all been in on it.

Anyway, we're going to take up guns and start killing each for some reason. Something important.

[Lawdog88]

So the economy is going to collapse and then we'll have a civil war to fix the economy?

Seems legit.


I think one hypothetical scenario is that the economy collapses and there is civil disruption until it either "gets fixed," or the civil disruption continues until the government is no longer sustainable.

What happens in between is anybody's guess.

I do think the preppers are extreme to the fringe, but any run-of-the-mill doomsday book out there these days posits basic scenarios where either through cyber terrorism, dirty bombs, natural disasters (seems somewhat remote) or something else, the infrastructure is disabled and goods and services are disrupted. When that happens, chaos to varying degrees is predicted.

It is the chaos that many people purchasing the firearms, think that they will be able to deal with . . . at least, until the ammo runs out, until the roaming herds at the end of the driveway have been eliminated (zombies), or until a new government is formed.

That doesn't even account for a massive financial failure and inability of the government to keep and / or restore order when the currency is realized as worthless. If the government can't hold the public's faith in the currency and its value collapses, private citizens will not be very trusting either of the government, or of anyone trying to "take advantage" of the situation - in uniform or not.

Far out and fringe ? Maybe not so much any more.

[wargunfan]

I think we are going to have an economic collapse. What comes of it is less certain.

But people are learning that we really aren't a democracy and that the same govt that demands our obedience is in no way obedient to the Constitution.

Americans live in a very narrow corridor of freedom of action. When added up, the total of city, state and federal regulations which channel our lives leaves us much less free than our forebears. Economically speaking, we are free to spend the smaller half of what we earn after local, state and federal taxes are extracted. Most Americans never really "own" their homes. They are allowed to live in their houses and service a 30 year mortgage which triples the cost of the property. This amounts to rent as most of us never live in one home for that length of time. The housing bubble has insured that the majority of home "buyers" will have little, if any, equity in their homes. Many are so upside down they will never own a home.

We feel betrayed by the ruling elites who exempt themselves from the onerous laws they inflict on the "governed". We feel alienated from each other as a result of concerted efforts to divide us along race and class lines. We are a long way from taking up arms against this government but the trend is not positive.

Many Americans (you see them posting here) feel that the government has become an adversary by enacting draconian measures such as the Patriot Act and the NDAA. They feel that the electoral process only produces authoritarians no matter who wins since these putatively unconstitional measures are embraced by successive administrations. They feel a helplessness which leads to rage against a government which is less and less representative of the needs of working Americans and their families. They feel trapped in an entitlement culture which they never voted for.

It would be a mistake to discredit and ridicule these people. I believe they represent a large plurality of the populace. It would take only a major dislocation of food stores or a serious pandemic or an attempt to confiscate private arms to set us against each other in violence. There would be no winners in such a senario and who can tell how far it would spread and how many would be killed before order was restored. Martial law would result and that could lead to a general insurrection. My suggestion is don't be too quick to scoff at the rage which is boiling just below the surface in much of America.

[wgbgator]

Unfortunately (or fortunately), most of that rage is boiling in the bodies of elderly men, who are closer to the grave than they are to charging the ramparts, guns blazing.

[squigator]

if there is war, which side should I join? north, south, east, west?

I think your choice is going to be the 47% or the 53%. If you are accustomed to receiving hand outs then you might want to start spending some of your food stamp money on ammo. Rest assured, the 53% isn't going to let you take their chit without a fight.

[Minister_of_Information]

The people who imagine that this is impossible ought to study the French Revolution.

[wgbgator]

The people who imagine that this is impossible ought to study the French Revolution.

The problem is that the people who imagine this is possible typically favor an extremely regressive tax structure and are generally ok with vast disparities of wealth - basically the underlying causes of the French Revolution, and the people who don't are worried about wealth disparity and want a less regressive tax structure and more equally distributed wealth, which in their view would make society more stable and less resentful.

[Row6]

The people who think this is likely wish it was likely and probably just had their candidate lose the election. I've lost elections before and didn't therefore start thinking there would be a revolution. Grow up.

[Swampmaster]

people get too caught up in blind allegiance to parties, left, right, etc. instead of focusing on real problems in the u.s. the government is a fraud, filled with people trying to enrich themselves and friends instead of helping regular people.

[Row6]

people get too caught up in blind allegiance to parties, left, right, etc. instead of focusing on real problems in the u.s. the government is a fraud, filled with people trying to enrich themselves and friends instead of helping regular people.

