DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Would a Hillary Clinton Presidency Trigger a Civil War?

Oathkeepers (courtesy adl.org)

“I have said it before and I’ll say it again,” Brandon Smith writes at oathkeepers.org, “if Hillary Clinton is chosen by the establishment to take Obama’s place, the result would probably be outright civil war in the U.S. The level of hatred among conservatives for that woman is so stratospheric I cannot see any other outcome. It might not happen immediately, but a solid bet would be conflagration within her first term.” What would it take for that to happen? How likely is it to happen? Data point: The Washington Post reports The Texas secession debate is getting kind of real . . .

desantis blue logo no back 4 small

comments

  1. avatar john thomas says:

    it would take a mistake or miscalculation by that administration to grab too much of our freedom to quickly, instead of continuing their incrementalism game.

    or maybe a conservative zealot with just enough support to jump the gun and start shooting to give the feds an excuse.

    otherwise, we keep floating in a pot of slowly heating water for now.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Excellent post John Thomas … you covered most of my thoughts.

    2. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

      I see the following scenario as plausible. Hillary somehow gets the legislative guff to ram through a hardcore AWB with Australian style confiscation. This leads to non compliance, protests, and a real line of who’s on which side. This won’t spark it though, the spark will be the mass shooting that comes after the Australian style confiscation, when she and the rest of the liberals now cry for “progressive gun confiscation”, leading to the real deal. Once they realize the Australian style won’t work, they’ll tealize they’re going to have to go full “door to door,” in which actual searches, check points, and raids are conducted on suspected gun owners nationwide. The lines of who is on what side will come into play in that instant. In this event, a real war could start.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        That scenario fails the realism test because there are not enough federal agents to do this. The government would need the support of the governors and outside of a few states that won’t happen. Even in places like New York there will be little cooperation since most National Guardsmen are upstaters. The risk of indiscipline is too great. In states like Texas the governor will probably order the Guard and local LEOs to not to cooperate and perhaps even confront the ATF. The regular military is not going to get involved. They will be afraid of the same indiscipline that Democratic governors would have.

        But, here is some advice based on historical experience just in case Hillary goes for it. Leave the active resistance to internet tough guys, you know, the ones that throw around words like Statist. While they are getting run over do what Eastern Europeans did. Hide what you want to keep and pretend to cooperate. When the wall came down all sorts of weapons came out of hiding. Hillary won’t be forever.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          tdiinva,

          I think Fedzilla would actually go for it if Congress and the President signed-off on confiscation. You of all people should know that government employees are “yes men” who will do whatever comes down from on high. Remember the local law enforcement officers in Louisiana who stopped boats at gun point and ordered the people on the boats to turn over ALL firearms after hurricane Katrina? And those were local boys. Federal boys, especially from other states, would have no qualms doing the same.

          More importantly, the Progressives calling the shots would be convinced that the overwhelming majority of people would promptly fall in line — certain that everyone is deathly afraid of the Almighty Government. Sure, there would be initial foot-dragging. Then Progressive leadership would call for a show of force and order raiding parties (comprised of 20 to 30 federal agents from the vast array of alphabet soup agencies) to commence surprise operations on unsuspecting firearms owners. Again, the Progressives calling the shots would be convinced that the news video of families being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night, their homes being ransacked, and even some casualties would promptly get everyone else on track.

          Whether or not people would begin to comply after that remains to be seen.

        2. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

          Ir would have the opposite effect that you think. The yes men are yes men when they don’t have to shoot someone’s family. Then many of them become no men. You don’t need everyone to say no. You only need a few to stand up. Once you create indiscipline the scheme collapses.

        3. avatar Davis Thompson says:

          New York confiscation would end at the Westchester/Putnam border. Still, that’s half the population of the state. But a lot less than half the guns in the state.

        4. avatar bushcrafty says:

          There aren’t enough Feds to start, and after a day or two of many more of them coming home in bags there will be even fewer.

          By the end of the week, the whole prohibition dust up will be over…forever.

        5. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          I still think thugs kicking down doors will be the exception rather than the rule. It will be threatening letters. They will then try to get a firmer hold on health care so they can deny service to those who won’t play ball. “You want your daughter’s appendix taken out? We need to make sure your house is secure and poses no threat to her after we spend the Peoples’ hard earned resources fixing her up.”

          But yeah, by stock in companies that make water tight containers suitable for burial.

      2. avatar Chier DuChien says:

        The Hillary Administration will resort to a Stalinist Style “Report & Reward” system. Neighbors, children, in-laws, burglars, prowlers, et al will be highly rewarded for snitching. Australia is in the early stages of implementing that strategy since fewer than 25% of weapons were turn in.

        1. avatar Defens says:

          I believe that “Rat out your neighbor for reward” policy has been in effect in Los Angeles for over a decade. Never hear anything about it working though, and I’m sure they’d trumpet any sort of confiscations enabled by it.

      3. avatar Ross says:

        Australians had the following three options after the 1996 ban:

        A, Comply and surrender prohibited item(s).
        B, Hide said prohibited item(s)
        C, Fight.

        Most went with A, some went with B, none went with C. But this is the USofA not Australia.

        1. avatar Old law Prof says:

          DIFFERENT NATIONAL EXPERIENCES. The Australians had a “revolution” the first week of December sometime in the 1800s. They lost by noon.

          Americans had a REVOLUTION in 1775-1778. We won. Until about 2000, every American child gloried in it. Even the Government celebrates July 4th. It is not about fireworks and most Americans know that.

        2. avatar peirsonb says:

          Sadly, I’m starting to disagree with the “most” part.

    3. avatar Tom in PA says:

      That is exactly it. Well put. She might be just delusional or arrogant enough to misjudge the reaction to what she considers reasonable. Every time I hear her speak it’s all about plans for more government overreach. I think she could easily push too far just out of her own hubris. She has no understanding of other views and gives them zero credence. Who would have thought a socialist like Bernie would appear to be the more reasonable of the Democratic candidates (he’s still loony, and I’m aware “reasonable” really doesn’t belong in a sentence describing the Democratic candidates – I was just drawing a contrast!)

  2. avatar Geoff PR says:

    Trigger the next Civil War?

    No.

    Plant the seeds for one?

    Oh, yes…

    1. avatar billy-bob says:

      Nah. She would be number 5 on the list after Kennedy.

  3. avatar William says:

    I think it would do great harm to the rule of law in this country.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      It would, but not as much harm as the courts.

    2. avatar gemalo says:

      The Rule of Law went out the window when Obama was sworn in.

