Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You think a future Civil War in America would be fought just like the 19th Century US Civil War?
The Civil War was a "conventional war". With large military forces clashing head-to-head. If a Civil War began today, it wouldn't be caused by half of the country trying to "split off" and being prevented from doing so by the federal government. Therefore it would not be like the Civil War, because there would not be conventional warfare.
If anything like a Civil War broke out today, it would be just like all the other Civil Wars raging all over the world. It would be insurgents with small arms declaring some area of the country effectively an "independent state", and then fighting something like Guerrilla warfare with the US government. At first it would be started by a minority of anti-government "radicals" in heavily armed militias. But as news of it spread, and if it was a large enough "movement" to begin with. I think an increasingly larger and larger number of people would join in.
Keep in mind, the total number of what you might consider political "radicals" in America usually ranges from about 10% to about 30% of the population. Its difficult to find a number, but I've seen polls that between 5% and 11% of the US population could effectively be considered "communist".
All be told, I would say nearly a third of Americans would be considered "radicals". To put that in perspective, a third of Americans would include about 75 million adults. If even a tiny fraction of those 75 million adults worked together to overthrow the government, what would happen?
With that said, almost all of the 75 million "radicals" in America might have certain views and might like to complain, but very very very few of them would risk their lives for immediate change. But, there are a small percentage of those groups who aren't just radicals, but they are "extremists" who would be fairly comparable to "Islamic extremists"(who are currently fighting "fairly successfully" to overthrow governments all over the Middle-East).
There are literally thousands of anti-government militia groups around the country. Consisting of at least tens of thousands of Americans. Let alone the large percentage of people who hold anti-government views but who haven't yet become affiliated with any militia.
Keeping in mind, the people who are most likely to win in any war, are the people who "want it the most". Or really, the people most willing to risk their lives for a "cause". Which is why "Islamic fundamentalists" are so successful all across the Middle-East. And for that matter, why the North Vietnamese were so successful once America pulled out.
You don't want a bunch of battle-hardened anti-government American militiamen going up against a largely "mercenary" US military that overwhelmingly supports libertarians like Ron Paul. And generally espouse ideologies which are more "far Right-wing" or "Constitutionalist" and less "Republican or Democrat".
I think you are grossly overestimating the stability of America. I rarely meet anyone in this country who doesn't think our government is abusive and corrupt. And ironically, the relative stability in America actually comes from national politics.
What really holds this country together, is the fact that the Republicans and Democrats must be "nationalist" in nature. They can't afford to support state or regional political interests, because it would break apart the party. They can't have northern and southern Republicans, they need Republicans. If either political party began to play regional politics, it would destroy their party and guarantee their losses in future elections.
No, both the Republican party and the Democrat party are both seeking national coalitions of 51% or more of Americans. To understand this concept, I advise you read John C. Calhoun's 1850 speech to Congress.
What has caused this widely diffused and almost universal discontent?
It is a great mistake to suppose, as is by some, that it originated with demagogs who excited the discontent with the intention of aiding their personal advancement, or with the disappointed ambition of certain politicians who resorted to it as the means of retrieving their fortunes. On the contrary, all the great political influences of the section were arrayed against excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep the people quiet. The great mass of the people of the South were divided, as in the other section, into Whigs(Republicans) and Democrats. The leaders and the presses of both parties in the South were very solicitous to prevent excitement and to preserve quiet; because it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to weaken, if not destroy, the political ties which united them with their respective parties in the other section.
Those who know the strength of party ties will readily appreciate the immense force which this cause exerted against agitation and in favor of preserving quiet. But, great as it was, it was not sufficient to prevent the widespread discontent which now pervades the section.
Yes, that was written in 1850, leading up to the Civil War. If you understand it, then you'll understand why political parties must appear united. They play the party game, Republicans vs Democrats, pick your side.
Thus the discontent of most Americans has no real outlet. They feel trapped into playing the political game. They see no alternative. And the people with the most political influence are the ones who also have the most to lose if there was any upheaval. What you might call the "moneyed interests". Men with businesses and property must always move against instability. Thus money always moves for calm. And since money controls the media, then the media must always advocate for calm and compromise.
If those who are discontent and less invested in America ever found an alternative to just casting their vote in a largely rigged election system. Do you not think they would take advantage of it?
I think the government is actually towing a far finer line than you give credit. On one hand, the government cannot appear weak, otherwise they cannot maintain order. But they can't appear too aggressive either, or they will excite the discontented into action.
As I said before, at this point, I don't believe America would make it through another Waco.
