liberals are pretty screwed if cons decide to wage war

[CptStern]

LOL that is ASS backwards. The police aren't going to help you do jack shit. Your gun is more likely to save you.

My gun can shoot in less than a second. The police will be here in 5 minutes.

it takes you less than 5 minutes to wake up from a deep sleep, figure out if you should get your gun, go to your safe where your gun is safely stored (right?) unlock it pull your gun out, load it and then hope to god you're not shooting the neighbour's cat. sure your reaction time might be a little faster but if I'm in that room (your wife. kid, abuela etc I'd sure as hell would rather trust the police than an untrained civilian

unless you have it under your pillow/front of your jeans .......you have kid right?


anyways this is a moot point because you are far more likely to be shot by someone you know rather than some random burglar in the middle of the night


welcome back rakurai. it seems like yesterday since I saw you last as you havent changed one bit

 

[DEATH eVADER]

most conservatives are probably gun owners if they organize and act quickly, non-gun owners are kinda in a disadvantage here.
well there's probably not gonna be a war, but alot of them have an itch in their trigger finger...basically they're looking for an excuse to use their guns.

how would a civil war in the US look like?

Men with goatees and 'tasches

 

[15357]

This is a retarded conversation we're all having here.

 

[lord_raken]

it takes you less than 5 minutes to wake up from a deep sleep, figure out if you should get your gun, go to your safe where your gun is safely stored (right?) unlock it pull your gun out, load it and then hope to god you're not shooting the neighbour's cat. sure your reaction time might be a little faster but if I'm in that room (your wife. kid, abuela etc I'd sure as hell would rather trust the police than an untrained civilian

unless you have it under your pillow/front of your jeans .......you have kid right?


anyways this is a moot point because you are far more likely to be shot by someone you know rather than some random burglar in the middle of the night


welcome back rakurai. it seems like yesterday since I saw you last as you havent changed one bit

There are quick open gun safes that you can mount next to your bed, and by keeping the gun loaded in the safe you are then its about 10-15 seconds from asleep to armed when the downstairs window breaks. And drilling your kinds in proper gun safety and implementing strict rules can go along way in keeping your family safe. My dad had guns but I didn't know about them until I was 10. and before that he had drilled me on the safe handling of a bb gun.

There are plenty of accounts of people with a gun defending their home from an invader. The scariest one are when the invader is also armed.

 

[CptStern]

There are quick open gun safes that you can mount next to your bed, and by keeping the gun loaded in the safe you are then its about 10-15 seconds from asleep to armed when the downstairs window breaks. And drilling your kinds in proper gun safety and implementing strict rules can go along way in keeping your family safe. My dad had guns but I didn't know about them until I was 10. and before that he had drilled me on the safe handling of a bb gun.

Rakurai's kid is less than a year old

There are plenty of accounts of people with a gun defending their home from an invader. The scariest one are when the invader is also armed.

which in the US is not only a distinct possibility; it's a given. anyways you are far more likely to be shot to death by someone you know rather than some random burglar in the night.. logical conclusion is that since you say defend yourself in case of attack logic dictates that since you're more likely t be shot by someone you know you should just get rid of your guns altogether? I mean you people prepare for the unlikely and ignore the threat that's much more certain; each other

 

[No Limit]

LOL that is ASS backwards. The police aren't going to help you do jack shit. Your gun is more likely to save you.

My gun can shoot in less than a second. The police will be here in 5 minutes.

In the case of a home invasion yes, the gun is more likely to help you than the cops. I never said or implied otherwise. But I say if a criminal wanted to go after you they could and your gun won't be a whole lot of help. No amount of movies or james bond games will change that.

The best deterent for criminals are not your guns but a competent police force (wether or not we have that here is for another topic) that will hopefully protect you and if they can't protect you find out who did the crime.

 

[No Limit]

There are quick open gun safes that you can mount next to your bed, and by keeping the gun loaded in the safe you are then its about 10-15 seconds from asleep to armed when the downstairs window breaks.

You are making a lot of assumptions. First that you will wake up when that window breaks.

Second not everyone has an upstairs or downstairs. I live alone in a 1 bedroom apartment. I don't lock my guns because of this, but if someone kicked in my door it would take them a couple of seconds to get in my bedroom, I would stand no chance eventhough my handgun is right under my bed in a drawer and my shotgun in the closet next to me.

Third you are assuming that if an actual armed intruder broke in to your house while you were sleeping you wouldn't simply shit your pants from the unexpected panic. Most people aren't trained to deal with that kind of situation.

