I heard of a poll that just came out stating that 31% of people surveyed believes that we are on the brink of another civil war. While I don't believe that for a minute, that concern doesn't surprise me with the hatred of Trump spewed by the MSM on a daily basis.
Civil war would mean a lot of deaths, and while leftists are extremely violent people, I just can't see it.
The announcement today of Kennedy leaving the court to spend the rest of his days fishing has probably made record alcohol sales in liberal cities and states, I still don't see the left getting violent enough to start this war. However..........
Would this be more of a reality if something happened to Justice Ginsburg? She is an elderly lady and certainly more prone to illness or death than any other Justice; not that I'm hoping for such a thing. But would such an unfortunate incident make this so-called civil war more of a reality in the US?
The media is a mind controlling machine. Another new poll came out that said 51% approve of the Trump economy. My only question was, WTF are these other 49% that think the economy isn't doing great? Brainwashing media.
The followup question after reading the OP would be, what would the progressive left fight this war with? It seems more than a few of them abhor guns, are somehow scared of them it seems... I duno?
Cons are 'brave' to walk into a Burber King in some small town in Alabama with a rifle over their shoulder.
You've never seen one do that in Chicago, or Detroit, or anywhere else people are armed. Because conservatives are cowards that feel puffed up when they scare women and children in a restaurant, but they are far too cowardly to walk down the street of some place where people also have guns on them and aren't afraid to use them.
Conservatives your bravado is phony bullshit and you know it. You don't think liberals own guns? LOL Good, you keep that fantasy in your head.
Thanks for your insight and personal take on the matter. There is also the argument that being obviously conspicuous for the point of stirring up fear is not exactly advisable... lol CCF are more appropriate for the urban and suburban landscape as the whole point is; not to draw attention, not to cause fear, to be prepared situationally in the natural confluence of events.
This hearkens back to the 'affray' laws of the 14th century Europe which were adopted by the early colonists in New England. An insightful paper on this for any interested in the early genesis of some of our current laws.
file:///C:/Users/chris/AppData/Local/Temp/SSRN-id2675621.pdf
2 Moore v Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th. Cir. 2012)(“ Some weapons do not terrify the public (such as wellconcealed weapons), and so if the statute was (as it may have been) intended to protect the public from being frightened or intimidated by the brandishing of weapons, it could not have applied to all weapons or all carriage of weapons. Blackstone's summary of the statute is similar: "the offence of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land." 4 Commentaries on the Law of England 148-49 (1769) (emphasis added).”) State v. Dawson, 159 SE2d 1, 7 (N.C. 1968)(“ Blackstone states that `the offense of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edward III, ch. 3, upon pain of forfeiture of the arms, and imprisonment during the King's pleasure.' … Hawkins, treating of offenses against the public peace under the head of `Affrays,' pointedly remarks, `but granting that no bare words in judgment of law carry in them so much terror as to amount to an affray, yet it seems certain that in some cases there may be an affray, where there is no actual violence, as where a man arms himself with dangerous and unusual weapons in such a manner as will naturally cause a terror to the people, which is said to have been always an offense at common law and strictly prohibited by many statutes.'”) footnotes deleted; U.S. v. Greeno, 679 F.3d 510, 519 (6th Cir. 2012)(“ At common law, the right to keep and bear arms was not unlimited. For example, there was a historical tradition prohibiting the possession of dangerous or unusual weapons.”) Peruta v.County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144. 1154 (“Although Blackstone elsewhere described a fourteenth-century English statute that forbad the "riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons," that prohibition was understood to cover carriage of uncommon, frightening weapons only.”) State v. Moyle, 705 P.2d 740, 752 (Oe. 1985)(“ The recognition at common law of the social value in providing citizens a sense of personal security was reflected in such offenses as "affray" and "riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons" which were proscribed because of their "tendency to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the community" and "to terrify the king's subjects."”) Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Derpt., 775 F.3d 308, 319, 320 (6th Cir. 2014)(“ Similarly, Blackstone described how the "offence of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people 320*320 of the land, and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edw. III, c. 3." Id. at *149.”); State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. (4 Ired.) 418 (N.C. 1843)(“ Robert S. Huntly… did arm himself with pistols, guns, knives and other dangerous and unusual weapons and, being so armed, did go forth and exhibit himself openly, both in the day time and in the night, to the good citizens of Anson.”
3 William Blackstone , 2 COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 110 (1838).
By the sounds of it 'touchy' subject matter for you... lol