  4. avatar tdiinva says:

    It depends on whether the Republicans can keep control of the House of Representatives. If they do then no federal gun control legislation can pass so even if you don’t want a President Trump be sure to vote in your House and Senate contests.

    That said it is hard to tell how serious Clinton is in pushing gun control as a major initiative. She must be aware of what the polls say and Bill will be there to remind her that gun control was a major factor in losing control of Congress in 1994. However, I have hedged my bets by buying a Ruger American Ranch Rifle to be able to justify my inventory of 223 and 5.56. I spend a lot of time outdoors helping local farmers control coyotes.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I just picked up (haven’t yet even fired) my shiny new DPMS GII Recon, to cover the .308 bases and justify my inventory, while still using my silencer. But I really do not think any of us will see door-to-door in our lifetimes. First, a reliable registry has to be established, because door-to-door will very quickly devolve into killing all people in the house before opening that door, when hundreds or thousands of cops are shot dead every day. Without registration, you’d have to just kill everybody. I mean, would *YOU* go door-to-door, for any price? I sure wouldn’t! And even after you think you’ve killed everybody, the LEO losses would be staggering after the first day, once everyone is barricaded, loaded, and prepared. And note, I am not talking about a war. The war would come a bit later, once law enforcement has surrendered, when we have a second door-to-door, this time visiting selected politicians and their entire families. Short, vicious, and final. The subject will not come up again, ever.

      1. avatar B says:

        The second after they take down a gun owners house and murder the family, those officers have signed their death warrant. People were mad after a cop shot a 300lb 7ft giant who pummeled him in the back of the cop car after he robbed a store. Who do you think will be up against the wall after word gets around your local boys in blue murdered an entire family just to seize their 10/22 and Hi point?

        1. avatar Defens says:

          Didn’t seem to happen after Ruby Ridge or Waco. BATF has been killing folks over guns for a few decades, since Ken Ballew in 1971 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ballew_raid).

        2. avatar california richard says:

          Randy Weaver was (is) still racist and hates Jews. David Koresh was a muderer (not talking about federal agents but of branch davidians who opposed him) and a paedophile……. 2nd amendment issues are too miopic when dealing with these two guys and both groups wanted to live apart from the TV watching masses who were left in the court of public opinion to weigh all the issuse……. You may not like it but most people (even gun owners) arent going to identify with branch dividians or an off grid jew hating racist.

          All that being said my blood boils when i think about gassing and burning children and mothers in the branch dividian compound and Weaver’s son and wife getting killed. But, not to the point of insurection. And that goes for all of YOU. You can throw stones at others for not starting YOUR imaginary war. But, until you’re willing to go John Brown yourself, then you got nothing but words.

          LET THE FLAMES BEGIN!!!!!

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Dick, it is not illegal to hate jews, regardless of what CA taught you. And it was his son who was murdered, and his wife, how are his prejudices even relevant? And we all heard all about David Koresh as the government was attempting to whitewash their very own mass murder, all except for precisely how the ATF was supposed to be involved in pedophile activities, or even murder, that is completely outside their charter. Yet not one, not two but a full HUNDRED ATF agents hid themselves in horse trailers and tried to sneak down a mile-long driveway, forced their way in a window without any warrant that I have ever seen, and began murdering the first of dozens, including little girls who would rather Koresh keep screwing them than government agents KILLING them. To my knowledge, not one of the killers lost his job, much less went to prison. But you keep that head in the sand, mkay?

      2. avatar James says:

        Most Local, County and State police will be on the side of the citizens. We’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution and Hillary (or any other asshole) won’t change that!!

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I’m certain the military and ex-military will be right beside you.

  5. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    YES. People only submit so much. And personally I believe this country(and certainly Illinois) is/are on the verge of collapse.19trillion & a gazillion more unfunded mandate does that. Our “allies” may notice us NOT intervening where we should. Let’s see if we can idict some Saudi’s-the center of Islam. Or go to war with Russia-who we owe $ to…or China. AnyTHING similar to Bury Soetoro is a deathknell to us all. Sorry but millions upon millions of gun folks will not go quietly into the night.

  6. avatar Eng says:

    No, Chick Nixon’s scandal ridden presidency will trigger a recession though.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Recession’s already starting. She won’t help things any, but the international debt economy/pyramid scheme is a far bigger problem than any president.

  7. avatar Dev says:

    I think we’re already seeing one with the violent “protests” all the time. People in this country are not tolerating any differing opinion, especially the liberal / Democratic side.

  8. avatar Ad says:

    Are you fucking serious? Civil war?

    1. avatar int19h says:

      Unfortunately, quite a few actually, seriously, believe that.

      And that sky is about to fall for them every election cycle. The same question was seriously discussed on gun forums in 2012, and before that in 2008.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        I could have sworn these same people were claiming Obama would NEVER allow another election…

        1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          Returning war veterans who can’t balance a check book will NEVER be allowed to own guns per Obamas presidential orders.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          That, too. I remember one guy ranting to me back in 2008 that if Obama were to be elected, that would be the last election in the country for sure. On the day they announced the results, he was literally weeping.

      2. avatar Ad says:

        The paranoia witnessed in these comments is breathtaking. Although a bit of paranoia is probably warranted when you are openly advocating treason.

  9. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

    This guys got it all wrong. He’s right, but for the wrong reasons. It won’t happen because “conservatives hate Hillary.” It’ll happen because Hillary hates America, gun owners, freedom, rule of law, and you.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Correct. I’m not going to start it, but I’m not going to run from it, either.

      1. avatar SouthernPhantom says:

        Sounds good. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they want a war, let it start here!!

        1. avatar Chadwick P. says:

          Think she’s dumb enough to start confiscation on April 19th? Yeah probably.

  10. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    Seems like anyone with any common sense at all has about 9 months to move out of the big cities and metro areas. Once the free shit (money stolen from people who work for a living) stops being distributed, all ugly hell is going to break out.

    Won’t be any “revolution” or “civil war.” Just the clean up after the cities burn.

    1. avatar Martin Gomez says:

      Clinton isn’t an ideologue. She’s a prostitician. There are, what, 100M gun owners? If they each kicked in 5-10 cents to the Clinton Foundation, she would switch votes. She’s done it time and time again on more controversial matters. We can weather this shtstorm if every gun owner can save one dollar for Hillary. Call it Clintonsurance. (TM)

      1. avatar matty9 says:

        “Prostitician” I like it, can I use it?

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        BS. I am stealing it, and that’s all there is to it.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    With nearly 50% of the population receiving some amount of “free” stuff from government, any major push back will have to come from some seriously angry, well-to-do, and organized people.