Historical perspective is a valuable tool. compared to other times in our past the government now is very clean and corruption is low. We have new problems unique to our times and we shouldn't underrate them, but corruption and injustice towards citizens are at very low levels historically speaking.

[Minister_of_Information]

The problem is that the people who imagine this is possible typically favor an extremely regressive tax structure and are generally ok with vast disparities of wealth - basically the underlying causes of the French Revolution, and the people who don't are worried about wealth disparity and want a less regressive tax structure and more equally distributed wealth, which in their view would make society more stable and less resentful.

The underlying cause of the French Revolution was fiscal, and it was initiated by disaffected nobility and bourgeois rather than the downtrodden everyman (the famous Tennis Court oath). In fact it does not appear that the wishes of the downtrodden everyman were ever represented by the revolutionaries, meaning the vast majority of poor provincials who were (ironically enough) the main source of support for the ancien regime as well as counter-revolution; rather the Parisian sans-culottes who amounted to intellectualized proletarian agitators were used as a stand-in for everyman, and they were led by radical bourgeois and ex-noble leaders. The terror itself was wholly administered by these bourgeois radicals with an urge to recreate the presumed egalitarian Utopia of a long lost Golden Age. The popular will for the most part was either ignored or silenced by the national razor.

[HALLGATOR]

The underlying cause of the French Revolution was fiscal, and it was initiated by disaffected nobility and bourgeois rather than the downtrodden everyman (the famous Tennis Court oath). In fact it does not appear that the wishes of the downtrodden everyman were ever represented by the revolutionaries, meaning the vast majority of poor provincials who were (ironically enough) the main source of support for the ancien regime as well as counter-revolution; rather the Parisian sans-culottes who amounted to intellectualized proletarian agitators were used as a stand-in for everyman, and they were led by radical bourgeois and ex-noble leaders. The terror itself was wholly administered by these bourgeois radicals with an urge to recreate the presumed egalitarian Utopia of a long lost Golden Age. The popular will for the most part was either ignored or silenced by the national razor.

Nothing like a little history refresher to get the mind to working. Good post!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Unfortunately (or fortunately), most of that rage is boiling in the bodies of elderly men, who are closer to the grave than they are to charging the ramparts, guns blazing.

At least, that's what you hope.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Historical perspective is a valuable tool. compared to other times in our past the government now is very clean and corruption is low.

LOL!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSA8lfP6zmzhqYzl5cGeeqj_WSkhGthb GoNxaFLRZeUv3b_R8v1ihqKHJ9hiA

[HALLGATOR]

Who are these people going to target when they revolt?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Who are these people going to target when they revolt?

Interesting read...

fighting modern armies on open terrain is a rather foolhardy proposition, unless you are the top of the military food chain.

no, i believe that the model of conflict in the middle east as we have witnessed the last several years during the "arab spring" and other insurrections provides the proper intellectual modality to anticipate the outlines of such conflict by civilians against an established and entrenched regime.

the fighting in syria, and in lybia is illustrative. and, we have no further to turn than chechnya to witness a fight carried on by a determined populace against a very strong and very well equipped modern military.

the fighting will be in small scale conflict in urban and suburban environs, with the persons conducting the insurrection attacking fixed governmental installations, and then retreating back into the cover of the environment when its damage has been inflicted. and, as between political elements in society, the fighting will be much like has been exhibited in iraq for the last 5 or 6 years, as the various groups have engaged in kidnappings and street assassinations of their opponents. this will be waged citizen to citizen, if it comes to that.

the fighting against the forces of the establishment and government shall be directed against visible but vulnerable members of the military and civilian police, chiefly the command elements. (for reasons discussed later.)

the fighting between civilians shall be in the form of assassination of prominent members of society, the media, entertainment, and the members of the media attacking and defending the government. someone walks on the street, a car pulls up, a fusillade, and a body drops to the ground. the prominent are attacked in their homes, in their work, in the broadcast studio.

in short, those who fight the repression of government shall do so much as terrorist do so now.

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2012/12/what-will-be-the-likely-model-of-american-insurrection-if-gun-control-doesnt-go-well.html

[Dreamliner]

The people who imagine that this is impossible ought to study the French Revolution.

I did and it nearly caused me to vomit.

[wgbgator]

The underlying cause of the French Revolution was fiscal, and it was initiated by disaffected nobility and bourgeois rather than the downtrodden everyman (the famous Tennis Court oath). In fact it does not appear that the wishes of the downtrodden everyman were ever represented by the revolutionaries, meaning the vast majority of poor provincials who were (ironically enough) the main source of support for the ancien regime as well as counter-revolution; rather the Parisian sans-culottes who amounted to intellectualized proletarian agitators were used as a stand-in for everyman, and they were led by radical bourgeois and ex-noble leaders. The terror itself was wholly administered by these bourgeois radicals with an urge to recreate the presumed egalitarian Utopia of a long lost Golden Age. The popular will for the most part was either ignored or silenced by the national razor.

