What will happen if there is a civil war in America?

Pretty soon it will be a class war between: People who work, and people who collect handouts. This government is going into some trouble.

reply to post by dave_welch

After X% of US military defects then UN troops will be brought in to make up the difference. Foreign troops will not have the qualms of firing on Americans that other Americans in uniform will (but many will do so as ordered: false flags and then real attacks on them; peer pressure and paychecks).

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by dave_welch

 

After X% of US military defects then UN troops will be brought in to make up the difference. Foreign troops will not have the qualms of firing on Americans that other Americans in uniform will (but many will do so as ordered: false flags and then real attacks on them; peer pressure and paychecks).

edit on 15-1-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)

One could hypothetically flip that statement to read; Americans would have no qualms firing on foreign troops that they'd have with firing on american troops.

Any scenario that describes DHS going door to door to confiscate guns is pure fantasy. You might as well throw zombies in at that point. The US Census Bureau has to hire hundreds of thousands of people every 10 years to do door to door questionaires. So many people are hired it makes all employment data for the whole country skewed for about 6 months. Federal officials going door to door enforcing a gun law is assinine and impossible and it's ridiculous "assumptions" like that which make the community of "preppers" and "survivalists" look like idiots when they try to talk seriously about current issues.

Worst Case Scenario for a Gun Owner: You have to register your semi-automatic assault weapons
Worst Case Scenario for a Gun Buyer: You have to go through a background check

Sorry guys. I don't see either one of those leading to civil war. I understand there's a lot of gun owners that really really really want to use their guns in meaningful ways and a civil war is just perfect for that, but it would take the Federal government going so far that the military and local law enforcement were too outraged to fulfill their oaths and duty. I don't see that happening with minor gun control legislation they are talking about at the moment.

This whole conversation is a straw man.

reply to post by tovenar


The United States keeps strategic reserves of more than just oil and natural gas, and most food in your grocery store is grown on factory farms or in Mexico.

I think you are seriously overestimating the reach of a million armed country-folk. Yes -- they could cause a lot of havoc, but that would simply reinforce the terrorist label.

In the end, the majority would keep going to work, and attrition would eat the "revolution."

People are giving Hollywood credit to the US military. In Afghanistan goat herders were able to hold the world's two strongest superpowers to a standstill and not just for a moment but for a total of 20 years. This country has a huge number of retired military who still believe in the Constitution. This would not be the one sided fight people are suggesting. The question is are people willing to give up ALL their freedom's to support 1 foreign dictator taking over the country.

reply to post by SKMDC1

You have to register your semi-automatic assault weapons

Once again........a false statement, there is no such thing as a semi automatic assault weapon.....

If youre going to follow that line of thinking, ban ANYTHING that can be used to cause harm, because if youre going to throw around the term assault with everything, you might as well include anything that can be used to "assault" someone

People need to stop repeating this assault weapon line.......

Its nothing more then a hunting rifle with a dif cover on it..........

This disinfo bullcrap needs to stop......

The changing of terms to facilitate an agenda needs to stop........

Ive watched the definition on the webster dictionary online, and wikipedia , go from one thing before all this debate came up, to something completely different if you look it up right now....

2. Weeks ago the clear definition on any of those website, was a weapon primarily used by military, with rapid automatic fire capabilities that can hold a larger amount of ammunition.....or something to that effect.....

Weird......theyve changed it.........any o fyou pro gun guys go look it up now......
This USE to be the definition......

as·sault ri·fle Noun A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

..should be an eye opener

Its sickening.........and the tactic used to change a definition so that the means can be met makes my blood boil

Parroting the MSM needs to stop.........

reply to post by tmeister182


No, the question is... are people willing to give up all their freedom, stability, happiness, and comfortable life in order to protect someone else's right to own semi-automatic assault weapons anonymously.

I just don't think this is the zombie apocalypse you guys are hoping for.

reply to post by tmeister182


That's not really much of a question.

Frankly -- it begs more questions than it actually asks. For example: Do I even remotely believe President Obama is "foreign?" I don't, and I don't know a single credible, successful person who does. Second: Do I believe Obama is a dictator (over guns)?

1) He hasn't done anything yet.

2) I don't believe it is even technically possible to "seize the guns."

3) Ronald Reagan DID ACTUALLY SIGN the Mulford Act of 1967 which made it illegal for anyone to carry guns openly in California, and no one revolted.

Please understand: You and I agree in principal: I don't believe further gun legislation will do ANYTHING substantive to protect kids or prevent spree-shooters. I agree that guns and gun-issues are used by political puppets on both sides to make hay for their agendas.

