What if some Trump devotees start a civil war?

Post Reply New Topic

I still remember your "conservatives have it so hard on WP" from about 6 months back. Real conservative principles, hiding beyond "Oh I have it so tough, mods please come protect me." As I said in my OP you didn't read, there are 2 types of gun owners, the responsible ones that generally stand up for their beliefs and then there are the survivalists who cut an run at the first sign of real problems. Guess which ones ask the mods to fix their problems? That clear enough for you? --Because that's what my lectures look like.

Sick burns.

How is massacring millions a joke? (Or is this 'locker banter'?)

Now for the super, serious-- my op wasn't trying to argue with you, I was actually trying to agree with you that most gun-advocates aren't fringe. Those gun-owners are my neighbors and fishing buddies, I have no issues with them. But there is also another group out there that's not so balanced-- they are a MINORITY inside the "gun rights" movement, but they're also the ones that give it a bad rep and the ones I'm concerned about. That was my point, not a lecture.

As for the attack, as I've stated before: I'm not some lily liver academic egghead even if I sound like it at times. I'll fight like a junk yard dog if that's what it takes to respect me, I'd expect no less from you.

Anything can be a joke when you're not insufferable.

Masturbatory fantasies.

There will never be another civil war since there actually needs to be two sides to fight. What we have is an oppressive federal government ruled by the interests of the aristocracy, we've seen what the Clinton's do to those that stand up to government in Waco where they laid siege and burned children alive.

It really is funny when you think about that in context, we're accusing the Russians of war crimes for their supposedly "indiscriminate" bombing of Aleppo along with the WWII-esqe bombed out neighborhoods which in reality has killed less than the US government did in one day in Waco, Texas. 65 deaths from these bombings all things considered seems pretty damn precise, Aleppo is a huge city and I can't imagine the US doing better in regards to it's 'surgical strikes'.

What may happen in the future if things get bad enough is secession and there won't be a war this time to stop it.

They won't attack government buildings. It will be TV stations.

[moderating]
This thread was briefly locked to give Aristophanes and Dox47 time to cool off. Please feel free to continue discussion on this topic while avoiding personal attacks.

I concur. We are already seeing a rise in alternative media as even the left are losing faith in mainstream media.
If any guerrilla warfare is to take place it would be on smaller scales and on the minds of the American public - protests against the media, reshuffling of established media cabinets, boycott of channels, papers and subscriptions, private funding of new outlets and so forth. Fighting fire with fire.

I kinda wish some of the threads in which I had gotten into it with some other certain members in the past could have been temporarily locked in order for tempers to cool.

If only they did everything as sociologically acceptable... but aren't these people possibly politically literal when it comes to fighting fire with... gunfire? Why else would their infallible overlord urge them to be aggressive? I doubt the mob mentality at his rallies will simply stop at "don't buy x newspaper" when some outliers at least are probably already gearing up for actual guerilla warfare.

Then again, I remember when a Michigan militia group claimed they would take up arms if gun toting fanatics were ever under siege by the law. When the Freemen at their Just-us compound in Montana were surrounded by law enforcement, following their bullying at gun point of elected leaders in the nearby town, the Michigan militia, among others, appeared on the scene, then shortly after slunk away with their tails between their legs. A bully, whether he or she has a gun or not, might be bombastic, but when push comes to shove often proves to be a coward.

No one will fight for the Clinton's, remember that. There will not be another civil war because there has to be two sides to a civil war. No, we are much closer to revolution than we are civil war and there still wouldn't be another civil war if the question of secession is raised because we can hardly claim to be a democracy to deny the right of self determination considering our words & actions overseas. Canada and the UK have allowed referendums on the status of Quebec and Scotland, if Texas or whoever wanted a similar vote then how can we deny it?

When you spend all your time listening to people you agree with already, it's easy to imagine that there is no other side, or to fill the void where their voices might have been if you had been paying attention with caricatures of your own design.

The trouble with doing that is that you can then confidently declare that, for example, "no one really supports Hillary Clinton" despite clear evidence to the contrary in places where you don't look.

Acting on such distorted beliefs or presuming that events will follow the path they would take if those distortions were real may lead to a shocking contact with reality as history unfolds.

I strongly agree with this.

Interesting perspective; I know there are a lot of people on both Republican and Democrats side who are pro Second Amendment and shooting, so it's not a Republican thing the way some non-Americans I've noticed seem to assume it is. I've no idea though whether Trump was right in his statement 'oh Hillary wants to take your guns away', that could be interpreted as a mustering of votes from the guns crowd.

Cool to see someone else into guns and shooting by the way.