Not many (if any) revolutions are initiated by the downtrodden everyman. They are almost always educated people with limited ceilings in the existing status quo. Robbespiere would have been a mid level lawyer / functionary, with a respectable name, but no title, power or privilege and a heavy tax burden. Not unlike Jefferson or Washington. Or even Fidel Castro.

[Dreamliner]

Not many (if any) revolutions are initiated by the downtrodden everyman. They are almost always educated people with limited ceilings in the existing status quo. Robbespiere would have been a mid level lawyer / functionary, with a respectable name, but no title, power or privilege and a heavy tax burden. Not unlike Jefferson or Washington. Or even Fidel Castro.

And this is certainly true of the French Revolution, at least based on what I've read. Per capita GDP was up under Louis XVI. People were probably more bored and restless than destitute.

[Minister_of_Information]

Not many (if any) revolutions are initiated by the downtrodden everyman. They are almost always educated people with limited ceilings in the existing status quo. Robbespiere would have been a mid level lawyer / functionary, with a respectable name, but no title, power or privilege and a heavy tax burden. Not unlike Jefferson or Washington. Or even Fidel Castro.

Robespierre was petit bourgeois, Washington and Jefferson were gentlemen planters/landed gentry though they did pursue industrial exploits at times. The key difference is in the agrarian/rural nature of Washington and Jefferson while Robespierre was a burgher through and through (the root, as you no doubt know, of the term 'bourgeois' in the first place). Fidel I'm not sure how to classify. Failed baseball player turned professional revolutionary?

[wargunfan]

Who are these people going to target when they revolt?

Each other.

[Swampmaster]

With high tech weaponry and heavily armed militarized police forces, any uprising would be quickly crushed

[wgbgator]

Robespierre was petit bourgeois, Washington and Jefferson were gentlemen planters/landed gentry though they did pursue industrial exploits at times. The key difference is in the agrarian/rural nature of Washington and Jefferson while Robespierre was a burgher through and through (the root, as you no doubt know, of the term 'bourgeois' in the first place). Fidel I'm not sure how to classify. Failed baseball player turned professional revolutionary?

He was educated as a lawyer, from a modest and rural, but not destitute background. He was the least bourgeois, as he was the not-totally recognized bastard of a father of some means, though his education was paid for. The baseball thing is more legend than anything. My main point being that all these men are from middling backgrounds, even if their lives arent mirror images of one another.

[wargunfan]

Unfortunately (or fortunately), most of that rage is boiling in the bodies of elderly men, who are closer to the grave than they are to charging the ramparts, guns blazing.

The desire to be free from an oppressive government does not have a fixed life span nor does it reside only in the minds of old men. It is universal and eternal. No government has yet been successful in stamping out that desire. Your misguided wish that opposition to government die with a single generation says much about you.

In 1776 life expectancy was 33 years. The average age of the founding fathers: 44. I guess you could say that by the measure of the time they were old men and over the hill. Surely they couldn't be expected to accomplish anything.

[ChartsandGrafs]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01538/police-fire_1538655i.jpg

[Minister_of_Information]

He was educated as a lawyer, from a modest and rural, but not destitute background. He was the least bourgeois, as he was the not-totally recognized bastard of a father of some means, though his education was paid for. The baseball thing is more legend than anything. My main point being that all these men are from middling backgrounds, even if their lives arent mirror images of one another.

If you are classifying Washington and Jefferson as bourgeois, that is inaccurate, as is their characterization as middling. They were Virginia aristocrats, hardly middle class.

[HALLGATOR]

Each other.

When they run out of ammo they can always throw remote controls at each other.

[bluelang]

Fine, have your revolution. And exactly which current "repressions" will the new government not enforce?

You're still going to have to pay taxes, and unless you're a fan of rampant crime you're going to pay the same in taxes that you do now - give or take a few %. Are you going to refuse to honor the debt? Are you going to eliminate the military?

Once again we get back to the root of the ENTIRE philosophy of the American "right": grumpiness about paying taxes.

The whole thing is retarded. Flat out, straight up, ****ing stupid.

[wgbgator]

If you are classifying Washington and Jefferson as bourgeois, that is inaccurate, as is their characterization as middling. They were Virginia aristocrats, hardly middle class.