...... On one hand, the government cannot appear weak, otherwise they cannot maintain order. But they can't appear too aggressive either, or they will excite the discontented into action.
As I said before, at this point, I don't believe America would make it through another Waco.
The antiquated 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed. None other then conservative columnist George Will suggested we repeal the "embarassing" 2nd Amendment way back in 1991.
I have not checked recently but I am guessing Will may have changed his mind. I don't know and I don't care.
The 2nd Amendment is a blemish on the U.S. constitution....and our gun culture is an embarassing national shame.
No offense to the honest hunters out there. That can be sensibly regulated. But it is the gun nuts who insist they walk into coffee shops and public places with guns that make me sick. Grown men who still want to play army. I'll leave that to our professional men and women in the U.S. military.
And spare me the paranoid speeches about the tyrannical government that is going to knock down your door with the barrel of a gun pointing at your paranoid mind. The government has stockpiles and stockpiles of nuclear weapons. No amount of private gun ownership could stand up to that. A strong democracy does not or should not need such a foolish notion to thrive.
I know I'll be long dead before this ever has a chance of happening...seems the lunatics have taken over. That is the lunatics at the NRA have their fists up the a&* of our elected leaders in Congress.
Contrary to the opinion of many who erroneously see our public education system as an abject failure, the reality is, it has been wildly successful beyond all expectations for producing several generations of idiots, as it was designed to do.
It's almost excusable for people to think we are a democracy, since the term is used so often. But we aren't a democracy, nor should we want to be. But, there is no excuse for becoming so stupid as to advocate the elimination of our own rights, no matter what cause is cited as the pretext.
You, on one hand dismiss the possibility of tyranny as a product of paranoid imagination while ignoring one of the most glaring signs of it! A government which demonstrates the desire to ignore the laws restricting it's powers and conduct, while actively working to eliminate the rights of the citizenry that are protected by law is by definition, a lawless government preparing to impose tyranny.
If our education system had been designed to educate, rather than dumb down, you would understand that throughout history, two absolutes are repeated .... all governments eventually become tyrannical if their powers are not consistently checked, and all despotic governments have made it a priority to disarm the citizenry in order to safely impose it's brand of despotism.
Then, you seem to suggest, in the unlikely event that tyranny is imposed, there is no point in resisting, given the stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the hands of government ... apparently insinuating that government would unleash nuclear weapons on it's own people as a response to resisting tyranny. So, if I have this straight, the possibility of tyranny is nothing other than paranoid delusion, but nuclear holocost and mass genocide of a variety never before seen, is a real possibility, and the likely response to any futile effort to resist tyranny?
This is why left wing thought is considered a form of mental illness by those who have managed to retain the ability to think rationally.
Contrary to the opinion of many who erroneously see our public education system as an abject failure, the reality is, it has been wildly successful beyond all expectations for producing several generations of idiots, as it was designed to do.
It's almost excusable for people to think we are a democracy, since the term is used so often. But we aren't a democracy, nor should we want to be. But, there is no excuse for becoming so stupid as to advocate the elimination of our own rights, no matter what cause is cited as the pretext.
Please, I am sick of this B.S. which says the right to bear arms is a natural right, engraved in the fabric of the universe, and merely affirmed, not created by their beloved Second Amendment.
The concept of natural rights is used by many gun rights absolutists as a club and a credit card on which to charge up selfishness.
1. Club: "I have a natural right to self defense, so therefore I win this argument."
2. Credit card: When the sensible center of this country proposes we sit at a table together to make a rulebook about guns, accomodating the interests of those who do not want them along with those who do, gun nuts respond: "My natural right to bear arms trumps your desire not to have guns around. Therefore there is no basis for discussion."
We should not be slaves... Slaves to men in wigs and stockings who were writing in the 1700's before the industrial revolution was even on the horizon. I won't even
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Then, you seem to suggest, in the unlikely event that tyranny is imposed, there is no point in resisting, given the stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the hands of government ... apparently insinuating that government would unleash nuclear weapons on it's own people as a response to resisting tyranny. So, if I have this straight, the possibility of tyranny is nothing other than paranoid delusion, but nuclear holocost and mass genocide of a variety never before seen, is a real possibility, and the likely response to any futile effort to resist tyranny?
This is why left wing thought is considered a form of mental illness by those who have managed to retain the ability to think rationally.
You are reading into it what you want to read into it. 200 plus years with a peaceful transfer of power every four years without the need for a barrel of a gun. You gun rights absolutists live a strange universe...a musket in a log cabin is what you seem to think you need. When i was growing my hometown was one of the most violent cities in America...never needed a gun. Never wanted one.