But I also don't think a few thousand NRA fanboys constitute a viable revolution, I don't believe the 80% that lives in our cities, and who do the "work" required to make us an economic superpower will join them in their cause, and I don't believe that any of this discussion amounts to more than intellectual masturbation.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
reply to post by tmeister182

 

No, the question is... are people willing to give up all their freedom, stability, happiness, and comfortable life in order to protect someone else's right to own semi-automatic assault weapons anonymously.

I just don't think this is the zombie apocalypse you guys are hoping for.

No such thing as a semi automatic assault weapon.........

They are rifles.........223 or .308 and they are used for hunting........

Again stop parroting the bullcrap................

Once again, I have not read ALL of the responses on this thread yet...but I have a one lined response to this thread: Germany 1930's/1940's......you didn't see very much fighting back...and the few that did paid HARSH penalties, (Look up Mildred Harnack and the Red Orchestra..."Resisting Hitler:
Mildred Harnack and the Red Orchestra" - by Shareen Blair Brysac, this is the book I read not too long ago about the only American woman executed on Hitler's personal orders...)

The average person is SCARED of their government or buys everything the MSM tells them hook, line and sinker.....naw, I believe the government would totally win in this situation.....

As well, here in the US of A....there were people in the 50's who were accused of being communists and lost everything, (including their freedom!), and very few people did a thing about it....in fact, people in America were turning in others...just like in Germany during the Hitler years....I, like a lot of us, would like to believe that we, as Americans, would act better than other countries do/did in bad political/social situations...but alas, we're human after all.....

now back to reading the rest of this thread......

Well my first stop was to your profile and your 'Join Date'. Your previous threads also was scrutinized. 2010 was your join date, and most of your threads seemed to be less than provocative in the lead-up to this thread. That would lead me to believe it's likely you are not a government shill. Topic selection was what lead me to that conclusion. Then your location Beaufort Texas. That gave me pause as George Bush's home state and his Crawford TX hometown, a distance of roughly 245 miles to your east.
I'm still doing a little looking here.

The topic can be used to gather information 'Outside the Box' as it were, by Homeland Security from those who become boastful and display their bravado suggesting courses of action. That in itself would be highly counterproductive, as it would give ammunition for TPTB in their measures to counter any response from citizens.

Needless to say, many measures to counter the governments intrusion are available and most don't even require weapons. For examples just look at the French resistance in WWII, or for that matter, any resistance movement and their tactics.

But one thing that would be evident and difficult to hush would be the ramping up for such an operation to confiscate weapons, both by military, federal and local law enforcement. Any movement in that dirrection would be made public very quickly. There would also be a likely 50/50 consensus with regard to complying to such an order.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Whatever... It's impossible to debate gun-nuts because they always get pedantic over stupid stuff and say things like "if you don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip then you don't know what you're talking about."

I also don't know how to make meth but I can debate whether it should be legal.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Whatever... It's impossible to debate gun-nuts because they always get pedantic over stupid stuff and say things like "if you don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip then you don't know what you're talking about."

I also don't know how to make meth but I can debate whether it should be legal.

Ahh ok.........so now im a gun nut.......

Are you saying its impossible to debate with us because we use the facts?

So the definition of what it really is, is stupid?

Despite the fact that the assault weapon ban before did NOTHING to stop them, because they...WERENT USING ASSAULT WEAPONS?

And your last quote doesnt apply........because i said nothing of the sort......

Im just not going to play the games you guys play with wording and phrasing to facilitate your agenda......

I do believe, that if they try and come for our "rifles" that there will be fighting...

Will it lead to civil war? I have no idea........I hope not......but if it did, put the blame where its due, once again on the gov......

Place the blame squarely on those who would try to take our rights away...........

If one falls........so go the others........youd do well to remember that

I also don't know how to make meth but I can debate whether it should be legal.

You just equated the gun debate to legality of methamphetamine............and WERE the illogical "nuts"?

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Well, you must be making sense........ because....... you use....... so many.......... periods.

Yes, using the "fact" that assault weapons are different than semi-automatic rifles in a debate about whether gun confiscation is on the horizon and if that leads to civil war is a bit pendantic.

Yes, I equated a converstation on the legality of meth with that of guns. Both have been proven dangerous to society and in my opinion should be regulated accordingly. I do not need to have Walter White's knowledge of chemistry to enter that debate on meth and I don't need to have an intimate knowledge of firearms to debate that issue. I'm not saying they are the same, I'm saying the debate is the same and if the only people allowed to have an opinion about the legality of drugs were the ones who did drugs then the debate would be much different. It becomes clear in these straw-man "constitutional crisis" arguments that gun-"enthusiasts" only recognize other gun-"enthusiasts" as having a right to participate in the conversation, which leads us inevitably into the mastubatory culdesac of arguments where we now find ourselves.

