Another Civil War...?

[Roxie1563]

Let me tell you before I give my opinion: this is just a friendly discussion, nothing more, okay?

I have been watching the news about the Gun control Ban and what happened to Boston and it made me think: How long before things come to an head? How long before it reaches to another Civil War?

The Gun Control Ban is meant to keep guns under control. I get that, but it also violates our Second Amendment which is we have the right to bear arms, meaning we do have the right to have a weapon to keep us safe.

I ask you: Which one is more important to you; Freedom or Safety? The Government or the People?

If you want both, you can't. By the words of Benjamin Franklin: If you want safety, you must give up freedom or if you want freedom, you must give up safety. You cannot have both to live your life.

For me if an second Civil War begins and I'm having to choose a side, I know which side I want to be: The People. I love my freedom too much to have safety in my life.

Whose side are you on?

 

[Taylor]

The Senate literally just dropped a push for new gun control legislation.


But okay. If this is going to turn into a debate on gun control (which I can see happening), just bring it here. If this is just going to be a thread about whether or not people would side with or against the government if the government ceased to promote democracy or freedom, I think most of us already know that answer.

 

[Roxie1563]

The Senate literally just dropped a push for new gun control legislation.


But okay. If this is going to turn into a debate on gun control (which I can see happening), just bring it here. If this is just going to be a thread about whether or not people would side with or against the government if the government ceased to promote democracy or freedom, I think most of us already know that answer.

Pretty much this thread was to see who would side with or against the government.. Sorry about the gun thing, I just had to put something in there. Sorry again!

 

[Orion]

The Gun Control Ban is meant to keep guns under control. I get that, but it also violates our Second Amendment which is we have the right to bear arms, meaning we do have the right to have a weapon to keep us safe.

The Second Amendment refers to a well-regulated militia designed to fend off tyranny. It's nowhere near as simple as just 'the right to bear arms' and in this debate you're practically being disingenuous by only mentioning it to that extent.

Not that I'd get involved in the conflict, but I'd be for the side that tells people they need to be proven competent before being granted a particularly deadly weapon.

 

[Shinjuku]

That's tough question to decide for me, but at the rate certain things are going I already know I'd be on The People's side of this conflict. Thing is if you believe in the Big Brother stuff, and that Government can and will kill their own folks if need be then at least IMO we're already doomed lol.

Kent State shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article about Kent St. Shootings

I say doomed because you know unlike the government we are far too many steps behind to really be a threat to them. Looking back at the Boston thing they gathered so much intel in such a short time that it made my head spin. Where as if we'd been doing that it would take an average person a while longer.

 

[ajmrowland]

While the constitution was meant to be amended and rewritten, I don't wanna bring gun debates here.

Civil war is not on the horizon, though the far right are always the ones first to suggest extremes and violence. I'm not kidding either when I say that the "left" may have had a couple extremes at one point but not now. Tea partners have been quoted even saying they're not opposed to a violent takedown of the government. Not to mention that place called e citadel.


but I don't think there will be enough people to really justify an all out civil war.

That's tough question to decide for me, but at the rate certain things are going I already know I'd be on The People's side of this conflict. Thing is if you believe in the Big Brother stuff, and that Government can and will kill their own folks if need be then at least IMO we're already doomed lol.


Kent State shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article about Kent St. Shootings


I say doomed because you know unlike the government we are far too many steps behind to really be a threat to them. Looking back at the Boston thing they gathered so much intel in such a short time that it made my head spin. Where as if we'd been doing that it would take an average person a while longer.

This is something of a grey area. First being that many people against big government are in it. Secondly if its about gun control, we are talking a majority against a minority, but I'm convinced we've been in something of a Cold War for much longer so if the entire govt were to be divided, both sides would have expensive resources enough.

 

[Mistearea]

Did anyone else remember the line, "The South shall rise again!"?

Back on topic. If conflict was to start and I was pretty much forced to take a side, I'd have to side with Freedom. I mean, I come from a family that has had a lot of soldiers. I would have been one of them if it wasn't for certain health issues. So I understand the concept of having to fight for freedom. And if you fight, you give up your own safety. That's how I view that concept anyways.

 

[Dark_Seraphim]

Well, I am not quite sure if anyone has heard however, a Civil War in the US is possible to happen once more.
Though its states versus the union under the reason that our current leader is running the country into the dirt.

Obama recently sent out National Security Letters (NSL's) as threats of arrest out to states that are developing state based militaries (SDFs) in response to recent actions to what the president has taken lately. Now, there is a selection in the Patriot Act set by George Bush that makes it prohibited that the nations leader sends such letters in response to a states rights such as developing state based militaries.

