Just a field trip by the people. Why are you getting all excited over it?
Not to mention Wakes and Scotland, which are part of the UK- mostly.
Spain, also. They even have a Senate much like ours, or so wiki says.
Not even close. Sine 44% of US Households report owning a gun. And about half of gun owners are Democrats.
Cite?
Meh. Only 44% IDed as Republicans. 20% as Dems. But that leaves a huge % that didn’t say. I stand by my guess.
But this should not turn into yet another gun control debate.
We can accord this as much credibility as it deserves.
Okay, and how about your claim that 90% of Gun Owners would consider the Oklahoma City bombing to be a false flag operation? Cite?
Only 44% of Gun owners are GOPers per your own cite.
You appear to be reading statistics wrong.
I can’t envision a full-scale armed civil war in America today. It would be over before it started.
The national balance of fire-power is much different today from what existed during the American Civil War. The side not in control of military personnel and assets would be quickly subdued by the side that has them. I believe only rogue nutters would not anticipate the power imbalance and act accordingly (i.e. surrender immediately, or go for the quick win). Assault rifles and homemade bombs are no match for AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, Hellfire missiles and military snipers.
Constitutionally, not the same as US / Canada / Aus / India / Germany.
Scotland and Wales don’t have constitutionally guaranteed status. Their devolved powers come from an ordinary statute of the British Parliament, which could in theory be unilaterally amended or repealed by the British Parliament.
Highly unlikely, politically, but not the same as the constitutionally entrenched existence and powers of the states / provinces / Länder.
You are assuming that the armed forces pick a side and the chain of command holds. That’s often not what happens in a civil war.
Especially if the civilian command is not respected by the majority of the rank and file and even the officers at every level.
That’s possible, but I don’t think it’s probable. It may not be certain which side the military would side with in the beginning, but I believe it would align cohesively to one side or the other. The strategists would anticipate the deadly futility of splintering into the minority side. And, if a few splinters did arise, they would be quelled quickly by the majority. I just don’t see the military dividing into 2 equal branches.
I mean, personally, I think that the most likely thing to happen is a collapse of our government and society and then a bunch of fighting over the scraps, as we cannot get out of this suicide pact.
No big military actions, just a bunch of people squabbling over the ashes of a once proud civilization.
They certainly do a number on unsuspecting churches and schools though.
Yes, they do. And lone nutter terrorists can’t really be stopped effectively. But, if the nutters tried to organize into one side of a civil war, that can be exploited and fought effectively by the side with the military, IMHO.
Asymmetric warfare’s a real pain, as we can see by our recent failed attempts at military conquests in the Middle East.
They won’t go up against the military, they know that’s suicide. But they will kill lots of innocent civilians and destroy lots of infrastructure.
Those who claim that the reason that they need guns is to fight a tyrannical government will not be using those guns to fight the government they disagree with, but rather to attack soft targets and kill civilians.
Exactly. Anytime the military is involved it’s because the resistance has made a mistake. You’ll still have predator drones loitering over your neighborhood occasionally. Maybe that guy you wave to while he walks his dog is a colonel in the resistance, and they’re still restrained enough to wait for the kids to be out before blowing him up. Maybe he’s just an innocent guy with the same name and birthday as a colonel in the resistance.
Soft targets are also going to include local government officials and the police. This will in turn increase government brutality against everyone.
All we’ve been talking about is political related reasons for civil war. Climate will play a part, too. How is any region of the US going to respond to millions of climate refugees who are US citizens? What is Ohio going to do when 4 million Californians show up looking for a drink of water?
You said war; the events of January 6th don’t meet anyone’s rational definition of “war”.
Whose stuff? The military? It’s not 1861. The possibility of the military being split up is basically zero, as other people have said here. It will go one way or another. It’s too big. Now there could be a coup there, a Putin like figure, but that’s NOT civil war.
That leaves you with terrorism. Against who? People are going to learn to shut up real quick about politics if that becomes an issue, and how do you tell otherwise who’s on your side. You’re not organized NOW, it’s just a bunch of Internet shouting. Once bullets fly, there aren’t going to be any sides, just a bunch of random shooting and bombing. I don’t call that civil war, it’s terrorism.
The crazy thing is, that what the Founders thought they were doing: They thought that the House would be the quicker-acting, more responsive body, and so they gave what they thought was the greater power to the House.
Although I’m still not sure that I’d say that the Senate is quicker to action, in the current climate. Rather, I’d say that it’s quicker to inaction. Want government to be a dysfunctional mess that doesn’t accomplish anything? Presto, the Senate’s got you covered. Want to actually do some good? That’s rather a bit harder.
A lot of people see a symmetry here that just isn’t present, and think that left and right alike are both the result of bubbles. And it’s true, for instance, that a person who interacts with a lot of liberals will probably end up being a liberal. But it’s also true that a person who interacts with a lot of conservatives will probably end up being a liberal. The person who’s likely to end up as a conservative is the person who doesn’t interact with a lot of any people. Rural people live in bubbles. Urban people can’t, because we’re surrounded by and constantly interact with too many other people.
If they had gotten through just one more door, then we would have been in a full state of war come January 7.
It doesn’t meet your definition. I’ve been in three wars and it meets my definition.