There are plenty of accounts of people with a gun defending their home from an invader. The scariest one are when the invader is also armed.

Do you have any examples? I'm sure there are rare instances, but I haven't personally heard of any so I'm curious.

 

[No Limit]

which in the US is not only a distinct possibility; it's a given. anyways you are far more likely to be shot to death by someone you know rather than some random burglar in the night.. logical conclusion is that since you say defend yourself in case of attack logic dictates that since you're more likely t be shot by someone you know you should just get rid of your guns altogether? I mean you people prepare for the unlikely and ignore the threat that's much more certain; each other

The problem we have is too many stupid people. Just today I read a story about a guy shooting his friend while cleaning his gun. Yes, this dip shit was cleaning a loaded gun. I'm guessing that this idiots gun, like many others, required you to pull the trigger to release the barrel for cleaning. So this genius not only didn't check the chamber to make sure no round was in there but then pointed the gun at his friend as he went to pull the trigger to release the barrel.

So the reason guns hurt more people than they save is because many people that have guns shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. And I have a hard time banning something because there are idiots in this world. If we did that for everything life would suck. But stronger regulation to make sure these idiots cant own guns I would fully support.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I still don't trust the police and if a criminal is after me I'm going to get them before they get me. That's survival. That's also the way things pretty much work in most cities here.

About uprisings - the C130 video, etc etc. People are still stuck in this conventional warfare mindset. Like people are going to be assembling in the streets in regiments against the US army.

First of all anything here would happen just like Iraq- with probably less suicide bombs but the same tactics in essence. Look- the only way they saw any success there was to

A: Use militia rivalries to their benefit. Turning local militia against the foreign Al Qaeda militia, etc. Rather than just oblittering them in urban combat with US troops. Both sides have blood on their hands it's just a matter of using alliances to their benefit.

B: Flood the country with massive amounts of troops (it took a LOT- and Iraq is as big as a single large US state)


Insurgencies can't be defeated by conventional means - it takes wheeling and dealing. That type of wheeling and dealing is what militias would want in a rebellion- the gvnmt to make concessions, etc.

Think of militias as the Constitution's labor unions if you will. Just armed and less socialist!

 

[No Limit]

I still don't trust the police and if a criminal is after me I'm going to get them before they get me. That's survival.

My point is that you probably won't, no matter how incredible you might think you are.

And I see someone has been fantasizing about a violent revolution. But unlike Iraq the american people are far too comfortable with the current system to put up any kind of fight. And as long as it stays that way (or appears to stay that way) a revolution will never happen. But if the government really wanted to wage war on its citizens your guns wouldn't help you. They didn't help in Hitler's time, nor in Stalin's time. And many people certainly tried their hand at revolutions back then. And Hitler and Stalin didn't have the NSA, the CIA, and a 500 billion dollar a year military budget.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

My point is that you probably won't, no matter how incredible you might think you are.

usually criminals don't just come after you randomly and for no reason. If they're after "You" as in not just a home invasion but like you said stalking, tracking, etc.

If I dont know who it is then no it cant do anything unless they miss when they open fire. Which is common as well- but if I know who they are they are NOT going to get me before I get them, period. When somebody is serious about killing you you have to get serious about surviving.

And I see someone has been fantasizing about a violent revolution. But unlike Iraq the american people are far too comfortable with the current system to put up any kind of fight. And as long as it stays that way (or appears to stay that way) a revolution will never happen. But if the government really wanted to wage war on its citizens your guns wouldn't help you. They didn't help in Hitler's time, nor in Stalin's time. And many people certainly tried their hand at revolutions back then. And Hitler and Stalin didn't have the NSA, the CIA, and a 500 billion dollar a year military budget.

**** having a revolution that would plunge us into economic catastrophe and we'd see famine as well due to farm output pretty much stopping in the bread basket. I'm just trying to say that when people brush aside a revolution as doomed they need to take more factors into consideration. This country is very well armed and with connections to the militias in police and military getting even more arms would be no big deal- that is 100% assured.

 

[No Limit]

usually criminals don't just come after you randomly and for no reason. If they're after "You" as in not just a home invasion but like you said stalking, tracking, etc.

If I dont know who it is then no it cant do anything unless they miss when they open fire. Which is common as well- but if I know who they are they are NOT going to get me before I get them, period. When somebody is serious about killing you you have to get serious about surviving.