. Virginia planters were "aristocrats" in the loosest sense of the word. Much like how I'm employing "middling" to make my point.

[Minister_of_Information]

. Virginia planters were "aristocrats" in the loosest sense of the word. Much like how I'm employing "middling" to make my point.

Not really, colonial aristocrats were self-conceived as social class of ruling elites, which they in fact were. And what pray tell is the point of your point?

[DaveFla]

I think one hypothetical scenario is that the economy collapses and there is civil disruption until it either "gets fixed," or the civil disruption continues until the government is no longer sustainable.

What happens in between is anybody's guess.

I do think the preppers are extreme to the fringe, but any run-of-the-mill doomsday book out there these days posits basic scenarios where either through cyber terrorism, dirty bombs, natural disasters (seems somewhat remote) or something else, the infrastructure is disabled and goods and services are disrupted. When that happens, chaos to varying degrees is predicted.

It is the chaos that many people purchasing the firearms, think that they will be able to deal with . . . at least, until the ammo runs out, until the roaming herds at the end of the driveway have been eliminated (zombies), or until a new government is formed.

That doesn't even account for a massive financial failure and inability of the government to keep and / or restore order when the currency is realized as worthless. If the government can't hold the public's faith in the currency and its value collapses, private citizens will not be very trusting either of the government, or of anyone trying to "take advantage" of the situation - in uniform or not.

Far out and fringe ? Maybe not so much any more.

It happened in the latest Batman movie... What was the name...? Occupy Gotham?

[wargunfan]

When they run out of ammo they can always throw remote controls at each other.

Gun stores across the nation have been emptied of all forms of guns and ammunition. Don't think remote controls are in the offing. If you are worried you can hang onto yours though.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Fine, have your revolution. And exactly which current "repressions" will the new government not enforce?

You're still going to have to pay taxes, and unless you're a fan of rampant crime you're going to pay the same in taxes that you do now - give or take a few %. Are you going to refuse to honor the debt? Are you going to eliminate the military?

Once again we get back to the root of the ENTIRE philosophy of the American "right": grumpiness about paying taxes.

The whole thing is retarded. Flat out, straight up, ****ing stupid.

Yes, since taxation equals extortion, or just flat out theft if you prefer, it's something people should celebrate. People should love their chains. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

What other useful insights can you offer?

[HALLGATOR]

Gun stores across the nation have been emptied of all forms of guns and ammunition. Don't think remote controls are in the offing. If you are worried you can hang onto yours though.

I'm not worried in the least since I watch little television. Of course I haven't went out and stocked up on a bunch of ammo either.

[wgbgator]

Not really, colonial aristocrats were self-conceived as social class of ruling elites, which they in fact were. And what pray tell is the point of your point?

Yes, self-conceived rather than hereditary ruling elites over a distant colonial outpost, who would have no land, wealth, peerage or power in England. The original point was that revolutions were almost always the product of mid-level educated (elite) who's prospects of social advancement were limited by the existing status quo. True of Robespierre, Washington, Jefferson and even Castro. Then you appeared to find fault in my casually comparing these people, and proceeded to draw distinctions that are ultimately unimportant to such a casual comparison.

[Row6]

LOL!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSA8lfP6zmzhqYzl5cGeeqj_WSkhGthb GoNxaFLRZeUv3b_R8v1ihqKHJ9hiA

Read a history book sometime.

[Row6]

Interesting read...



http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2012/12/what-will-be-the-likely-model-of-american-insurrection-if-gun-control-doesnt-go-well.html

LOL!

[Juggernautz]

-1

[ChartsandGrafs]

Read a history book sometime.

What you really mean is, "read a government-approved, mainstream version of history book sometime".

My answer is, why, what good did it do you?

[Row6]

What you really mean is, "read a government-approved, mainstream version of history book sometime".

My answer is, why, what good did it do you?

Yes because we all know there is no freedom of the press in the US and all publishing houses must have their books reviewed by federal censors prior to publication. You on the other hand have managed to get a shipment of the one true word from Mars. Congratultions.

