The Civil War Of 2016: U.S. Military Officers Told To Plan To Fight Americans...

[rightwinger]

What does this mean?

The supreme law of the land

How do you arrest someone for violating the second amendment?

What does
The supreme law of the land mean?

You did not answer the question. If the second amendment is a law, how do you prosecute someone for it? How is it implemented? How is it enforced?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How do you arrest someone for violating the second amendment?

What does
The supreme law of the land mean?

You did not answer the question. If the second amendment is a law, how do you prosecute someone for it? How is it implemented? How is it enforced?

I'm not answering your stupid question, their is no answer for your question because the Constitution says it's the supreme law of the land, and you can't get pass that.

 

[Synthaholic]

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.http://www.drudgereport.com/

How ******* stupid.

Why would you need the Armed Forces to dislodge a bunch of diabetes-ridden, fat White retirees?

I'm sure that South Carolina LE is up to the task, along with the FBI.

 

[rightwinger]

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.http://www.drudgereport.com/

How ******* stupid.

Why would you need the Armed Forces to dislodge a bunch of diabetes-ridden, fat White retirees?

I'm sure that South Carolina LE is up to the task, along with the FBI.

Andy and Barney may have to call in Goober

 

[The Gadfly]

$$$$$$

Yeah, which we both know means nothing, if they cannot use the money to buy arms equivalent to those you unconstitutionally deprived them of. By the time the SCOTUS ruled against you, the firearms dealers would be out of business, the government and law enforcement would have contracts for all domestic production, and you'd use U.N. small arms treaties to prevent importation. It would cost you, but the American people would be disarmed, and totally at the mercy of government, a trade any statist would be happy to make. Slick, but utterly transparent, which is why, if you try it, you'll likely have widespread resistance to contend with. That resistance would not have to be violent; it could range from hiding weapons, to passive resistance to all voluntary cooperation with government (the path I prefer). What are you going to do, when the people figure out that no more than 30-40% of us can bring the country to a screeching halt? What; you thought only the Left paid attention to what can be done with large-scale civil disobedience? There's more than one way to fight you people. The Left in America has some built-in vulnerabilities, and I can assure you there are people who have put considerable thought into how to exploit those for maximum effect, if we really need to; and I don't think even people like Jake will obey orders to shoot unarmed people. (I KNOW I wouldn't!) Your and Obama's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is far from a done deal.

Save me from your hypothetical pity party.

First of all, our current political structure and supreme court interpretation prevents any gun legislation from passing. Secondly, there are 200 million guns in circulation. Confiscation would be impossible

You posed an unlikely hypothetical situation about what would happen if your guns were unconstitutionally taken away. I responded with what your rights are as a citizen

Your paranoid rant about evil Obama taking away your precious guns is pathetic

I think what I outlined is very much what many so-called "progressives" would LIKE to do. That is the logical conclusion to the line of thinking you've displayed here. Whether they actually COULD do it is of course another matter. The reality is, that such a move would fail for the same reason a revolt from either end of the political spectrum would fail: at present our society is split pretty much evenly (as I expect the coming election will show; whichever side wins, it will be by a narrow margin).It's quite difficult for any drastic action, whether by a faction of government or a faction of the population, to succeed without overwhelming popular sympathy, if not outright support.