Fair enough, if you are scarface or Tony Soprano you should know when someone is trying to kill you, that's part of survival. But for every day Joe most crime is random or totally unexpected. That's why when someone kills 13 people and then eats their testicles the guy's neighbors are always like "he was such a nice guy, I can't believe this".

I'm just trying to say that when people brush aside a revolution as doomed they need to take more factors into consideration. This country is very well armed and with connections to the militias in police and military getting even more arms would be no big deal- that is 100% assured.

But I think we do need to brush it aside. Lets assume that somehow the government was able to do something that totally outraged the people and voting them out wasn't an option (not really sure in what world that's possible). If the government wanted to they could control any serious rebellion without any problems. The rebels in Hitler's time and in Stalin's time had no shortage of weapons. But they did have a shortage of man power because the government controlled all flow of information with their propaganda, something our government could easily do today. On top of that our government has the best spy agencies and a military budget not seen in the history of civilization. Your semi-auto Ar15 doesn't stand a chance.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Well I give you that- if crazy secret cannibal neighborman wants to secretly hunt and skin you alive then he'll do it- but the police can protect you even less from that. That's some crazy ass one of a kind shit that nobody sees coming- and even without the weird testes stuff there is no way to stop a person that snaps and wants to hunt you for no reason. That will happen anywhere guns or not (and does.)

At least when armed you have a chance of killing them before they do you.

But I think we do need to brush it aside. Lets assume that somehow the government was able to do something that totally outraged the people and voting them out wasn't an option (not really sure in what world that's possible). If the government wanted to they could control any serious rebellion without any problems. The rebels in Hitler's time and in Stalin's time had no shortage of weapons. But they did have a shortage of man power because the government controlled all flow of information with their propaganda, something our government could easily do today. On top of that our government has the best spy agencies and a military budget not seen in the history of civilization. Your semi-auto Ar15 doesn't stand a chance.

I don't think that's so easy with today's technology. Yes, the internet can be pretty much suppressed but to control information as much as back in those days is pretty much impossible I'd think.

I think you'd have more a of a problem like you said of getting people to join out of pure apathy and laziness rather than any real suppression, military defeat, or rejection of the rebels themselves.

 

[No Limit]

As stern said this is the government that was able to get 78% of americans to support invading a country that never attacked us nor was any real threat to us. I'm pretty sure getting the people to rise up for anything is out of the question. And I don't know, you might be right on the flow of information as we saw in Iran. But Iran left a lot of their communications open. People could still use twitter and text messages. The US government would be much more capable in cutting off that kind of communication if for whatever crazy reason it wanted to (and somehow could) go after its people.

The way to prevent government from getting you is not your gun but the consitutional checks we have in place. That's why legislation such as the patriot act is much more threatening to your liberty than any gun legislation.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

As stern said this is the government that was able to get 78% of americans to support invading a country that never attacked us nor was any real threat to us. I'm pretty sure getting the people to rise up for anything is out of the question. And I don't know, you might be right on the flow of information as we saw in Iran. But Iran left a lot of their communications open. People could still use twitter and text messages. The US government would be much more capable in cutting off that kind of communication if for whatever crazy reason it wanted to (and somehow could) go after its people.

I think shutting down the media would stir more people up into rebellion than would a broadcasted drawn out battle against local insurgents.

I mean, take it you're an angsty young person, apathetic pretty much either way. Probably already armed and experienced somewhat with weapons (living here.)

All of a sudden the US GVNMT (which you've heard people bitching about and heard something about rebels before but brushed it aside) has suddenly shut you out of your social networking, your TV, your TEXTING. To them that could drive them to join when they never would've in the first place. That would also make older people who are somewhat inclined to say 'yeah they're fighting a good fight' but not help out at all actually help or join.

 

[Sheepo]

I think shutting down the media would stir more people up into rebellion than would a broadcasted drawn out battle against local insurgents.

I mean, take it you're an angsty young person, apathetic pretty much either way. Probably already armed and experienced somewhat with weapons (living here.)

All of a sudden the US GVNMT (which you've heard people bitching about and heard something about rebels before but brushed it aside) has suddenly shut you out of your social networking, your TV, your TEXTING. To them that could drive them to join when they never would've in the first place. That would also make older people who are somewhat inclined to say 'yeah they're fighting a good fight' but not help out at all actually help or join.

Like, are you goddamn kidding me?

Spoiler

Credit goes to Vegeta

 

[Krynn72]

You take away my texting, I'll wage a war.


Sounds like what most people would do.