    The “seriously angry and well-to-do” parts are easy. Organizing is the hard part.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Did you live in or near the race riots after Rodney King’s deal? Those folks weren’t even faced with losing their free shit, and the cities burned. Think of what will happen – and it WILL happen – when the economy crashes and all those million inner city (and lots of other cities) are filled with hate, fear, frustration and quite possibly starvation. You think they will sit still and watch their children starve? They (all races and creeds) have been indoctrinated for generations that someone ELSE owes them whatever they want or need… and by G-d they’re not likely to get over that when the stores are empty and nobody is handing out sandwiches and cell phones.

      The rich and “important” people have already made arrangements for their own safety and convenience, and they will have no use for any of the rest of us once they can no longer control us. Too bad they didn’t figure that out much sooner…. If we’d all been responsible for our lives and property all along, we wouldn’t be talking about this.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I understand the propensity for inner-city riots such as the 1967 Detroit riots, 1992 Los Angeles riots, the 2014 Ferguson (Missouri) riots, and the 2015 Baltimore riots.

        I don’t see where a Hillary Clinton presidency would cause any such riots. Hillary certainly would not cut-off the “free” stuff. And I don’t see a big and sudden economic crisis in her first term. Remember, all the feds have to do is borrow and/or print more money. Borrowing delays the day of reckoning. And printing money, which causes inflation and erodes purchasing power, is simply a hidden tax on everyone. And government doesn’t even look like the bad guy if they print more money. If government took more money away from the masses via a tax, the masses would see that extra money taken away and be angry at government. Print more money on other hand, and the only thing that is obvious to the uneducated masses is that stuff is more expensive … which means the masses would be angry at corporations rather than government. And why shouldn’t government borrow and/or print more money? The people who actually pay taxes — the middle and upper classes — never do anything beyond grumble anyway. The middle and upper class people certainly never start riots.

        Democrats are going to hold on as long as they can — borrowing and printing money to “pay” for all of the “free” stuff that they give out. And Republicans will never roll back the “free” stuff for fear of losing votes.

        That is why I don’t see inner-city riots happening … at least not for nationwide economic reasons.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I’m pretty sure Hilarity’s long term solution will be a $150 minimum wage, with government keeping 90% of it. It’s a win-win!

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Nothing lasts forever, not even printing bogus “money.” We are so close to an economic meltdown it isn’t even funny. And there are a thousand things that could trigger it tonight. You got some beans and bullets set by? I hope so. It’s going to be very ugly.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          I do expect some riots (albeit not inner city, due to different geographics) if/when Trump loses, either the primary or the general.

        4. avatar Geoff PR says:

          int19h, Trump riots in the trailer parks? 🙂

        5. avatar the ruester says:

          The riots will result from the 4 to 9 cops who will be acquitted in the weeks before the election. Why else would the DOJ push all of those trials back to October?

  12. avatar Removed_californian says:

    People will wag their fingers and moan that the tree of liberty must be replenished, but no one will rise against tyranny. Most people have too much to lose and firearms are the least of it to them. I like to remain optimistic that there are still a few rugged men, but I’m not an optimist by nature.

    I do not honestly believe that America will resort to civil war.

    1. avatar Salty Bear says:

      He’s right, you know ^

    2. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

      You are right. Most people would not resist. However, the number of gunowners is very large and there’s a weird thing about very large numbers: Even when you take a fraction of a fraction of them, you still come up with a pretty large number.

      Just for fun, consider if only 3% of 100 million gun owners were to resist. A trivial percentage really, but as Trump might say, the results could be yuuuuge.

      1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

        Even 1/2 of 1% or 0.005, is still a sizable number.

  13. avatar Stoopid1 says:

    Hilary will never make it to president, alive.

    1. avatar Calvin says:

      User name checks out

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Nah, Stoopid1 is a government paid stooge. No one else could make so many direct threats upon the lives individual politicians without an O’dark thirty visit from those same government stooges.

        1. avatar Chier DuChien says:

          If the GOP dumped Trump and Cruz, he might be right, Kasich is beating Hillary in every major poll, even the liberal ones, by 7 to 12 points. Go to RCP polls and see for yourself. Kasich is decent, moderate, and polite. Won’t happen though.

        2. avatar Stoopid1 says:

          If the government paid me enough, you think I’d type as much shit about it/them?

    2. avatar Mudshark says:

      All hail Hillary, our supreme overlord, whom forever was and every shall be. May Your mightey presesnce and wrath be known to those whom offend you. All hail Hillary, our supreme overlord,unkillable,unpersecutable, ever wise, all knowing, angel of darkness. Glory, glory, glory, forever amen

  14. avatar Martin Gomez says:

    I wish OK would get some lawyers and stop talking sht. They have a good grassroots organization and a lot to offer during a catastrophe, but the revolutionary rhetoric probably scares away a lot of supporters. The Muslim Brotherhood are terrorists, but they are subtle and work through lawsuits and lobbying. You can join them and probably get a federal job. They use the govt instead of fighting it. The OK are not terrorists, but they make themselves a target.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      OK is only good at talking shit. Good ol’ Stu Rhodes is a mouthpiece, nothing more. OK, will beat the drums and beat their chests but their members consist of retirees and angry parents of veterans.

      Mr Rhodes sure found a cash cow though.

  15. avatar samuraichatter says:

    I do not know about civil war, but if she wins in November I am buying stock in companies like Ruger, S&W, etc.

    1. avatar Ed Rogers says:

      Yep. There’s going to be another run on gun and ammo, like we’ve never seen. That and 4 more years of political gridlock.

      1. avatar SouthernPhantom says:

        You heard it hear first, folks. Start stocking up now, sell at a massive gain come October or November. I’m already buying up PMAGs.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Yeah, it has already begun. I have been slowly stockpiling Mako E-Lander mags, which are basically the cheapest quality mag you can get – thick all-steel construction, no-tilt follower, and all that for $9 a pop at Botach in large (1000+) quantities ready to ship… or were, until this week. Now they are $12, and backordered.

      2. avatar peirsonb says:

        I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: we’re SUPPOSED to have political gridlock.

        The Constitution defines what almost the perfect form of ineffectual government. On purpose.

        One group of representatives has to agree on a single topic. Then a group of senators has to agree with what the representatives already decided. Then an executive has to agree with both groups.

        Most of the time you can’t even get a small group of adults to agree on where to go for dinner…..

