America's Second Civil War

^I agree. While I understand people getting angry, I just can't get worked up enough to use violence the way so many people do.

Video of a TV preacher saying how he believes a second civil war could happen at the link. https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post...tias-in-preparation-for-the-coming-civil-war/

It'll only happen at the link?

Well, at least it'll be well contained. That's a relief.

Preachers are no different than historians and climate scientists (and most others). They want their work to have real world, modern day relevance.

Lying for the cause now? Thanks, I have seen the videos where they call reporters Nazis for no reason simply because they want to do their jobs. Your bull shit lies just don’t sell any more.

No... just my in person observations having actually been there.

Y'know, witnessing rather than observing after the fact.

Don't go confusing partisan videographers with reporters... hell, half of the yellow backs, umm, vests, are there for their Youtube channel to have fresh content. Not surprisingly, they tend to be some of the loudest agitators between "interviews".

I'd also add that when the righties do attack, it's rarely even odds, let alone an individual match up, and they go after to softer looking targets.

Me and mine are some of the few on that side of the fences who are there for the potential violence... although mostly to protect our more vulnerable friends-i.e. literal little old ladies such as Mother Maggie from St Steph's (mainly because they've publicly targeted her and the church in the past, but that's a longer story). Most of the antifa kids are just that, kids, and frankly a liability in a proper brawl.

Seems to me that you might be the one short on honesty here.

Ah yes, the ‘reporter’ Ngo.

My side?

And sell an idea?

There's a key difference though that neither side would disregard, faith and empirical evidence are not one and the same.

That isn't an attempt to devalue either, far from it, but it would be disingenuous to dismiss any underlying distinctions between the nature of science and religion.

Scientists and other experts can and have been wrong in the past Spot.

People love to say that "97% of scientists believe in manmade climate change".
As someone said recently, "not too long ago, 97% of doctors believed that a babies should sleep on their stomachs".

Now of course that is no longer true and in fact a baby sleeping on their stomach presents its own set of hazards. For what it's worth Annalee slept on her back for her entire infancy.

I miss being father of a baby or toddler.

Clearly, the most plausible scenario for Civil War II is an incel uprising. They'll defeat the Chads and then be all like "It's not fair that women still won't fuck me. There aren't any Chads left and I'm a war hero."

Actually no. One of the Nazis I know tells me that any minute now, all the brown people are going to finally be fed up with white people's bullshit and start a race war. Then, all the conservatives will be like "we were secretly Nazis this whole time but were just hiding it for social acceptance," and all the white liberals will be all "well shit, the Nazi's were right all along" and join them, then all the white people will will easily defeat the brown people, liberalism will be a thing of the past, and we'll all live happily ever after in a fascist utopia. Obviously, this is the most plausible scenario anyone could imagine.

I'm hoping what happens is that all the extremist groups get militant and wipe each other out, and then those of us who are left will be like "now that's done with can we all be reasonable and work together to make things better?" and everyone will be all "I don't see why not." That won't happen though because, Earth...

Being wrong isn't a flaw in science, it's a part of the process. Hypothesis formation and testing requires disproving false hypotheses.

That's how it works and no one has claimed it's infallible.

Nonetheless there is a fundamental difference in type and purpose between faith and empirical evidence.

There is a difference between the use of scientific method and herd mentality.

Are you really suggesting that 97% of the scientists in the world have come to identical conclusions about climate change due to use of the scientific method by each of them?

"Shane Kohfield stood outside the home of Portland’s mayor in July wearing body armor and a “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, a large knife strapped to one shoulder and a copy of his concealed weapons permit displayed on the other"

give up the dream Marine! Hollywood will not cast you in the next Rambo movie, nor continue the franchise with you as Rambo when Sly passes away.

Who said they came to "identical conclusions"?

We're talking about thousands of completely different replicable experiments and data sets coalesced from unrelated fields which all act consistently as pieces of a increasingly clear puzzle.

Are you seriously suggesting that 97% of the scientists in the world have conducted experimentation regarding the theory of man caused climate change?

Megan McCain, Erik Erickson, and some others have vowed there would be bloodshed if the government ever took any action to reduce the number of high powered rifles in private hands so...

Maybe they are wrong but that strikes me as the most likely spark if it comes to widespread violence. I don't know that you could call it a civil war, at least initially, but maybe some sort of guerrilla war for a time - the question would be this:

Let's say a progressive president gets in and somehow gets a mandatory buyback similar to Beto's proposal through Congress...and the 2A warriors do get violent about it - what does the government of the state of MS, AL, TN, KY, OK, et al do then? Which side do they take?

At a minimum, you'd be looking at conflict equal to the worst of the resistance to desegregation.

Er, no, you did?

This fact in itself is possibly the strongest argument for going ahead. When someone promises, plans or commits acts of violence as a means of influencing politics there's a very specific word for it.

Terrorism.

"Buybacks" always offer an insultingly low price, typically around $250 per gun. They are there to get guns away from poor people. And door to door gun confiscations are going to go poorly. It'll be the go sign for preppers, who'll retreat to their middle of nowhere bunkers, while the wiser gun owners will have "lost everything in a tragic boating accident". Will there be bloodshed? Yes. What happens when the national guard and the police either refuse to do it, or start gunning down civilians who resist? What happens if a militia forms that out numbers the police/ng? Will buttigeg/harris/warren/whoever try to order the military to attack civilians? That would end well, surely.

Best approach would be simply to stop selling as the first point of call and let the number of illegal guns dwindle as law enforcement keep on doing what they already are but leave the existing legal ones out there. Public opinion is already shifting steadily towards stricter gun controls and stopping ammunition sales would tend to de normalise the routine usage for recreation. There'll come a point at which private gun ownership is essentially seen by the general population as being anachronistic, much as it is in most of the developed world.

Sure, it's that simple. Just make guns and ammo illegal and they will simply fade away. Yeah, criminals who wont disarm will have pretty much free reign among the populace for a decade ot two as they weed themselves out, but there will be no other societal reprocussions otherwise.

Liar. Your fearmongering is just awful. Oh the criminals are going to rape me. Go fuck yourself coward. No one wants to rape your ass, and no one wants your broke dick shit. There will not be any criminal uprising because your cowardly ass does not have a gun. Get a better security blanket because your gun isn't helping when you piss yourself at any sign of conflict and leave a brown streak longer than ted nugent after getting a draft notice.

You know the bit where I said "but leave the existing legal ones out there"?

Anyway, please substantiate your assertion that a disarmed population is at greater risk.

Doubt it would come to that.

First, a ban isn't likely to make it through Congress. It didn't even get started during Obama's first two years when he had both houses.

If it did, there would be immediate court challenges, both on 2nd Amendment and 4th Amendment grounds.

If the ban somehow survived those, there would be massive non-compliance.

There would be a movement to amend the Constitution to counter the ban. And it would galvanize the pro-2nd community into action.

Clinton lost his Congress largely because of a mere manufacturing ban (which itself had little practical impact). If the government actually sought confiscation? Things could get real ugly.

Have to admit I don't see confiscation working outright, but just to be clear:

Threatening or carrying out violence to gain a political end is terrorism.

So it's settled then....

Antifa are terrorists

What point do you think you’re making?

Yes.

Never claimed otherwise.

things have changed since Clinton.