 

[No Limit]

All of a sudden the US GVNMT (which you've heard people bitching about and heard something about rebels before but brushed it aside) has suddenly shut you out of your social networking, your TV, your TEXTING. To them that could drive them to join when they never would've in the first place. That would also make older people who are somewhat inclined to say 'yeah they're fighting a good fight' but not help out at all actually help or join.

You show up to your rebelion with a semi-auto AR15 which you think makes you a bad ass. The government shows up with this:

In addition to that you have no communications. Good luck buddy, I'm staying home for that one.

 

[No Limit]

Well I give you that- if crazy secret cannibal neighborman wants to secretly hunt and skin you alive then he'll do it- but the police can protect you even less from that. That's some crazy ass one of a kind shit that nobody sees coming- and even without the weird testes stuff there is no way to stop a person that snaps and wants to hunt you for no reason. That will happen anywhere guns or not (and does.)

At least when armed you have a chance of killing them before they do you.

I missed that earlier for some reason. My example might have been a bit extreme. But people always kill for a reason, being crazy is one of the more rare reason. More common reasons are you get in a bar fight, someone wants to take your shit, there is a drive-by, etc.

Lucky for us all of these events are extremely rare and 99.9999% of us will make it through life without getting murdered. And if you own a gun you are more likely to hurt yourself with it than to defend yourself eventhough that too is rare.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

You show up to your rebelion with a semi-auto AR15 which you think makes you a bad ass. The government shows up with this:

http://www.history.army.mil/photos/gulf_war/106_05a.jpg[/IM]

In addition to that you have no communications. Good luck buddy, I'm staying home for that one.[/QUOTE]

With just a trigger attachment any semi-automatic weapon becomes just as good as a true automatic. The issue of semi vs full auto is null in a battle situation

[img]http://www.firequest.com/catalog/media/AB225.jpg



Even a freaking RUBBER BAND accomplishes this JUST as easily. Watch this video. ALL the guns in this are semi-automatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkF2wish5I8




Those show up in Afghanistan and Iraq as well- guerilla fighting finds a way. I'm just trying to say it's not impossible to fight a campaign against a superior military force. The Afghans did it to the Russians on horseback ffs. It's a matter of breaking a people's will, rather than winning on a conventional battlefield. We've exited the era of the loser surrendering on a battleship long ago.

 

[Krynn72]

With just a trigger attachment any semi-automatic weapon becomes just as good as a true automatic. The issue of semi vs full auto is null in a battle situation

Are you just making shit up to argue about? He was talking about your ar-15 going up against god damn tanks and APCs. Not automatic small arms.

However, as I stated earlier, I agree with your point that it's not impossible to fight a campaign against a superior military force.

 

[No Limit]

Those show up in Afghanistan and Iraq as well- guerilla fighting finds a way. I'm just trying to say it's not impossible to fight a campaign against a superior military force. The Afghans did it to the Russians on horseback ffs. It's a matter of breaking a people's will, rather than winning on a conventional battlefield. We've exited the era of the loser surrendering on a battleship long ago.

You can't compare Afghanistan to the United States. And they didn't beat the soviets on horseback, they beat them with support from the US government. Those Migs don't go down when you throw rocks at them.

I don't see a realistic scenario where rebels could beat the united states military. Could they do damage? I guess. But that damage wouldn't be significant. Not significant to stop a oppressive government. Like I said, if your primary concern if your liberty gun regulations shouldn't be near the top of your list, abuses of the constitution should be.

 

[Krynn72]

You're assuming that the majority of the armed forces in this country would be willing to turn their weapons on fellow citizens. The military of the united states is a volunteer army, and i'd wager that a large amount of them wouldnt take up arms against citizens, and many would even join the guerilla forces if they believed in what they were fighting for. And if its a war essentially of Liberals vs Conservatives as the OP suggests, then the military would probably lose at least a third of its strength, number-wise. As of '04, 57% of military personnel identified themselves as republican, while only 16% were calling themselves democrats.

 

[15357]

Do you guys not realize the complete inanity of this argument?


First of all, this is not exactly strategic planning we're having here. There is no adequete estimation of the percentage of citizens loyal to the federal goverment, nor is there any estimation of the percentage of troops that would be loyal to federal orders. One's personal political affiliation does not mean that they will automatically side with someone. Heck, we could say that 100% of all citizens are loyal to the US federal goverment and therefore there is no danger of a civil war from ever happening.