  16. avatar Mercutio says:

    More so than Sanders? What’s worse, a crook or a commie? But I repeat myself…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Depending on his VP selection, I might vote for Bernie before Cruz. At least he does not think he should have control over every woman’s uterus. VP selection is important, he’s 74!

      1. avatar Model 31 says:

        Yeah, cause everybody knows Mitch McConnell is itching to send up a “no mo abortions” bill for Cruz to sign. /eyesrolling

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Cruz talks like he expects that, and will sign it. Unacceptable.

      2. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

        And on inauguration day, Hillary will be 70.

      3. avatar RealityCheck says:

        Cruz doesn’t give a damn about what a woman does with her uterus.

        He does, however, oppose murdering babies.

        Ain’t the same thing.

        1. avatar Ross says:

          This.

        2. avatar Chadwick P. says:

          Yeah its kind of like saying nobody should tell you what to do in your own home after someone comes to inquire about the pile of human remains at your back door. Of course anyone looking for an excuse to get upset will look at the location and not the act… Why would I care what goes on inside a woman? I wouldn’t unless she is making gold in there or killing people. The making gold sounds like a win/win for everybody.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          He is supposed to understand the constitution, under which the matter is settled, until an amendment is passed abortion is legal. So he advocates (wait for it), no, not an amendment, but an end run around the fact that the people of the US DO NOT SUPPORT his irrational fanaticism. If they did, said amendment would have passed 30 years ago, if not more. Cheating on the law in order to get his own way. I cannot see voting for that, although I may have to. But Trump looks better to me. Than Lyin’ Ted, I mean, with this showing how much he deserves the name.

      4. avatar Accur81 says:

        Why do you care about a woman’s uterus? Seriously?

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Good question, simply an example. He swears up and down, seriously, that he is going to run a Christian nation, he wishes to be preacher in chief, turn the government and my taxes over to certain churches to rule over, and turn believers in other religions over to govt agents to persecute. That is a charlatan, a crook, a slippery little liar, and I don’t need that. Why do you NOT care?

  17. avatar Alex T says:

    That is some armchair warrior bullshit. There is no such thing as a civil war between armed insurrectionists and federal troops. A war implies that they would have even a small chance of winning. What it could trigger is an even more divisive political process where even less gets done.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Federal troops will not fight armed insurrectionists, I am retired military and I have no doubt. It will be local and state police at worst, and I think there will be none of them active in the effort within days.

      1. avatar fiun dagner says:

        I would really like to think so. But considering the commanders and ncos that I had while I was in the military I cannot be as certain of that as I would like. And the changes that Obama has made in the command structure since taking office do not reassure me on that point. Maybe it’s just me but it seems like everybody who wasn’t a Yes Man or who stood up to the president has been phased out at the higher levels and it has been working its way down.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Commanders and NCOs are nothing to worry about, save your concern for the guys who actually carry the loaded guns. A rifle will fire in any direction it is pointed, an officer or NCO who directs men to shoot their neighbors best have his will signed and his insurance paid up.

    2. avatar MG says:

      In the case of a widespread insurrection here, which I think is very unlikely anytime soon, victory could be defined not as outright defeating the military, but rather making any sufficiently unpopular government crackdown a prolonged and bloody affair (for both sides) that becomes politically and economically untenable for the regime involved.

      On the other hand, if the US population is sufficiently disarmed incrementally over time, and Constitutional liberties can be curtailed in the future using mostly less-than-lethal suppression against an unarmed populace, like riot police responding to riots, I would speculate that ‘indiscipline’ becomes less of an issue in the police and military, and tyranny over the people becomes much more politically and economically viable.

      This is the what many people don’t seem to grasp when they dismiss the idea of civilian gun ownership as a bulwark against government tyranny. In their view, if you can’t outright defeat the military and it’s dazzling high tech weapons, then there is no deterrent value in an armed populace.

  18. avatar Stinkeye says:

    The American people no longer have the spirit to fight for liberty. The statists, over the past sixty years or so, have managed to pretty well extinguish the independent spirit that founded this country. There are a few pockets here and there of individualists who still believe in the country’s original principles, but not enough to start a war over it. The frog will continue to be slowly boiled.

    1. avatar Ross says:

      I wouldn’t be so sure about that, there are still folks out there that believe Freedom is still worth fighting, killing & dying for.

  19. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    Those short sighted folks too often referred to as the “Greatest Generation” put us under the thumb of the government with the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943. Before that (‘cept for ’13-’16) most tax payers could have withheld taxes from the government . That had been the easiest and least violent way for large political minorities to oppose the Feds.

    1. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      Hillary is probably going to get elected. She’ll take care of herself and that means not pissing people off enough to cause her interests problems. It’ll suck, but we’ll get through it.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Your complaint about withholding is valid, but the current remnants of the Greatest Generation don’t deserve the blame; they were young adults at the time and did not make policy.

      People in Congress and the Executive branch, surely all dead of old age by now, are to blame.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Nah. In 1943 the Greatest Generation was in Europe and Asia, not in DC.

  20. avatar Abram G says:

    I don’t see a way for a civil war to occur without destroying our economy and infrastructure, opening us up to foreign influence at best or occupation at worst. So no, I don’t think we’ll have a civil war. Is our system screwed up? Yep. Are people trying to take away our rights? Sure. Still, we’re a heck of a lot better off in a US led, unipolar world than a multipolar world where countries who hate us (like China and Russia) would be on equal footing with us.

    For more information on freedom in the world, I recommend freedomhouse.org, a NGO dedicated to showing levels of personal liberty around the globe. Sadly, they don’t focus on the RKBA, but otherwise they’re pretty good.

    1. avatar SouthernPhantom says:

      Just because something is harmful, does not render it impossible. I’d love for all of this to be resolved peacefully, but I don’t think that’s possible any more. The good news is that I suspect we won’t see a straight-up war, merely a Yugoslavia-style collapse/breakup with the occasional skirmish.

  21. avatar Ross says:

    She had made a number of statements that she thinks what Australia did with guns would be a great idea here in the US, if she does an Australia here then civil war it is.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I think you overstate her enthusiasm, but she has refused to condemn it.

  22. avatar jwm says:

    No civil war. Periods of unrest. Sure. Waco. Cliven Bundy. Ruby ridge. Rodney King. Periods of unrest that came no where near to destabilizing a state or county, let alone the fed.gov.

    Is there a chance of a military junta south american style? Small. but there.

    Who would lead such a war? Would we be better off afterward or would civil war 3.0 be just ahead?

    Which nations would recoginise a rebel group that was challenging the legally elected government of this country?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I would bet money that an order from the government for federal forces to fire on civilians would *INSTANTLY* result in a military coup, whether it is led by the joint chiefs or the Secret Service.

