And This is How Civil Wars Begin....

[Doc Safari]

Well, it's like the saying goes: "When it's time to bury your guns it's time to dig them up."

[Circle_10]

We might think we are being clever by burying our guns when the bans hit, but the reality is that making us too afraid to have our guns in our possession and readily accessible is very nearly as much of a victory for the antis as a ban that actually results in surrendered weapons.
Because odds are, if we buried them in the first place, the "someday" that we are biding our time for as the criteria to go dig our guns up is never going to come. An AK that rusts away after spending two decades under your tool shed while you were waiting for "the right time" to dig it up is as useless as an AK you relinquished to the government.

[Doc Safari]

We might think we are being clever by burying our guns when the bans hit, but the reality is that making us too afraid to have our guns in our possession and readily accessible is very nearly as much of a victory for the antis as a ban that actually results in surrendered weapons.
Because odds are, if we buried them in the first place, the "someday" that we are biding our time for as the criteria to go dig our guns up is never going to come. An AK that rusts away after spending two decades under your tool shed while you were waiting for "the right time" to dig it up is as useless as an AK you relinquished to the government.

Truth.

In the 1990's a whole cottage industry popped up for the "night gardeners". Places like Cheaper Than Dirt and Sportsman's Guide sold resealable PVC tubes suitable for a backyard cache.

Here's the thing: That was before ground penetrating radar was really much of a thing. Nowadays (if I understand things correctly) the technology that would be put toward finding your cache is sophisticated enough that you're really wasting your time digging holes in the backyard.

And, yes, what good does it do to bury your guns? If society has reached that point then chances are you'll never have the chance to unbury them and carry on is if nothing had ever happened.

[Gödel]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...against-trump/





https://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...mp-supporters/

I hate to copy and paste all 554 incidents, but I want to illustrate how bad it is:





My take: This does not inspire people on the other side to do nice things. We need to wake up to the fact that we may already be at war and not know it. Although I certainly do not condone violence of any kind, one still has the right and the duty to defend oneself if threatened. Plan your life around surviving or avoiding trouble if possible. Don't wear provocative hats or shirts; don't have political bumper stickers on your vehicle or political signs in your yard. Keep a low profile. And especially: Keep your powder dry and your eyes open.

You are already at war. The Right doesn't just spit on people or knock off hats, the Right kills jews, blacks and Sikhs at their places of worship, drives cars into crowds and blows up Federal buildings. It doesn't matter if you don't personally see it that way, just as it doesn't matter if people on the Left don't see someone spitting on a hat as endemic of their politics.


The fact of the matter is the "revolution" has been started over and over. Robert Gregory Bowers certainly votes for the same candidates you do, and he "rose up" against the "evil of immigration" and multiculturalism, yet you failed to follow his "heroic" lead by finding your own group of minorities to slaughter. Wassup wit dat?




This whole idea that the Right has some sort of ability to burst into armed rebellion is laughable. The Right isn't organized, doesn't have a home territory, a leadership structure or even a goal. The Right is mostly a large group of aggrieved people that are unified by all the things they are against, not for. Revolutions require a real goal, not just a rejection of something or other.


And there can't be a civil war if the constituents of the secession don't live together. The Civil War South lived in a contiguous block of states and had great internal support for secession. They also had a (mistaken) belief that righteousness of their cause (to be able to choose for themselves if they could rape and beat slaves) and martial skill was enough to hold a much larger population with a huge manufacturing base, railroads and deep Christian convictions at bay. It wasn't. And modern conservatives scattered all over the nation have even less going for them in terms of strategic advantages.


Going forward, more liberals are going to use harsh language to signal their disgust with Right, and more Right-wing extremists are going to do their part by shooting church-goers. And every time one of the Right's violent revolutionaries rises up, they'll be quickly contained by police, labeled "mass murderers" and treated as mentally ill nincompoops, instead of the brave Rosa Parks of the Breitbart revolution they so clearly expected you to see them as.

[Doc Safari]

And there can't be a civil war if the constituents of the secession don't live together. The Civil War South lived in a contiguous block of states and had great internal support for secession. They also had a (mistaken) belief that righteousness of their cause (to be able to choose for themselves if they could rape and beat slaves) and martial skill was enough to hold a much larger population with a huge manufacturing base, railroads and deep Christian convictions at bay. It wasn't. And modern conservatives scattered all over the nation have even less going for them in terms of strategic advantages.

.

A major factor also, IIRC, is that unlike the standing US army in the North, the local militias in the south were not federalized: They served at the pleasure of their own states' loose association and not as a standing force under a central command. Hence, armories in the south were subject to access by common citizens in preparation for war. Further, the weapons in the armories were identical to weapons in the hands of civilians. There was no being outclassed in arms by the standing army versus the southern militia system. Only the problem of supply became the South's Achilles Heel due to the blockade and its lack of manufacturing capabilities that existed in the North.