Secondly, the political situation in which a civil war would take place in America does not seem to be in the foreseeable future. If a situation did arise however, then one cannot assume that the high-tech weapons of the goverment will be available automatically. In a case of civil war, the high command of the US forces may have split, or saboteurs may have destroyed the means to conduct war with all the technology available to a certain side. Of course, you guys are basing your assumptions on that a civil war situation will be of the US military versus armed savages on the hills. That assumption completely negates the argument, as that situation isn't called a civil war. It's called a goddamn riot. Or civl disorder, if you want to be like me.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It's called a goddamn riot. Or civl disorder, if you want to be like me.

I think you hit the nail on the head. General armed disobediance situation. Rather than a "we'll take the base with a combination of armor and artillery barrages" type of thing. You have to completely dislodge the government function then rebuild it.

It'd be catastrophic in terms of famine I estimate. So much of the world depends on a stable United States food export. Not something to look forward to. There are a lot more people that are ripe to the idea these days though. Too much government expansion, too fast.

 

[CptStern]

You're assuming that the majority of the armed forces in this country would be willing to turn their weapons on fellow citizens. The military of the united states is a volunteer army, and i'd wager that a large amount of them wouldnt take up arms against citizens,

national guardsmen (volunteers) fired on a group of unarmed students killing 4 and wounding 9 others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

and that was a protest for an unpopular war. what do you think the military is capbable in times of national crisis when the nation is under threat?

I think they wouldnt hesitate to shoot americans because of their training but also because in their minds eye they'll be traitors and terrorists. the media will have sponnfed that to them months before they saw their frst confrontation. I really believe it would be a one sided slaughter and the "rebellion" would be quashed before it even gets started

 

[Krynn72]

A near-riot protesting isnt the same as an actual war. You're talking about some severely outnumbered soldiers in a volatile environment where there was already some violence that had happened in a short amount of time. Its a completely different situation.

 

[CptStern]

A near-riot protesting isnt the same as an actual war. You're talking about some severely outnumbered soldiers in a volatile environment where there was already some violence that had happened in a short amount of time. Its a completely different situation.

"severely outnumbered"? this could never happen today . with the massive amount of survaillance going in in peacetime of ordinary americans they're surely to expand their efforts should their hold on power even be threatened. there's been more than a few "rebellions" by militia groups that ended in death for those involved in the "uprising". my point is that they would never get to the point that they were a million strong. you dont give your government (a government that has been involved in candestine operations pretty much since it's formation) enough credit. I'm willing to bet they have the names photos and addresses of every militia group in america in their database

 

[No Limit]

You're assuming that the majority of the armed forces in this country would be willing to turn their weapons on fellow citizens. The military of the united states is a volunteer army, and i'd wager that a large amount of them wouldnt take up arms against citizens, and many would even join the guerilla forces if they believed in what they were fighting for. And if its a war essentially of Liberals vs Conservatives as the OP suggests, then the military would probably lose at least a third of its strength, number-wise. As of '04, 57% of military personnel identified themselves as republican, while only 16% were calling themselves democrats.

If a government wanted to take over it wouldn't do so by announcing they are taking away all your freedoms. That process would be very slow eating away at your liberties one small chunk at a time. This would be beside a onslaught of propogenda. If our government was able to convince 78% of americans that invadind Iraq was a good idea they could convince enough people to fight for them if they decided to become oppressive.

We can look back at Hitler as a good example. He was able to turn a functioning democracy (hit but various serious economic problems) into an authoritarian state; but he didn't do it overnight. And by the time he was done he had a large amount of the population following him.

Again though, I feel like we are talking about something that really has no chance of happening here. And anyone that feels threaten that this could happen should be a lot more worried about the patriot act than regulation of their firearms.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I feel you both overestimate the effectiveness of the government's possible response. But that's something that could only be resolved if it were to actually happen and people knew the outcome.

 

[Shyam]

It's hard to know in these cases. But I don't think the American people are so discontent as to start a rebellion or a civil war.

 

[CptStern]

I feel you both overestimate the effectiveness of the government's possible response.

I cant think of a single incident that would support what you're saying. however there's plenty of evidence to support our POV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_Shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Kahl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenville_Shootout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_State_killings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attica_Prison_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident

we dont even have to go all that far back to see incidents where law enforcement has no qualms about shooting armed citizens:

Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans

"Sniper fire" was also reported throughout the city, targeted at rescue helicopters, relief workers, and police officers. One of the possible causes of the sniper fire was resistance to relocation or evacuation.[40] One report of violence involved police killing six people on the Danziger Bridge, which carries the Chef Menteur Highway across the industrial canal, who were reportedly shooting at contractors of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers involved in the 17th Street Canal repair.