  23. avatar TmDaddy says:

    Wow, what an idiotic discussion. Has this guy every served in the military?

    Any administration would need someone to enforce their unconstitutional laws. Yes, senior leaders in the military and federal administrations have gotten there by being political. But the rank and file are not retarded automatons doing their bidding. Military would never join in, which is why she hates us so much. I guarantee we’d be first on her list for confiscation.

    So, who would try revolution? Her 99 percenters, Occupiers and BLM supporters. Not much of a challenge cleaning them up once most Americans realized they are a direct threat.

    We have to win middle Americas support by denouncing this guy (although he has free speech), and that we are part of them.

  24. avatar RealityCheck says:

    I looked at that Washington Post article. And what was interesting was, 90% of the comments (or more) were “please, Texas, please secede. And take Mississippi with you.”

    Would those people really vote that way? If they would, then — hell yes, let’s get on with the secession. Why should the entire south half of the country have to live under the yoke of oppression, and why should the entire north half of the country (and west coast) have to live in fear of those southern yokels? Why not go our separate ways, and enjoy our lives, blissfully unoppressed by the opposite side?

    Why does it have to be a war? Why can’t it just be – hey, this isn’t working for us. It’s not you, it’s me. Well, okay, it’s that I don’t want you oppressing me, so I guess it is you, but in any case, I’ll go my way, you go yours.

    In fact, how about this — Hillary is *guaranteed* the presidency, and the congress, if she just paves the way for Texas to go. There’s nothing stopping her complete takeover, if Texas is out of the way. So why wouldn’t she support it? Then Texas can sit back and wait for the inevitable implosion of the rest of the country, and the Balkanization that is sure to follow. And once the cancerous liberal idealogy leads to its inevitable destruction, the Free Republic of Texas will still be there upholding the original American ideals that made the Union the greatest country in the world.

    1. avatar Phil LA says:

      I don’t disagree with any of your positions. But I’ll comment on the logistics of secession.

      I would imagine that losing Texas would be a substantial net revenue loss to the US federal government. I’m not even accounting for federal property or strategic positioning that would be lost. The same goes for most other states.

      The seceded state governments would now have to fund their own self defense while existing in the shadow of a superpower. This would equate to massive taxation on their citizens, leading to economic turmoil.

      I’m not going further, but I’d say the reason the union exists is because it is mutially beneficial to the state and federal levels. That could change, but not in a vacuum.

      1. avatar RealityCheck says:

        All I’ll say is — people thought the USSR couldn’t be unraveled either. It happened within months.

        We’ll figure it out. And massive taxation? Remember that the actual, original US government (you know, the one the Constitution created) was meant to survive off of the tariffs paid on international transactions – period. So when you remove the burdens of defense spending, entitlements, education, and all the rest of the federal government taxes, when you free the State from all this federal income tax and FICA and “death tax” and all that, then — there may very well be money left to go around. Sure, the individual state taxes might end up being higher than they were, but — the States already have a defense force (the national guard) and they already have constitutions in place.

        First thing Texas should do — write a new First Amendment to the Texas constitution forever banning ANY type of welfare or entitlement. Do that, and the cancer of “liberal thinking” can never take root, and all those who want to think that way and vote that way will get the hint pretty quickly and move to the “liberal utopia” created by an unrestrained socialist regime in the country we seceded from.

        And secession has worked before – the USA was a (well, multiple) colonies of another government, which had soldiers stationed to “defend” us and we survived severing the ties back then. I have faith we could pull it off again.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        To your questions re; military, there are a lot of military bases/personnel in TX, I’m guessing they would stay in TX, we’d have a pretty fine military ourselves.

      3. avatar the ruester says:

        They can’t allow it for one simple reason; any red state that secedes immediately has the lowest federal corporate tax in the world. So America either stops them with force, or says goodbye to every single fortune 500 company.

      4. avatar Phil LA says:

        Fine points, but you’re assuming that the federal government would just donate all of that equipment, weapons, ammo and buildings to the newly seceeded foreign country. Hundreds of billions in value just given away (I know it already happens everyday).
        What would keep the federal government from just invading and retaking the state? The only logical path to secession would follow the 1861 model, by having a huge block within a short time. Remember Fort Sumter was a military base that suddenly found itself in a foreign country. I’m sure that would happen again, with multiple accounts.
        The USSR was broken and broke. The USA is fractured (currently), and theres a big difference. Could it happen? Sure. But a clean break is extemely unlikely, and history is full of bloody, full-scale civil wars. I love Texas and miss living there, but Texas is currently better off IN the Union than out. That could certainly change, but I hope it doesn’t.

      5. avatar LarryinTX says:

        The union exists because of one misguided president who decided he’d rather see the entire nation dead than lose any of his power, and for no other reason. Even then he was going to lose until he made the brilliant decision to pretend the war was about slavery, which breathed new life into the Union.

  25. avatar CHLChris says:

    Civil war would only happen as a part in a mass secessionist movement starting with Texas. That would physically split the nation in two, from Texas, north to Idaho/Montana/ND. I don’t see that happening until economics cause a collapse. Otherwise, all we’re talking about is armed patriots giving up their lives for worthless statements.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      What you describe would give new meaning to the term “flyover states”. Like, you damn well better fly over them when travelling from the western US back to commune with the Eastern elites, it is now a foreign country which does not like you.

  26. avatar Ralph says:

    Americans are a peaceful people. Of the many millions of lawful gun owners out there, how many commit criminally violent acts? Practically none.

    Most men are quite properly interested most in making a living and taking care of their families. Women are the same, and in an armed conflict most but not all of them would be useless anyway.

    So, no, there won’t be widespread violent resistance and there certainly won’t be a civil war. What there would be is massive noncompliance and the creation of a new criminal class. More people than ever will hate their government. Tax revenues will decline as more individuals begin to cheat like crazy on their taxes and American companies continue to move more and more money offshore. Eventually the whole rotten structure will collapse like the old Soviet Union.

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  27. avatar Kerry hutchinson says:

    Let’s all wait until the next election and read these posts again. All this and more was said eight years ago when Barack Obama was elected. You guys are fantasists.

  28. avatar Paul says:

    People who speak casually of civil war have never seen the results of one.

    Insurgents spend most of their time evading government government forces and living like rats. And no matter how many guns and how much ammo insurgents stockpile prior to the revolution, they are no match for Hellfire missiles, or even light APC’s.