Further information on the topic can be found here at these sites:
State Defense Forces: Governors Form Militia Protection Against Martial Law - Susanne Posel | Susanne Posel
14 State Governors : Prepare State Militia Defenses To Be Ready Against Obama's Rogue Federal Forces | Peace . Gold . Liberty
» Are Some States Under Fire for Forming Their Own Citizen Militias? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[Orion]

Three disinformation sites? Good to know my further reading will be well-researched, unbiased and free of hyperbole!

 

[Dark_Seraphim]

no legitimate hyperbole or pun of the situation intended.
Just merely exploring the possibility as well as examining the growing number of political issues that have arisen

 

[Professor Ven]

There is no diddlying possibility of another Civil War. If you honestly think (and we'll go along with the idea of such a leap of total common sense) that there would be another "Confederacy" to develop in the US. No.

There's multitudes of problems with this - most states by now either rely on federal money, or inter-state relations. How many states can grow their own food to supply and feed their citizens during wartime? How many have strong internal economies?

What occurred from 1861 to 1877 will not occur again in this country.(Reconstruction is included, because the Confederate States weren't readmitted to the Union realistically until it ended, because they were military districts). If it does, it will be put down so swiftly and quietly that I won't even have to give it a single thought.

Just because "political issues arise" means diddly. People will ruffle their feathers at whatever they don't like, and make their claims of freedom against whatever "tyranny" there is, or because of what political party happens to be in power at the time.

 

[Orion]

Southern states - which we associate with more confederate ideals and fiercer gun pride and ownership - across the board draw more from taxes than they put in, while the northern states put in more than they get back. I'm sure 'the north' would in some scenarios love nothing more than to let modern south go, but it looks like 'the north' actually values the union in the United States of America, unlike the south where pretty much all the talk of armed rebellion and secession comes from.

 

[Dark_Seraphim]

sounds like a "sticks and stones" argument, from what both of you have summarized it as

 

[Ulti]

I am not sure how people think a civil war can happen now. Are the people rebelling? Does the army, navy, etc just split in half? How would the states that split ever survive without the government's aid? This is just something that can't happen.

 

[Dark_Seraphim]

Well, there is a possibility of a self sustaining government depending on the governor of the state, the resources available and the if there is any intention at all.

But from what Orion and the rest have summed it all up at, is that it is an unlikely event, especially since most of the issues going about are of the nature of "all bark and no bite". So it's safe to assume that its just steam being blown around.

 

[Ulti]

Well, there is a possibility of a self sustaining government depending on the governor of the state, the resources available and the if there is any intention at all.

That is really my main concern. What state would be able to support itself and all of its citizens entirely on its own government? What about products from outside their state? No healthcare, no social programs, nothing can be brought in from their enemies. Its the United States for a reason. We are highly dependent on each other. To break away is foolish. Those states talk a big game but they have no idea how to run entirely on their own.

 

[Professor Ven]

This thread literally has no real point since its been more or less stated by multiple people that there is no real outcome of a "civil war" in the United States. Even if there was a possibility, for a State to leave the Union would be considered treason, and that State would be taken faster than Baghdad.

Baghdad was taken in three weeks.

 

[ajmrowland]

Did anyone else remember the line, "The South shall rise again!"?

Back on topic. If conflict was to start and I was pretty much forced to take a side, I'd have to side with Freedom. I mean, I come from a family that has had a lot of soldiers. I would have been one of them if it wasn't for certain health issues. So I understand the concept of having to fight for freedom. And if you fight, you give up your own safety. That's how I view that concept anyways.

Except for the fact that our massive army is already a branch of a free country, and that the citizens of many other countries have openly shunned our brand of liberation whether or not they side with their own government. And we are often messing up International relations by making big mistakes with regard to military conduct.


No offense is meant, of course.

 

[Phoenix]

You people have this idealistic view of war (I'd fight on this/that side). War is awful. It's not cool or heroic or patriotic. Sometimes it is necessary, but Americans aren't being shot at by their own government like the protesters at Syria were. War is not guns and explosions. War is rape, torture, kidnapping, lost limbs, trauma.

And guess what? There's no good guys in war. That's why the Allies bombed Dresden. That's why a Syrian rebel ate a soldier's heart. That's why the Rape of Berlin happened, and was as bad as the Rape of Nanking.

 

[ajmrowland]

^you're far from the only one here who thinks that.