I think you wouldnt stand a chance

 

[Krynn72]

Its not the same thing Stern. These are isolated incidents with very small amounts of people who are usually criminals. This thread's questioning what would happen if there was a war where conservatives rebel against the government. That would be several million people, not a handful of radicals or criminals in one city, but a large fraction of the entire population of the US spread out over the entire nation, like you know, in the first civil war. People would know each other on opposite sides, unlike in these isolated situations you point out.

 

[CptStern]

Its not the same thing Stern. These are isolated incidents with very small amounts of people who are usually criminals.

and rebels and traitors to the state are not criminals? if anything you'd think they'd get people even more worked up than normal criminals

This thread's questioning what would happen if there was a war where conservatives rebel against the government. That would be several million people, not a handful of radicals or criminals in one city, but a large fraction of the entire population of the US spread out over the entire nation, like you know, in the first civil war. People would know each other on opposite sides, unlike in these isolated situations you point out.

and I pointed out that this couldnt/wouldnt happen. there is no one issue that would galvanise a 1 million strong militia into action. it would be a gradual thing otherwise it would be challeneged etc .. giving the government plenty of time to monitor them and take action before it gets out of hand. it's already happening:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/officials-see-rise-in-mil_n_257128.html

and I'm sure the government has been watching them far longer than anyone is willing to admit

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

You're lumping isolated incidents during de-segregation (racial unrest is way different particularly during this time period) and crazies with small followings in with a situation of general public anger and civil unrest.

We're not talking about some occupation or barricade situation like Waco. Chaos in the streets and a rejection of all current public authority is along the lines of what we're saying would happen in that situation. It wouldn't even be logical and I'm sure people would even be burning down their own damn neighborhoods- it's just frustration unleashed and if it gets wild enough could collapse the entire system. That's the type of thing I'd predict would only work.

 

[CptStern]

You're lumping isolated incidents during de-segregation (racial unrest is way different particularly during this time period) and crazies with small followings in with a situation of general public anger and civil unrest.

We're not talking about some occupation or barricade situation like Waco. Chaos in the streets and a rejection of all current public authority is along the lines of what we're saying would happen in that situation. It wouldn't even be logical and I'm sure people would even be burning down their own damn neighborhoods- it's just frustration unleashed and if it gets wild enough could collapse the entire system. That's the type of thing I'd predict would only work.

and I've shown that law enforcement has no problem shooting americans during periods of unrest

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

and I've shown that law enforcement has no problem shooting americans during periods of unrest

Well that's a given- they have no problem shooting Americans during times of peace as well, and do it often. It may not be into large crowds but it still happens just as much.

The issue is when Americans civillians begin to have less issues with shooting the authorities.

 

[Saturos]

Pssst: it was about economics.

^agree

Although the slave trade was a huge part of the South's economy me thinks. Especially since that region was mostly agricultural at the time.

Also, there was debate in the past that the terms, "civil war" and "rebels" was incorrectly used because the Confederacy was it's own government.

It was really just a, "war" and not, "civil war". The US conquered the confederate government and reintegrated the southern states back into the Union.

For it to be a, "civil war" would be a war within a single government. The US Revolutionary War really is an example of a true civil war because the colonies were "rebelling" against the crown of England, which at the time before the Declaration of Independence was just an English annex.

The correct meaning for civil war is a bit of an oxymoron in the first place anyways though as there's absolutely nothing civil about a war.

 

[Kadayi]

Soldiers are trained to do as they are told, not to think things through. The idea that entire swathes of the USMC or US Army would refuse to suppress a small public uprising and in fact join it, is unlikely in practice.

 

[theotherguy]

America does not seem to be in the foreseeable future. If a situation did arise however, then one cannot assume that the high-tech weapons of the goverment will be available automatically. In a case of civil war, the high command of the US forces may have split, or saboteurs may have destroyed the means to conduct war with all the technology available to a certain side. Of course, you guys are basing your assumptions on that a civil war situation will be of the US military versus armed savages on the hills. That assumption completely negates the argument, as that situation isn't called a civil war. It's called a goddamn riot. Or civl disorder, if you want to be like me.

This is absolutely correct. In a REAL United States Civil war, the military would likely be divided among loyal and unloyal factions, each with their own weaponry and commanders loyal to either faction.