    How about we just do a better job of selecting our future leaders? Both Hillary and Trump are really bad options, but more than that, they are both completely unlikable. What ever happened to selecting nice people with leadership ability? Did that die with the 50’s? Help me out here.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Hellfire missiles and APCs are the reason we do not need to worry about the weapons and defenses of local law enforcement, anybody who authorizes their use will condemn government supporters to an awful death. I suspect a total lockdown of military assets would end up just the dream of statists, eventually the military (or Secret Service) would end such a war in a day. That does not mean that any jackass can make a fool of himself and all will rally around, it just means that we have no “ruler”, and the military will never stand for one. If it ever reaches the end game, the military will be on our side, not that of the would-be dictators.

    2. avatar pod says:

      In a domestic insurrection, the biggest issue facing a nominally civil government is getting the support of the people. Using heavy warfighting equipment on domestic soil is a good way to get the people to oppose the government.

      Why?

      Those systems are inaccurate as compared to boots on the ground. You have some group of Oathkeepers holed up in a house somewhere in suburbia, launching a guided missile will take them out, sure, but it’ll take out the neighbor’s house too. And the neighbor probably had f–k all to do with the conflict. Now the neighbor hates the government for blowing up his house and maybe killing his wife and kids. Or if the Oathkeepers are holed up in the woods in a cabin, sure you can blow up their compound with a Hellfire, but suddenly the people will quail at the fact that the government is using heavy weaponry on it’s own people. Even your most ardent CSGV supporter will blanch at the fact that the government just used a weapons system that usually kills “foreigners” on his own fellow citizens. He’ll wonder if he’s next, or if he’ll get mowed down in the crossfire.

      Thus, a government wanting to maintain good relations with it’s people during a civil war will have to really only use ground troops and police forces and take on insurrectionists man-to-man. Some would refuse of course, and those that don’t would be equally matched with the insurrectionists. In an urban battle, full-auto isn’t a huge advantage, and plus if you are countering forces equipped with now-illegal guns, you know for a fact they will be modifying them since they’re already breaking the law anyways.

      Attack helicopters, bombers, and tanks will sit by the wayside. A purported civil war would be a long-term police action and be done man-to-man. If the government decides at some point it doesn’t give a s–t and uses the heavy equipment, the public relations war is lost. No one is going to approve of a government that uses war machines on it’s own people. And with that, the government will eventually lose for real since the people will have turned on them, making politicians and government workers fair game for executions.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        20 years as a military pilot, around 2 of that driving armed aircraft and shooting people. If such things were on the horizon, I would have spoken out forcefully for nonintervention, that is not our business. If overruled, I would fall into line like a good soldier, until they turned me loose with an armed aircraft. Despite your expertise in COD or whatever the hell, all I need to do then is turn off the radio and determine who I am going to kill today. Is the White House, or the Pentagon within range?

        NO ONE will release Hellfire missiles to a human. We may have to worry about drones, where the operator may have a gun in his ear while controlling the craft, but thinking there will be tanks, bombers, fighter aircraft, or Navy assets killing civilians is nothing but a wet dream of dictator wannabees, ain’t gonna happen.

  29. avatar Phil LA says:

    No. We’re nearly through Obama. If he didn’t trigger a revolt, and we didn’t start a revolution, I doubt that it is as likely as we think. Incrementalism is the more likely scenario.

  30. avatar CHLChris says:

    What people really hope for is to wake up one morning and read that an armed uprising happened overnight…and now all of our freedoms have been reinstated. And regular people didn’t need to miss a single Starbucks or hot shower.

    1. avatar sota says:

      I as regular and as average a Joe out there as you could find. I have my small, somewhat comfortable “life”, and I don’t want Bad Things ™ to happen and have to deal with them. But I sit here this fine, calm Sunday morning, look out the window, and can feel that a tipping point is coming. For me personally? I can’t say what or where or how that point occurs, but i can feel it. I didn’t feel its presence 10 years ago. I didn’t even know it could exist 20 years ago. I suspect many other people are in the same boat. We can feel the storm approaching, even if we can’t see the clouds or feel the wind. The sensation of it now exists, where as before there was none. It’s a level of disquiet that I had no concept of it ever existing, and I don’t like it. I don’t like the feeling, I don’t like it’s existence, I don’t like where it inexorably marches towards. I don’t want to go where it leads, but in the end we may have had no choice. I am not a brave man, yet I can feel an approaching tide that has potential to overwhelm my lack of bravery with necessity. i suspect there are many more out there like me; far more than some people here and elsewhere know or believe exist.

      Or to put it more simply, the McAuliffe “Nuts!” moment might be coming soon.

  31. avatar What The Heck Is That says:

    It’ll all depend on what happens in Congress. If Congress stays largely the same (GOP majority in both houses) we’ll just get what we’ve had the last several years under Obama–a president and Congress that can’t get anything done because they hate each other.

    If however the Democrats take back the Senate, and if by some wild catastrophe take the House (either in ’16 or ’18) then Hillary gets to ram whatever nonsense she wants down our throats. In which case…

    Nothing will happen. Americans will go about their business like they always have and the 2-3 people unhinged enough to start shooting will be rapidly rounded up and used as fodder to push more gun control.

    Nothing can stop the United States’ march toward full-on big-government socialism. At this point we can only hope to slow it down.

    1. avatar RealityCheck says:

      I fully agree — nothing can stop the USA’s march into full-fledged socialism and totalianarianism.

      Which is why I vote for Texas, and any state that wants to come with us, to secede from the US. Let the US be whatever it will become, but there’s a chance for those who love liberty to move to where it’s still valued.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “a president and Congress that can’t get anything done because they hate each other.”

      We need to realize that is how the government is designed to work, or maybe I should say “not work”. What laws do we need which have not already been passed, in the last 225 years or so? Passing laws just to say you did so is not a worthwhile enterprise, we should vote for representatives who promise to vote AGAINST any bill which has no useful purpose, just spending time and money.

  32. avatar ozzallos says:

    Personnally, I think this article has too little faith in the American people to solve that sort of crisis non-violently. With a show of force? Possibly. But the full blown gun battles the use of “civil war” implies?

    No.

    Besides, TTAG already told us trump will do the same thing.

  33. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    I’m sure that there was similar discussion and comments such as all these back in 1861.
    Look what happened gentleman.
    And what of Lexington?
    Similar talk?
    I’m sure it was close to what’s here.
    Men and women stepped up and the rest moved to other borders.
    Anything is possible.

  34. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Amen. Yes anything is possible. I’ve been through a similar time-the late 60’s-early 70’s. We’re at the very end. I’m with you Mama Liberty…

    1. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

      Amen.