The Civil War was a "conventional war". With large military forces clashing head-to-head. If a Civil War began today, it wouldn't be caused by half of the country trying to "split off" and being prevented from doing so by the federal government. Therefore it would not be like the Civil War, because there would not be conventional warfare.
If anything like a Civil War broke out today, it would be just like all the other Civil Wars raging all over the world. It would be insurgents with small arms declaring some area of the country effectively an "independent state", and then fighting something like Guerrilla warfare with the US government. At first it would be started by a minority of anti-government "radicals" in heavily armed militias. But as news of it spread, and if it was a large enough "movement" to begin with. I think an increasingly larger and larger number of people would join in.
Keep in mind, the total number of what you might consider political "radicals" in America usually ranges from about 10% to about 30% of the population. Its difficult to find a number, but I've seen polls that between 5% and 11% of the US population could effectively be considered "communist".
All be told, I would say nearly a third of Americans would be considered "radicals". To put that in perspective, a third of Americans would include about 75 million adults. If even a tiny fraction of those 75 million adults worked together to overthrow the government, what would happen?
With that said, almost all of the 75 million "radicals" in America might have certain views and might like to complain, but very very very few of them would risk their lives for immediate change. But, there are a small percentage of those groups who aren't just radicals, but they are "extremists" who would be fairly comparable to "Islamic extremists"(who are currently fighting "fairly successfully" to overthrow governments all over the Middle-East).
There are literally thousands of anti-government militia groups around the country. Consisting of at least tens of thousands of Americans. Let alone the large percentage of people who hold anti-government views but who haven't yet become affiliated with any militia.
Keeping in mind, the people who are most likely to win in any war, are the people who "want it the most". Or really, the people most willing to risk their lives for a "cause". Which is why "Islamic fundamentalists" are so successful all across the Middle-East. And for that matter, why the North Vietnamese were so successful once America pulled out.
You don't want a bunch of battle-hardened anti-government American militiamen going up against a largely "mercenary" US military that overwhelmingly supports libertarians like Ron Paul. And generally espouse ideologies which are more "far Right-wing" or "Constitutionalist" and less "Republican or Democrat".
I think you are grossly overestimating the stability of America. I rarely meet anyone in this country who doesn't think our government is abusive and corrupt. And ironically, the relative stability in America actually comes from national politics.
What really holds this country together, is the fact that the Republicans and Democrats must be "nationalist" in nature. They can't afford to support state or regional political interests, because it would break apart the party. They can't have northern and southern Republicans, they need Republicans. If either political party began to play regional politics, it would destroy their party and guarantee their losses in future elections.
No, both the Republican party and the Democrat party are both seeking national coalitions of 51% or more of Americans. To understand this concept, I advise you read John C. Calhoun's 1850 speech to Congress.
What has caused this widely diffused and almost universal discontent?
It is a great mistake to suppose, as is by some, that it originated with demagogs who excited the discontent with the intention of aiding their personal advancement, or with the disappointed ambition of certain politicians who resorted to it as the means of retrieving their fortunes. On the contrary, all the great political influences of the section were arrayed against excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep the people quiet. The great mass of the people of the South were divided, as in the other section, into Whigs(Republicans) and Democrats. The leaders and the presses of both parties in the South were very solicitous to prevent excitement and to preserve quiet; because it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to weaken, if not destroy, the political ties which united them with their respective parties in the other section.
Those who know the strength of party ties will readily appreciate the immense force which this cause exerted against agitation and in favor of preserving quiet. But, great as it was, it was not sufficient to prevent the widespread discontent which now pervades the section.
Yes, that was written in 1850, leading up to the Civil War. If you understand it, then you'll understand why political parties must appear united. They play the party game, Republicans vs Democrats, pick your side.
Thus the discontent of most Americans has no real outlet. They feel trapped into playing the political game. They see no alternative. And the people with the most political influence are the ones who also have the most to lose if there was any upheaval. What you might call the "moneyed interests". Men with businesses and property must always move against instability. Thus money always moves for calm. And since money controls the media, then the media must always advocate for calm and compromise.
If those who are discontent and less invested in America ever found an alternative to just casting their vote in a largely rigged election system. Do you not think they would take advantage of it?
I think the government is actually towing a far finer line than you give credit. On one hand, the government cannot appear weak, otherwise they cannot maintain order. But they can't appear too aggressive either, or they will excite the discontented into action.