The truth in that last sentence above is what makes this whole debate about using imposition of martial law to crush a small domestic revolt a pile of rubbish. A petty revolt like that in the scenario outlined in the article referenced in the OP could not sustain itself in the current climate. Unless it were especially violent, it would burn itself out in a matter of days with little or any bloodshed. Unless it is creating casualties, the most desirable objective is to contain it until it collapses. That's fundamentally a law enforcement problem, not a problem requiring the use of military force the same way military force is used abroad (which is precisely what Col. Benson and Ms. Webb advocated in their article). Our military are not a police force, and no one in his right mind wants to use martial law in an American town or city, except in the gravest extreme. Using the military otherwise presents the risk of having military forces producing unnecessary bloodshed on our own soil, with popular outrage the inevitable result. The amount of public anger over the actions of the ATF and FBI at Waco should give everyone a small example; imagine how much worse the reaction would have been, had that been done by our Armed Forces instead. For that matter, Imagine what would have happened, had the National Guard shooting at Kent State been repeated on college campuses all across the nation-far from quelling a potential uprising, something like that would have generated considerable sympathy for an even larger one. Excessive force, however tempting to some, however expedient it may appear, is something the American people instinctively dislike and distrust. It's the reason paramilitary style law enforcement action draws so much public fire. Whether such actions actually ARE bad, they LOOK bad, and are easily perceived as illegitimate; moral considerations aside, that is simply counterproductive.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah, which we both know means nothing, if they cannot use the money to buy arms equivalent to those you unconstitutionally deprived them of. By the time the SCOTUS ruled against you, the firearms dealers would be out of business, the government and law enforcement would have contracts for all domestic production, and you'd use U.N. small arms treaties to prevent importation. It would cost you, but the American people would be disarmed, and totally at the mercy of government, a trade any statist would be happy to make. Slick, but utterly transparent, which is why, if you try it, you'll likely have widespread resistance to contend with. That resistance would not have to be violent; it could range from hiding weapons, to passive resistance to all voluntary cooperation with government (the path I prefer). What are you going to do, when the people figure out that no more than 30-40% of us can bring the country to a screeching halt? What; you thought only the Left paid attention to what can be done with large-scale civil disobedience? There's more than one way to fight you people. The Left in America has some built-in vulnerabilities, and I can assure you there are people who have put considerable thought into how to exploit those for maximum effect, if we really need to; and I don't think even people like Jake will obey orders to shoot unarmed people. (I KNOW I wouldn't!) Your and Obama's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is far from a done deal.

Save me from your hypothetical pity party.

First of all, our current political structure and supreme court interpretation prevents any gun legislation from passing. Secondly, there are 200 million guns in circulation. Confiscation would be impossible

You posed an unlikely hypothetical situation about what would happen if your guns were unconstitutionally taken away. I responded with what your rights are as a citizen

Your paranoid rant about evil Obama taking away your precious guns is pathetic

I think what I outlined is very much what many so-called "progressives" would LIKE to do. That is the logical conclusion to the line of thinking you've displayed here. Whether they actually COULD do it is of course another matter. The reality is, that such a move would fail for the same reason a revolt from either end of the political spectrum would fail: at present our society is split pretty much evenly (as I expect the coming election will show; whichever side wins, it will be by a narrow margin).It's quite difficult for any drastic action, whether by a faction of government or a faction of the population, to succeed without overwhelming popular sympathy, if not outright support.

The truth in that last sentence above is what makes this whole debate about using imposition of martial law to crush a small domestic revolt a pile of rubbish. A petty revolt like that in the scenario outlined in the article referenced in the OP could not sustain itself in the current climate. Unless it were especially violent, it would burn itself out in a matter of days with little or any bloodshed. Unless it is creating casualties, the most desirable objective is to contain it until it collapses. That's fundamentally a law enforcement problem, not a problem requiring the use of military force the same way military force is used abroad (which is precisely what Col. Benson and Ms. Webb advocated in their article). Our military are not a police force, and no one in his right mind wants to use martial law in an American town or city, except in the gravest extreme. Using the military otherwise presents the risk of having military forces producing unnecessary bloodshed on our own soil, with popular outrage the inevitable result. The amount of public anger over the actions of the ATF and FBI at Waco should give everyone a small example; imagine how much worse the reaction would have been, had that been done by our Armed Forces instead. For that matter, Imagine what would have happened, had the National Guard shooting at Kent State been repeated on college campuses all across the nation-far from quelling a potential uprising, something like that would have generated considerable sympathy for an even larger one. Excessive force, however tempting to some, however expedient it may appear, is something the American people instinctively dislike and distrust. It's the reason paramilitary style law enforcement action draws so much public fire. Whether such actions actually ARE bad, they LOOK bad, and are easily perceived as illegitimate; moral considerations aside, that is simply counterproductive.

You're wasting your time with that one.

 

[rightwinger]

Gun Rights, like Abortion is here to stay

Each side would like to step up restrictions and some on the fringe may want an outright ban.......but it ain't gunna happen

Hypothetical extremist revolutionary scenarios make a nice diversion but Americans are too fat and lazy to actually follow through

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gun Rights, like Abortion is here to stay

Each side would like to step up restrictions and some on the fringe may want an outright ban.......but it ain't gunna happen

Hypothetical extremist revolutionary scenarios make a nice diversion but Americans are too fat and lazy to actually follow through

Thing about abortion it's affects two people. but hell you can't comprehend that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land how would you be able to understand abortion.