  35. avatar Tal says:

    I don’t wan’t a civil war.

    But wouldn’t mind my state leaving the union if it means actually following the constitution.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Cool idea. A new “seceded nation” which has precisely the same constitution as the nation it seceded from, except for an 11th amendment in the bill of rights, saying “and we mean it!”

  36. avatar pod says:

    The term has been kicked around here before and I’ve adopted it to describe the scenario. “Irish democracy”.

    If the government enacts bans and more useless words on paper, the simple fact is that people will suddenly shut up about their guns. Sure, the Feds will encourage snitching, and some basic data mining could generate a vague list of gun owners in this country, but if a confiscation effort were to happen, the simple lack of manpower willing and able to do it would mean the bulk of the guns would be hidden. Shovels would become the new must-have fashion accessory around the country. But people will still have their guns.

    Also, you’ll see an uptick in items that are usually under NFA purview appearing. If your AR is illegal already, you’ll have no problems chopping down the barrel, dropping in an auto sear, or fitting a suppressor without keeping the overworked folks at the NFA branch up at night.

    Now if the confiscation efforts get a little too serious, there’ll be some rather messy police actions around the country, with less and less enthusiasm for those actions as losses pile up on the government forces side. The crappy thing about a civil war is that the government is making moves on the soil it already owns. Those cops kicking down the doors probably don’t live too far away. I don’t think a cop is gonna be too enthusiastic about enforcing a confiscation if there’s a few object lessons enacted on his fellow officers. Even at a low level, it happens (for the wrong reasons) already with gangs. Smarter thugs figure out where the cops live.

    Politicians interested in gun control know it’s about the long-term game, because they fully-well know that any sudden large-scale moves will be ineffective, and maybe at worst touch off a low-intensity protracted conflict on domestic soil. So it’s bit by bit, a multi-pronged attack with little laws here and there coupled with cultural indoctrination.

  37. avatar Ronald Pottol says:

    Nothing happened when the Patriot act passed, I have no idea what it would take to spark one, but putting the a warmongering Rockefeller Republican like Clinton into office isn’t likely to do it.

  38. avatar Saul Aulinsilki says:

    The only thing that would lead to civil war in the US is economic collapse. And Obama (a revolutionary Marxist) has done every thing in his power to bring that about. Remember there are twice as many people here as in 1929. Those that think it can’t happen again are fools. 47% of Americans get a monthly check! The session threat is real!! Forces used will be international and gang bangers recruited into a Homeboy Security force AKA Brown Shirts!

  39. avatar JC762N says:

    Nope, it won’t.

    Gunowners are the largest paper tigers in the known universe. It’s a known qty. that gun owners are all cowards who comply with any and every little ordnance from 922R to the NFA.

    If there were any real threat of a civil war people would already be wiping their rears with the NFA and flaunting their basement machine guns.

    But they’re not.

    And when the semi-auto ban and confiscations begin it’ll be the same story.

    “ITS A FELONY OMG WE DONT WANT NO PART OF THAT OH SAVE US BIG BROTHER!”

    Those who don’t comply will be ratted out and turned in by other loyal law abiding gun owners just like it is now when a RO sees an NFA item at the range and calls the cops.

    There will be no uprising.

    Gunowners have proven countless times over that they will all go quietly into the night.

    Guns are simply put a losing proposition. The time to divest is NOW. At least get some money back out of them before they all become worth “10 years and 100K”

    People find other hobbies and the world keeps turning. Guns will be no different.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      2asux in drag.

      1. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

        +1 Lima Charlie on 2asux

    2. avatar pod says:

      Prior gun control laws benefitted from one thing, the slow spread of information. By the time most people heard of and figured out what the NFA was, it was done and done. Radios weren’t universal and news still took time to spread.

      GCA, kind of the same thing. Except this time the news spread a little faster and it was easier to counter the more onerous provisions of the GCA. Johnson wanted mandatory licensing and registration for all guns in the US. Because of the NRA and other activists, these provisions were removed. Johnson even noted and lamented the actions of the gun owning populace. But we still were saddled with some BS.

      Hughes Amendment was snuck in at the 11th hour under questionable voice voting in a package of otherwise good laws (peaceable journey, etc…) for gun owners.

      AWB was a fight and a setback. The sunset provision was added and the law sunset in 2004 thankfully, due in part to the internet campaigns by gun owners spreading the word.

      Since then, gun control has been beaten back by gun owners’ activism. Whatever you think of the NRA, their capability to contact 5 million gun owners is nothing to be trifled with. Remember the attempt last year at banning M855? We all united and it never moved much beyond an “idea” at the ATF.

      Gun owners aren’t a paper tiger, and the examples you mention are poor examples to the contrary.

    3. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

      Actually, we’ve been winning, pretty much all one sided, the last 8 years. Obama lead the most hardcore assault on the RKBA in the nations history and was essentially nuetered. The media is no longer in control of the information flow. The Internet has infact bolstered, grown, organized, and emboldened the gun rights movement. By all means, give up and sell your guns. But we’re winning this fight.

    4. avatar Accur81 says:

      You are either not very smart, don’t know many modern gun owners, or are blissfully aware of the multitude of gun laws on the books.

    5. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

      Thought I smelled a fart….nope….just 2Asux trolling again. Probably holed up in his basement jerking it to 80’s jazzercize videos.

      1. avatar sota says:

        *wags finger* now now… Liberty and Justice for All. If jazzercise vids gets the mans rocks off, in the privacy of his own home, so be it. Who are we to judge if the means are not illegal.

        /sarc

    6. avatar Matt in Tx says:

      @JC762N
      Libtard paid troll

    7. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, somebody is sure a coward.

  40. avatar Michael Wright says:

    No I don’t believe that simply electing Hillary will lead to a civil war, people have had unwanted representatives for a couple of hundred years in this country and there has only been the one civil war and Lincoln’s election by itself wouldn’t have caused war.

    There would have to be some sort of push from the left only something divisive enough to split the country relatively evenly in two. Guns really aren’t it, there probably isn’t even one sixth of the country willing to die for the second amendment. What you could have is chaos, but as has been said it was take some sort of heavy handed move towards confiscation to do that. I’m talking multiple fatal confrontations at multiple locations in a short time period. I don’t believe another Waco will make it happen either as the resistance was too organized for large numbers of people to martyr them.

    1. avatar Matt in Tx says:

      All it takes is 3%.

  41. avatar anonymoose says:

    If we could comment photos on TTAG, this comments section would be full of Ron Paul memes.