Nowadays, of course, national guard armories are under a good amount of security, and it's doubtful they would be co-opted by citizens fomenting some sort of rebellion. Also, civilians do not possess weapons identical to those in military use as it was during the 1860's civil war.

Not that one's store-bought Colt 6920 wouldn't be a useful tool in a modern civil conflict, but without the full auto capability, not to mention other toys the military possesses that are not in the hands of civilians, any civilian-owned weapon would, of necessity, be considered a "butter knife." That is, "take this butter knife and go get me a machine gun."

[R6436]

You are already at war. The Right doesn't just spit on people or knock off hats, the Right kills jews, blacks and Sikhs at their places of worship, drives cars into crowds and blows up Federal buildings. It doesn't matter if you don't personally see it that way, just as it doesn't matter if people on the Left don't see someone spitting on a hat as endemic of their politics.

Evidence to back up your assertion?

[Whiskey_Bravo]

You are already at war. The Right doesn't just spit on people or knock off hats, the Right kills jews, blacks and Sikhs at their places of worship, drives cars into crowds and blows up Federal buildings. It doesn't matter if you don't personally see it that way, just as it doesn't matter if people on the Left don't see someone spitting on a hat as endemic of their politics.


The fact of the matter is the "revolution" has been started over and over. Robert Gregory Bowers certainly votes for the same candidates you do, and he "rose up" against the "evil of immigration" and multiculturalism, yet you failed to follow his "heroic" lead by finding your own group of minorities to slaughter. Wassup wit dat?




This whole idea that the Right has some sort of ability to burst into armed rebellion is laughable. The Right isn't organized, doesn't have a home territory, a leadership structure or even a goal. The Right is mostly a large group of aggrieved people that are unified by all the things they are against, not for. Revolutions require a real goal, not just a rejection of something or other.


And there can't be a civil war if the constituents of the secession don't live together. The Civil War South lived in a contiguous block of states and had great internal support for secession. They also had a (mistaken) belief that righteousness of their cause (to be able to choose for themselves if they could rape and beat slaves) and martial skill was enough to hold a much larger population with a huge manufacturing base, railroads and deep Christian convictions at bay. It wasn't. And modern conservatives scattered all over the nation have even less going for them in terms of strategic advantages.


Going forward, more liberals are going to use harsh language to signal their disgust with Right, and more Right-wing extremists are going to do their part by shooting church-goers. And every time one of the Right's violent revolutionaries rises up, they'll be quickly contained by police, labeled "mass murderers" and treated as mentally ill nincompoops, instead of the brave Rosa Parks of the Breitbart revolution they so clearly expected you to see them as.

Coming into GD with a bang I see. I know your diarrhea of the mouth post doesn't deserve a response but what the hell. The fact that you compare those on the right with mentally unstable murderers say all that needs to be said. You seem like a really angry liberal bro. Show me on the doll where the mean conservative touched you.

[Gödel]

A major factor also, IIRC, is that unlike the standing US army in the North, the local militias in the south were not federalized: They served at the pleasure of their own states' loose association and not as a standing force under a central command. Hence, armories in the south were subject to access by common citizens in preparation for war. Further, the weapons in the armories were identical to weapons in the hands of civilians. There was no being outclassed in arms by the standing army versus the southern militia system. Only the problem of supply became the South's Achilles Heel due to the blockade and its lack of manufacturing capabilities that existed in the North.

Nowadays, of course, national guard armories are under a good amount of security, and it's doubtful they would be co-opted by citizens fomenting some sort of rebellion. Also, civilians do not possess weapons identical to those in military use as it was during the 1860's civil war.

Not that one's store-bought Colt 6920 wouldn't be a useful tool in a modern civil conflict, but without the full auto capability, not to mention other toys the military possesses that are not in the hands of civilians, any civilian-owned weapon would, of necessity, be considered a "butter knife." That is, "take this butter knife and go get me a machine gun."

"Modern civil conflict." What is that, a synagogue shooting? Taking over a wildlife center until your leader is shot trying to fire on cops?


Armed conflict with only ideological goals is called terrorism. Americans don't find terrorism inspirational, even those who had their hats disrespected. This whole thread is loony.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

Evidence to back up your assertion?

Think about his statement objectively. From the ruling class perspective, I.E. liberal media elites, he's exactly right. Perspective is reality, and they get to use every one of those terrible events as ammunition against us.

[Gödel]

Evidence to back up your assertion?

Which assertion? That members of the left are just as likely to include Dylan Roof as a Conservative as you are to call someone who emails threats to Sarah Sanders a rank and file Liberal?

I don't have to back that up, it is obvious and has already happened.