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by k1k1to

 

First, let's get one thing straight. I have never asked for any kind of special treatment. Of course I volunteered. And even the dumb kids who join to "play call of duty in real life" find out real fast that the real thing is much different than video games. Most military members do not have this "sense of entitlement" that you seem to think they have. Sadly there are those who do all of the terrible things that you think the military does constantly, and unfortunately, they are the ones portrayed the most because it gets ratings.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you should try and base it on actual facts.

Dave,

Thank you for your post, of course there are a small minority of troops who may exhibit some of these trains but to base your opinion of an entire military because of the actions or words of a few of them that you might know or have seen on some website somewhere is absolutely asinine. As a six year veteran myself I can tell you first hand that we did not sit over there and play Xbox and try to act all high and mighty when we returned. I went over 8 times in those six years and came home to my life quite humble and reserved. There is one exception of course to this... if you were trying to get a piece of tail.... but that is another matter all together!

A civil war isn't possible.

It's obvious that as long as McDonalds stays open, the water stays flouridated and Fox News keeps on pumping out its poison Americans won't roll off their couches and onto their mobility scooters to go and have a reinaction of 1776.

Even if it were to happen, well, you're kidding yourself if you think Mr.Doughboy-with-a-cowboy-hat who shoots at a range twice a week with his buddies before bowling will put up much of a fight against a trained military which has just taken off its gloves and is willing to exterminate thousands of people to meet its ends (And I mean properly, not through agent orange and DU).

If one side has air superiority and is willing to do whatever it takes, it will win. This is why Hitler made the Luftwaffe very loyal to him through Goering and also gave them all of the anti-aircraft weapons. They could have easily subdued the Army and the Navy if it came to it and the army and general staff knew that (They were Germans before Nazis afterall) which is one of the bigger reasons why they didn't march on Berlin when told to invade France which they largely saw as a suicide mission for Germany and their men.

Originally posted by AlphaX
I agree with Thunder heart woman, I don't think there would be enough resistance. I also don't think that the resistance would be organized enough. You'd see pockets of resistance here and there but it probably wouldn't get to the point where we'd have a viable civil war on our hands. Too many people would be too scared and too complacent to do anything. There are still a lot of people in this country who don't own guns and we've seen that when something doesn't directly and obviously affect the average citizen, they aren't going to do anything about it.

Also, war is horrible and many people in America have never known it; unless the government starts publicly attacking people, they won't fight back. Basically what I'm saying is that for there to be a viable civil war, you would need to have an event that directly negatively affects everyone, not just the gun owners.

I disagree, once peoples Families are being slaughtered. More people will join. Plus the Media will not be able to cover up too much. We are in the information age. Several state militia groups are already gearing up for this.

But in order for this to really make a difference instead of turning into a long drawn out fight like in Afgan and Nam. We would have a better chance if a Gen/Admiral was to stand up to an order. Then the normal soldiers and the resistance could move against the Powers that be. And then after wards if we won we could turn it back over to the people like in 1776.

reply to post by dave_welch


HOW DARE YOU CALL OUR MILITARY TRAITORS!!!

They successfully defended blacks in America (from other racist Americans) 150 years ago when SLAVERY was the culture, and whites were the MAJORITY.

Now whites are the minority and the DoD forces will DEFEND America from new racist Americans who don't like a Black President. Noone called for civil war when Clinton haad an assualt rifle ban passed.. (wonder why?) ...

Obama actually expanded gun rights in America (CC in State parks) , and Bush declined 2 nd amendment rights and GOT THE RIGHT TO CONFISCATE with the PATRIOT ACT. Nobody in the GOP called for HIM to be impeached.. This is PARTY and RACIST foolishness and we as Americans are ASHAMED of you. The talk on this site about the US is worse than on an AL Qeada site!! The first thing a Dictatorship does is tell everybody ONLY THE WAY I THINK IS PATRIOTISM.. Everyone else is a TRAITOR!!! Hitler and Mussolini did it.... Chinia and North Korea do it now.. And the Right Wing is the one trying to do it now. Saying "LET US HAVE ASSAULT RIFLES" and the saying horrible things about our "DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT" .... The PEOPLE elected teh Pres! Are you sou POWERFUL that you can Tell THE REST OF AMERICA that WE HAVE TO GO YOUR WAY OR YOU WILL KILL US IN WAR???