As I said before, at this point, I don't believe America would make it through another Waco.
Bravo!....And I dont think America should tolerate another Waco.
Please, I am sick of this B.S. which says the right to bear arms is a natural right, engraved in the fabric of the universe, and merely affirmed, not created by their beloved Second Amendment.
a couple of documents you might want to actually READ;
Please, I am sick of this B.S. which says the right to bear arms is a natural right, engraved in the fabric of the universe, and merely affirmed, not created by their beloved Second Amendment.
The concept of natural rights is used by many gun rights absolutists as a club and a credit card on which to charge up selfishness.
1. Club: "I have a natural right to self defense, so therefore I win this argument."
2. Credit card: When the sensible center of this country proposes we sit at a table together to make a rulebook about guns, accomodating the interests of those who do not want them along with those who do, gun nuts respond: "My natural right to bear arms trumps your desire not to have guns around. Therefore there is no basis for discussion."
We should not be slaves... Slaves to men in wigs and stockings who were writing in the 1700's before the industrial revolution was even on the horizon. I won't even
You are reading into it what you want to read into it. 200 plus years with a peaceful transfer of power every four years without the need for a barrel of a gun. You gun rights absolutists live a strange universe...a musket in a log cabin is what you seem to think you need. When i was growing my hometown was one of the most violent cities in America...never needed a gun. Never wanted one.
You are stick of it only because you are losing..Its ok..
We all ready do, its call the Constitution..You dont want to keep and bear arms, fine..DONT!
Anecdotal Evidence, Just because you have never need or wanted one does not mean anyone else never did..
I have never been raped, by your mind set no one else have ever been raped...See how moronic that is....
Contrary to the opinion of many who erroneously see our public education system as an abject failure, the reality is, it has been wildly successful beyond all expectations for producing several generations of idiots, as it was designed to do.
It's almost excusable for people to think we are a democracy, since the term is used so often. But we aren't a democracy, nor should we want to be. But, there is no excuse for becoming so stupid as to advocate the elimination of our own rights, no matter what cause is cited as the pretext.
You, on one hand dismiss the possibility of tyranny as a product of paranoid imagination while ignoring one of the most glaring signs of it! A government which demonstrates the desire to ignore the laws restricting it's powers and conduct, while actively working to eliminate the rights of the citizenry that are protected by law is by definition, a lawless government preparing to impose tyranny.
If our education system had been designed to educate, rather than dumb down, you would understand that throughout history, two absolutes are repeated .... all governments eventually become tyrannical if their powers are not consistently checked, and all despotic governments have made it a priority to disarm the citizenry in order to safely impose it's brand of despotism.
Then, you seem to suggest, in the unlikely event that tyranny is imposed, there is no point in resisting, given the stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the hands of government ... apparently insinuating that government would unleash nuclear weapons on it's own people as a response to resisting tyranny. So, if I have this straight, the possibility of tyranny is nothing other than paranoid delusion, but nuclear holocost and mass genocide of a variety never before seen, is a real possibility, and the likely response to any futile effort to resist tyranny?
This is why left wing thought is considered a form of mental illness by those who have managed to retain the ability to think rationally.
Please, I am sick of this B.S. which says the right to bear arms is a natural right, engraved in the fabric of the universe, and merely affirmed, not created by their beloved Second Amendment.
The concept of natural rights is used by many gun rights absolutists as a club and a credit card on which to charge up selfishness.
1. Club: "I have a natural right to self defense, so therefore I win this argument."
2. Credit card: When the sensible center of this country proposes we sit at a table together to make a rulebook about guns, accomodating the interests of those who do not want them along with those who do, gun nuts respond: "My natural right to bear arms trumps your desire not to have guns around. Therefore there is no basis for discussion."
We should not be slaves... Slaves to men in wigs and stockings who were writing in the 1700's before the industrial revolution was even on the horizon. I won't even
You are reading into it what you want to read into it. 200 plus years with a peaceful transfer of power every four years without the need for a barrel of a gun. You gun rights absolutists live a strange universe...a musket in a log cabin is what you seem to think you need. When i was growing my hometown was one of the most violent cities in America...never needed a gun. Never wanted one.
While I could pick apart your entire post, I'm going to focus on Number 2. Firearms owners have been compromising with anti-gunners since 1934. It has been shown over and over again that those compromises a) had little effect on criminal activity and b) emboldened the anti-gunners to reach for even more bans. Please explain why firearms owners should compromise any more.
One thing is for sure: Many, many more will die because of this amendment. And in the end it's because of money. Not freedom.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
