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.
Nope. A small group of crackpot gun nuts don't get the right to shoot up the place when "they" decide there's a constitutional crises. They should wisely just play their silly war games on private property on the weekends and mind their own business.
Yes they do. The second amendment is a “line in the sand” for many of us conservatives. The reason we see so many of these threads, references to civil war and even news stories about the prospects of civil war or secession is because too many of our rights have already been violated. There is already a mentality of defiance and rebellion forming among conservatives. We have had it.....socialism, deviant gay marriage, attempts to curtail our freedom of speech and gun rights.....all this stuff is building to something. If the enemy takes over the government and actually tries to take guns or go further in taking our rights then yes something will happen. When it does the “silent majority “ will step out into the light and stand. Leftists will find to their horror that those people will be a lot of military, ex military, law enforcement and well armed rural Americans. When it happens we will quickly retake the country and force the leftist urban centers on the coasts and up North to submit. Conservative leaders will then restore our rights and reorganize this nation as they see fit. The days of wealth redistribution, gun grabbing and political correctness will be over. The liberals will then have learned the hard way how much we love our freedom and how much we detest their traitorous ways.
Imagine what Putin would do if someone posted this on any public access posting site in Russia
They would be jerked out of their homes and sent to a goolag faster than the sun sets...
The Civil War did not happen because the South was cut out of the political process. It was about slavery. The South lost in the political process so they tried a military option, and got their a** kicked.
If, as you say, history repeats itself, then you're going to get whacked again, because you did not learn the first time. Would it really be a good idea to kill thousands of Americans because you can't abide at most 8 years of Democratic rule? Do you know how childish that sounds? We did not get our way, so lets go kill some liberals? You think that potentially 8 or more years with the Dunce as president is a picnic for the rest of us? Even if he loses, the Dunce has said that he may not accept the election results. So dear leader may need to be escorted out by US Marshalls.
This is exactly what the Russians want, a weakened United States, fighting internal strife, and you call yourselves "patriots"?
No the civil war didn't start over slavery. It was a major contributor.
No one has said anything remotely like this. You are engaged in some serious word twisting and projecting your own thoughts and making assumptions onto others.
See you just don't get it. The South participated, to the extent they wanted to, in a democratic/federalist political process. In a democracy/federalist state there are winners and losers. In this case the South lost, twice. Participating in the process or not is what freedom is all about. The South made it's choice and took it's chances. They were not any more irrelevant than any other participant or non-participant. Non-participants can, by their absence, change the outcome of an election.
Even if he was not on the ballot doesn't mean he didn't get any write in votes. It's a part of that political process we are talking about.
I get it fine. The process of electing President was altogether different when our country began than it is today. The candidates didn't run national campaigns, they didn't run in all the states. Each region had elections, with their own set of candidates. The South never had enough population to control the executive branch. The electoral college gave the South leverage. That is why we had so many Southerners win the Presidency to begin with. The election of Lincoln was different. For the first time, the South's electors were irrelevant. The other states had enough electoral votes to make the South irrelevant. The South had no say in the election of Lincoln whatsoever.
Lincoln didn't get a single vote in the South. He didn't run in the South. At all. The North didn't care. They controlled the office of the President completely. The North had more states, and more population. They controlled the executive branch, and they dominated the legislative branch. The only branch of the federal government that could exert Southern influence was the judicial branch. Which is one of the reasons there was so much antagonism between the executive branch and the Taney Supreme Court.
And while this might seem off-topic, I'm going to defend this post as being on-topic. Because the 3% and other groups like it are formed because they feel politically irrelevant. By uniting, they have more political weight, and their threats about insurrection are about them feeling the inadequacy of that political weight. Power in this country is shifting, the urban areas that are more liberal will increasingly control the federal government. And there are a good number of people who are alarmed by that. Hence we got Trump. Hence we get this 3%er rhetoric.
We have less than 1% fighting in our current wars but you think you have 3% of the nation ready for battle. Maybe 3% manning the right wing keyboards on City Data but good luck with your recruitment.
How would they get there? They can't fly with their arsenal of guns. A caravan of trucks with mudder tires and confederate flags blowing in the breeze driving into D.C.? That won't attract any attention...
We have less than 1% fighting in our current wars but you think you have 3% of the nation ready for battle. Maybe 3% manning the right wing keyboards on City Data but good luck with your recruitment.
Math; Apparently not a strong suit of our wanna be "revolutionaries".
I should have mentioned that as another problem with their fantasy... errrr "strategy". They are dismally bad at math and the US military is not. Surprisingly - math turns out to be pretty important in warfare.
Do you really think that? You think that more than 3 out of every hundred people in the United States wants to declare war against the United States if they don't get their way and Democrats get elected in? Think about this seriously. There are 370 million people in the United States. Three percent of that is 11,000,000 people. That's the population of NYC and Chicago added together. Do you REALLY think that is possible?
Yes. If you wish to call it war, so be it. We call it, "The Day of Reckoning" The day we take back the constitution. The 3+%'ers, will be taking the tyrants out to the wood shed.
Where you are mistaken, it would not be against The USA. Only the Marxist.
Yes. If you wish to call it war, so be it. We call it, "The Day of Reckoning" The day we take back the constitution. The 3+%'ers, will be taking the tyrants out to the wood shed.
Where you are mistaken, it would not be against The USA. Only the Marxist.
Which Marxists are you going to take out first in your home state, and who will you replace them with.
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.
