Civil War in the US: Was the Baseball Game Shooting the Opening Salvo?

[Doc Safari]

We all know about the shooting that injured Mr. Scalise. Had the shooter been able to actually aim, we might have been looking at a mass murder of several members of Congress. Luckily the shooter's own incompetence and the intervention of Mr. Scalise's bodyguards prevented what could have been an historic mass assassination--something even the turbulence of the 1960's never produced.

Most commentators I've followed over the last few days have branded the man as a dangerous, out-of-control nut case--but the scary thing is some people are actually saying he acted rationally and deliberately with no apparent mental issues. One can "analyze" a person only so far from his online posts and family history, that's not the issue. Whether the shooter was deranged or entirely coherent is beside the point.

The point is that the political rhetoric in this country is continually ratcheted up to the point that it has now spilled over into political violence. The shooter didn't just randomly pick a few anonymous victims, nor did he target people with whom he might have had a personal vendetta. No, he targeted politicians who simply belonged to a party he opposed.

I've thought about this thoroughly through the past few days. I was not worried about mass shooters before.

I am now.

How many more shooters have been potentially activated by the continual escalation of violent rhetoric, particularly on the left?

How many on the other side will react with the "Bubba Effect" and "teach those people a lesson?"

I am beginning to wonder if genuinely the first shots have been fired in the second American Civil War.

Of course, this one will be different. Instead of the blue and the grey squaring off on some desolate field with organized armies, it will be neighbor against neighbor. Instead of the opening shot being an attack on Fort Sumter, it will be just the kind of shooting that nearly changed history this past week.

Was this shooting the opening salvo of the new civil war? Or was the shooter just another flake with a grievance?

What do you think?

[skywalkrNCSU]

This is an easy one. No.

[RetroRevolver77]

I'd say it's been building up for a while. Democrats are violent Left Wing Extremists and have no problem destroying people's lives, attacking people during political rallies, rioting, and injuring innocent people. This was just a natural progression of the same. There was another political shooting on the same day in Indiana- luckily no one was hurt. Then just saw this on Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ngressmen.html

[Bulletdog]

Just another nut job doing what nut jobs do, have always done, and will always do. If CW2 ever eventually happens, this will not be remembered as the start of it. Especially since this nut job failed miserably.

[Hmac]

This is an easy one. No.

[Bulletdog]

I'd say it's been building up for a while. Democrats are violent Left Wing Extremists and have no problem destroying people's lives, attacking people during political rallies, rioting, and injuring innocent people. This was just a natural progression of the same. There was another political shooting on the same day in Indiana- luckily no one was hurt. Then just saw this on Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ngressmen.html

If the guy in your link gets what he's asking for, I don't think he will be very happy. Or very alive.

[SomeOtherGuy]

It's arbitrary to call this one incident THE first shots in a second civil war. But the current political climate is not respect for the law and civilized disagreement. If you study wars and their causes, including the 1861 Civil War and many others, wars tend to start at an arbitrary point in time after the conditions have been festering for a long time, often many years. It's also possible for things to pull back before that arbitrary point in time, and you could easily come up with a dozen "wars that weren't" in the last 50 years. Who has a crystal ball?

[Outlander Systems]

I voted no.

Civil War is unlikely in the near term, but further events like the situation in D.C. are probably going to increase in frequency, and further widen the schism between the polarized Left and Right.

As an aside, what the hell ever happened to civilized disagreement?

[tylerw02]

What exactly would said civil war be fought over? What are the two sides?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doc Safari]

I voted no.

Civil War is unlikely in the near term, but further events like the situation in D.C. are probably going to increase in frequency, and further widen the schism between the polarized Left and Right.

As an aside, what the hell ever happened to civilized disagreement?

Exactly. People can't even post on this forum without degenerating into personal attacks. Put a gun in somebody's hand and it isn't just for entertainment anymore. Add to that the fact that the media is pouring gasoline on the fire and we live in very dangerous times.

I don't see things getting better before they get worse.