 

[The Gadfly]

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.http://www.drudgereport.com/

How ******* stupid.

Why would you need the Armed Forces to dislodge a bunch of diabetes-ridden, fat White retirees?

I'm sure that South Carolina LE is up to the task, along with the FBI.

Andy and Barney may have to call in Goober

I hate to burst your bubble, but we do have some very professional law enforcement agencies down here, your stereotypical view notwithstanding.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

Gun Rights, like Abortion is here to stay

Each side would like to step up restrictions and some on the fringe may want an outright ban.......but it ain't gunna happen

Hypothetical extremist revolutionary scenarios make a nice diversion but Americans are too fat and lazy to actually follow through

Thing about abortion it's affects two people. but hell you can't comprehend that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land how would you be able to understand abortion.

says blithering idiot

 

[rightwinger]

How ******* stupid.

Why would you need the Armed Forces to dislodge a bunch of diabetes-ridden, fat White retirees?

I'm sure that South Carolina LE is up to the task, along with the FBI.

Andy and Barney may have to call in Goober

I hate to burst your bubble, but we do have some very professional law enforcement agencies down here, your stereotypical view notwithstanding.

Don't you know that Andy and Barney are from NORTH Carolina? You know what hicks they are

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gun Rights, like Abortion is here to stay

Each side would like to step up restrictions and some on the fringe may want an outright ban.......but it ain't gunna happen

Hypothetical extremist revolutionary scenarios make a nice diversion but Americans are too fat and lazy to actually follow through

Thing about abortion it's affects two people. but hell you can't comprehend that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land how would you be able to understand abortion.

says blithering idiot

Take your foot out of your mouth
What will the thing inside a mother become when born? Fish horse dog cat bird or human?
And as the Constitution being the supreme law of the land it's written in the Constitution that way. So as I said remove your foot from your mouth.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Andy and Barney may have to call in Goober

I hate to burst your bubble, but we do have some very professional law enforcement agencies down here, your stereotypical view notwithstanding.

Don't you know that Andy and Barney are from NORTH Carolina? You know what hicks they are

Don Knotts was born at Morgantown, WV
At lest this hick knows the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and your stupid to try an argue that it isn't.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

bigreb, you are a moron...you can talk all day long to anybody you want, but you are a moron

sorry

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb, you are a moron...you can talk all day long to anybody you want, but you are a moron

sorry

I'm laughing my ass off at your stupid shit. Really don't stop.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

bigreb, you are a moron...you can talk all day long to anybody you want, but you are a moron

sorry

I'm laughing my ass off at your stupid shit. Really don't stop.

Speaking of going backwards, you and J Edgar, pretty happy about murdering MLK Jr are you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb, you are a moron...you can talk all day long to anybody you want, but you are a moron

sorry

I'm laughing my ass off at your stupid shit. Really don't stop.

Speaking of going backwards, you and J Edgar, pretty happy about murdering MLK Jr are you?

OK short bus where exactly =was I wrong?
Constitution the supreme law of the land
unborn human child will be a human.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Everyday you prove that anti-evolution is a fact: you get more stupid.

Gun Rights, like Abortion is here to stay

Each side would like to step up restrictions and some on the fringe may want an outright ban.......but it ain't gunna happen

Hypothetical extremist revolutionary scenarios make a nice diversion but Americans are too fat and lazy to actually follow through

Thing about abortion it's affects two people. but hell you can't comprehend that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land how would you be able to understand abortion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution is not a law. It is a document or charter of governance. Congress uses it as a guide to create law.

Abortion and gun rights are facts of the 21st century: neither will be banned.

I'm laughing my ass off at your stupid shit. Really don't stop.

Speaking of going backwards, you and J Edgar, pretty happy about murdering MLK Jr are you?

OK short bus where exactly =was I wrong?
Constitution the supreme law of the land
unborn human child will be a human.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution is not a law. It is a document or charter of governance. Congress uses it as a guide to create law.

Abortion and gun rights are facts of the 21st century: neither will be banned.

Speaking of going backwards, you and J Edgar, pretty happy about murdering MLK Jr are you?

OK short bus where exactly =was I wrong?
Constitution the supreme law of the land
unborn human child will be a human.

Why do you like to get ***** slapped?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land article 6 of the Constitution says so and your opinion does not override the Constitution.