  42. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    California and Washington state will be happy to comply with federal orders from Hillary. There welfare states like getting free stuff. Also getting legal Marijuana at the federal level free from FBI arrest will help them to trade in their guns for Marijuana intoxication.
    It will be the pot heads who will rat on non pot smokers who own guns.

    Colorado because they have thrown out 3 law makers will have its own civil war between pot smokers who want guns turned in so they can smoke pot free from fear of arrest and non pot smoking gun owners. The southern states and any state that is expanding second amendment civil rights, like constitutional carry, they will not allow federal intervention.
    Barry Goldwater spoke about how each state was free to govern as they choose without the feds sticking their noses into state affairs.
    Only now it will be the south where freedom will be protected.
    In Sacramento California they are in the beginning process of taking away all rights. But they need to get your guns first. They will use copies of the black codes in California. The same codes that are now being removed from places like Florida and Georgia.

  43. avatar Turk182 says:

    The US is already in a state of rebellion. Virtually all sheriffs in Colorado and New York have publicly refused to enforce their States’ post-Newton gun laws. And there are estimates that 50,000-100,000 citizens in Connecticut have voluntarily made themselves felons by not complying with their “assault weapons ban”.

    And look at the 15,000,000+ legally sold small arms in the US in 2015 alone. 100,000,000 gun owners. 300,000,000 guns. There are only about 2,000,000 active and reserve members in the US military, plus about 750,000 police. Based on the performance of the sheriffs in CO and NY, both democrat states BTW, I think it’s safe to say that many police and military members would side with us (I acknowledge that most big city police officers would follow unconstitutional orders, like in Boston). If only 0.01% of legal gun owners resisted, we’d run out of cops pretty quickly.

    No, the democrats best option is to take it very slowly. But I doubt that they are that smart.

    Keep your powder dry.

  44. avatar Aerindel says:

    No, she is too smart for that. Its our job to start it.

    1. avatar Dr Brainwash says:

      You stepping out that door first pal?

  45. avatar Adub says:

    I don’t see anything happening, at least not on our side. We might have 99% of the guns, but we aren’t the violent people in the country. The government would have to hit hard, and then it’d be a state-by-state issue. But…

    If some lowlifes were killed by the cops, and they were of the “wrong” skin color, the inner cities would riot. The police would either give them room to destroy, thus emboldening the criminals in the local area, or they would respond with force, thus fanning the flames in other cities.

    1. avatar sota says:

      That scenario is actually a probable tipping point…
      * Some “choir boy turning his life around that didn do nuffin” gets room temp’ed by the police
      * “Space to Destroy” is declared and given
      *Property owners in the Zone go “AW HELL NAW” when seeing Johnny Law standing by
      *Johnny Law follows orders to “disarm” said Zone property owners
      *Zone property owners resist. NG troops are rolled in to “quell” the actual GOOD people defending their property

      I think/hope/pray (in as much as a godless heathen can do so) we’ll see unexpected levels of support for defensive citizens from various camps if such a scenario arrives.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Oooo. Godless heathen. I like it! Count me in.

  46. avatar Lowell says:

    Hillary would throw another Big Texas BBQ, and it would be on. She’s a devout neocon and believes that power is an end unto itself. The wildlife refuge? She would have given the Bundy’s the martyrdom they were looking for and then bragged about it. It wouldn’t be long before something like that happened. And then we find out just how serious the Three Percenters really are.

  47. Just a thought…

    Out of everyone who has commented on this, what percentage have actually seen a civil war at first hand? Or have worked in the midst of one, or even been caught up in one as a combatant?

    I don’t mean regular military service in any of the main theatres the US has been engaged in recent years. I don’t even mean Iraq when the violence started to get really out of hand. That’s not civil war, that’s just poor civil order with an insurgency lumped on top.

    I mean the truly vicious civil wars of the last few decades, where ethnic cleansing, mass executions, organised rape and other such delights are commonplace.

    I mean the Balkans during the fighting rather than the peacekeeping; I mean Libya during and since the revolution against Qaddafi; I mean Syria in the past five years; I mean South Sudan…..

    Because my own limited experience of civil wars is that they make most conventional inter-state wars look like a harmless and benign disagreement…

    When both sides view the other as “traitors” – inevitable when each claims to be defending the country’s interests against insurrection – it is terrifyingly easy to justify abuses against the enemy.

    That is readily apparent from the number of people who have anticipated the ‘cleansing’ of liberal / democrat politicians after the inevitable failure of an enforced gun-grab…

    It is on balance probably even worse when one side has only a fairly loose structure and command hierarchy, as the potential for a low/mid level ‘commander’ to go all Colonel Kurtz is much greater. That would almost certainly be the case, in the event of an uprising such as some have envisaged on here: localised pockets of resistance either loosely cooperating with one another or operating independently.

    And what about the possibility of armed individuals or groups who may not be anti-gun, but are anti- the revolution? Or just sit on the fence? At least some of the revolutionaries will, I guarantee, see this as collaboration that warrants a death sentence. Do you oppose that, and risk being labelled as a collaborator yourself? Or do you go along with it and find yourself complicit in executing people simply because they disagreed with you, or one of your comrades in arms?

    I am not saying that people shouldn’t resist unjust abuses of executive power. They should.

    But anyone who seriously suggests resorting to civil war – without entirely exhausting all the alternative avenues of activism and civil disobedience – is either insane or woefully ignorant of the consequences of what they advocate.

    I am saying, as someone who has spent a little time in the midst of civil wars and seen what they result in, that I pray no such misfortune ever befalls the United States of America.

  48. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    As long as folks can watch sports, drink beer and play video games they won’t be uncomfortable enough to do anything but keyboard commando it. It’s a long ways from that so the discussion is boring

  49. avatar Bob315 says:

    Yes. If history repeats itself, civil war, revolution, or a violent uprising is inevitable if Hillary is elected. In a repressed economy, people are spending billions of dollars arming up, and this is not because We The People suddenly became interested in hunting. These people are prepping for a fight. When this discontent reaches a certain size, God only knows what will happen. We are in scary times, that’s for sure. Let’s just hope Hillary and Bernie lose.

  50. avatar jlp says:

    Not based on reality. A political fantasy.

  51. avatar PeterK says:

    Forget succession. What we need is to form city states out of any city in any state big enough to qualify. It’s scary and awesome to think how that would shake out politically.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Would a Hillary Clinton Presidency Trigger a Civil War? http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/04/robert-farago/desantis-gunhide-question-day-hillary-clinton-presidency-trigger-civil-war/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email