[Minister_of_Information]

Yes, self-conceived rather than hereditary ruling elites over a distant colonial outpost, who would have no land, wealth, peerage or power in England. The original point was that revolutions were almost always the product of mid-level educated (elite) who's prospects of social advancement were limited by the existing status quo. True of Robespierre, Washington, Jefferson and even Castro. Then you appeared to find fault in my casually comparing these people, and proceeded to draw distinctions that are ultimately unimportant to such a casual comparison.

wgbgator, I do not think that is an accurate characterization of Jefferson and Washington, and I don't think my views on that subject are very controversial. Washington and Jefferson were privileged members of a governing elite, part of the social upper crust of Virginia. If you want to compare them to members of the revolutionary contingent in France, a more apt comparison would be to the ex-nobles or perhaps to the provincial gentry that participated in the National Assembly (though most of these members of the provincial gentry were quite conservative -- not that that necessarily invalidates the comparison given the fundamental differences in the nature of the revolution in the American colonies and in France).

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yes because we all know there is no freedom of the press in the US and all publishing houses must have their books reviewed by federal censors prior to publication. You on the other hand have managed to get a shipment of the one true word from Mars. Congratultions.

LOL, "freedom of the press". More True Believer talk.

Most of the major media, including the large publishing houses, is owned by a relatively small number of massive, multinational corporations. The government doesn't need to censor or silence anyone themselves, even though they sometimes do. The corporations take care of that for them. Dissenting voices are mocked, marginalized, and ignored, just as dissenting, uncorrupted politicians are. Most of the information you are fed is propaganda.

Of course, you can't help but lap it up.

[Row6]

LOL, "freedom of the press". More True Believer talk.

Most of the major media, including the large publishing houses, is owned by a relatively small number of massive, multinational corporations. The government doesn't need to censor or silence anyone themselves, even though they sometimes do. The corporations take care of that for them. Dissenting voices are mocked, marginalized, and ignored, just as dissenting, uncorrupted politicians are. Most of the information you are fed is propaganda.

Of course, you can't help but lap it up.

I'm sure it's difficult for you being mocked, marginalized, and ignored but I'm also happy for you that you have managed to construct a narrative explaining this unpleasant fact of your existence.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm sure it's difficult for you being mocked, marginalized, and ignored but I'm also happy for you that you have managed to construct a narrative explaining this unpleasant fact of your existence.

LOL, you don't seem too happy to me. In fact, you honestly appear to be obsessed.

I do tend to have that effect on government worshipers.

[wgbgator]

wgbgator, I do not think that is an accurate characterization of Jefferson and Washington, and I don't think my views on that subject are very controversial. Washington and Jefferson were privileged members of a governing elite, part of the social upper crust of Virginia. If you want to compare them to members of the revolutionary contingent in France, a more apt comparison would be to the ex-nobles or perhaps to the provincial gentry that participated in the National Assembly (though most of these members of the provincial gentry were quite conservative -- not that that necessarily invalidates the comparison given the fundamental differences in the nature of the revolution in the American colonies and in France).

My comparison is superficial, yes. It does not account for the vast differences in English and French society. But I think I am correct in labeling Jefferson and Washington as "mid-level" as far as their actual status in 18th century English society as a whole. Upper mid-level if it suits you. After all, they found common cause with more urban wealthy and non-Aristocratic colonial merchants, lawyers and tradesman, like Franklin at the expense of the hereditary English nobility and monarchy. As powerful as they fancied themselves in the New World, its not like they were going to be holding estates in England or walking into the House of Lords. As far as the aristocratic pretenses of the Virginia planters and elite Southerners in general, I believe WJ Cash does a fine job at explaining - essentially, it was a simulacrum of nobility.

[Minister_of_Information]

My comparison is superficial, yes. It does not account for the vast differences in English and French society. But I think I am correct in labeling Jefferson and Washington as "mid-level" as far as their actual status in 18th century English society as a whole. Upper mid-level if it suits you. After all, they found common cause with more urban wealthy and non-Aristocratic colonial merchants, lawyers and tradesman, like Franklin at the expense of the hereditary English nobility and monarchy. As powerful as they fancied themselves in the New World, its not like they were going to be holding estates in England or walking into the House of Lords. As far as the aristocratic pretenses of the Virginia planters and elite Southerners in general, I believe WJ Cash does a fine job at explaining - essentially, it was a simulacrum of nobility.

I'm afraid that I simply cannot agree with your characterization of Washington and Jefferson as anything other than elites. It happens.

[wgbgator]

I'm afraid that I simply cannot agree with your characterization of Washington and Jefferson as anything other than elites. It happens.

Oh, I do consider them elites. They had means and education. So, I would consider Robespierre "elite" in that sense too. But it is still a relative term, as their ceiling for advancement was limited by the role of patronage and higher ranking hereditary nobility in governing the state. Do you think its unfair to claim that Washington/Jefferson had more in common with say Ben Franklin, than Lord North?

Perhaps we can't agree on this matter.