Civil war if Hillary wins?

[nigel99 484]

First off, I loath how America holds its self up as the shining light of democracy. I know Jesus and Aristotle were both from the Deep South (democracy started in Athens Georgia right?)

I've been shocked at the whacko statements that have come out during this election. I do think that Trump has a significant genuine following in the USA, and one Californian that I work with has stated that IF Hillary wins there will probably be armed uprisings in the South with people believing that she is out to remove the 2nd amendment. He believes that she will attempt to do this and so is voting Trump.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[gowlerk 2,205]

HRC is unlikely to waste her limited political capital tilting against that windmill. People like to spout rhetoric about it though. And they like to spout empty threats and prediction of chaos if they don't get their way as well.

There is only slightly more chance of revolution brought on by her policies than there is of the end times beginning. She is and will be in the end a moderate and pragmatic leader.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[crazydaisy315 0]

Lots of people have their knickers in a twist over the 2nd amendment. They've been screaming that BHO is coming for their guns for the last 8 years, and so far, not one gun has been taken from even one lunatic, let alone anyone remotely showing anything like responsible gun ownership.

It makes lots of money for the NRA and the manufacturers though. And as all know money = speech.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

crazydaisy315

Lots of people have their knickers in a twist over the 2nd amendment. They've been screaming that BHO is coming for their guns for the last 8 years, and so far, not one gun has been taken from even one lunatic, let alone anyone remotely showing anything like responsible gun ownership.

It makes lots of money for the NRA and the manufacturers though. And as all know money = speech.

Yup and all those same people seem to be convinced that this situation is exactly what the 2nd amendment was put in place to prevent. A potential rogue government.

Yet none will actually do anything.

Bunch of pussies

[gowlerk 2,205]

Quote

Yet none will actually do anything.

They will stamp their feet and wave their hands in the air. A few will send emails to each other with evil talk. The NSA will sniff them out and then the FBI will come for them. That's how the police state starts. Unless of course Trump wins. Then the police state will begin immediately.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,998]

> The NSA will sniff them out and then the FBI will come for them.

Yep. After 9/11 we have a huge state apparatus for dealing with terrorism, and they are itching for something to do . . . .

[yoink 321]

I'd be fine with a Southern uprising.

Let them split off and form their own independent country. We could even build a wall around them. And get them to pay for it.

[quade 4]

I'm reasonably certain it's just as likely there would be civil unrest if Trump won and I think it could be started by people emboldened by it.

The night of November 8th has some really bad potential. I hope people hold it together and don't do stupid shit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

nigel99

First off, I loath how America holds its self up as the shining light of democracy. I know Jesus and Aristotle were both from the Deep South (democracy started in Athens Georgia right?)

I've been shocked at the whacko statements that have come out during this election. I do think that Trump has a significant genuine following in the USA, and one Californian that I work with has stated that IF Hillary wins there will probably be armed uprisings in the South with people believing that she is out to remove the 2nd amendment. He believes that she will attempt to do this and so is voting Trump.

Bolding mine.

HRC has said lots of things about guns. Mostly not in favor of gun rights. She's said that both Heller and MacDonald were wrong, that the 2nd doesn't apply to individuals. She has said she'd like "Australian style" regulation, which means outlawing all semi auto shotguns and rifles, confiscating them and destroying them. She has said that she would like to abolish the NRA.

But saying those things and actually doing them are two totally different propositions.
Obama has said virtually the same things (not sure if he's proposed abolishing the NRA).
His count of successful attempts at gun control legislation is...

Zero.

His count of attempts at gun control legislation is...

One.

After the aftermath of the Assault Weapons Ban in 96, most politicians realized the danger of proposing gun control legislation. Amazingly, they don't seem to have forgotten it.

Even after the tragedy at Sandy Hook, they didn't do anything. Similar incidents led to sweeping bans in the UK, Canada and Australia (see above about "Australian style" gun control).

I really don't like HRC. I won't vote for her. But I don't really fear her going after gun rights. Even if she stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun types, they tend not to overturn previous SC rulings unless they were extraordinarily bad (Dred Scott is one). They accept the precedent even when they don't like it.

I also don't worry about any sort of "uprising". As was noted, any sort of organizing to that end would not go unnoticed by the authorities. And if it was serious, it would be addressed.

The type of douchebag that talks about that sort of revolution is exactly the type that wouldn't have the balls to stand up (in person) against authority. They are great at posting shit on line, and talking at the bar, and all that. But when push comes to shove, they would most likely submit to what ever authority came after them.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Bolas 5]

yoink

I'd be fine with a Southern uprising.

Let them split off and form their own independent country. We could even build a wall around them. And get them to pay for it.

Tried that. Didn't work.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[TriGirl 319]

nigel99

... and one Californian that I work with has stated that IF Hillary wins ... people believing that she is out to remove the 2nd amendment.

I wouldn't say anyone wants to remove the 2nd Amendment. Just to apply it as written:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't take it in the common view, focusing on "Militia." Instead, I focus on "well regulated," regardless of the definition of militia. If you want to apply the second fragment of the article, "being necessary to the security of a free State," could be interpreted to say the well regulated gun ownership is exercised so the people can help keep the peace. The security WITHIN that free State, not just the integrity of the borders OF the State. That covers what many extreme gun fanatics claim they want to keep their guns to do -- protect their property, families, personal safety, etc. So how is it unconstitutional to impose and enforce the REGULATIONS for responsible gun ownership?

So, Nigel, now you have another argument for your nutter coworker to talk him back off the ledge.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[quade 4]

wolfriverjoe

The type of douchebag that talks about that sort of revolution is exactly the type that wouldn't have the balls to stand up (in person) against authority. They are great at posting shit on line, and talking at the bar, and all that. But when push comes to shove, they would most likely submit to what ever authority came after them.

The problem is even if we're being generous and assume a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of anyone doing anything stupid, that still means there are 321 people in the US who might do something incredibly stupid.

As we've seen before, all it really takes is one person to light the match and quite a few others will go along.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Except "well regulated" in the context of the way it was written, and the language of the times, does not mean "subject to lots of rules and regulations."

It means "operating properly".

Why would they mean "subject to lots of rules and regulations" in the part about the militia, then write "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" at the end.

Lots of rules and regulations tend to infringe rights.

This isn't to say that I think that there should not be any rules on guns. Even the Supreme Court in Heller said there can be reasonable ones without "infringement."

It's just that I don't see the meaning of "well regulated" the same as you do.

Edit to add:

I don't focus on the "milita" part of it either. I focus on the "People" part.

And to address the reply that popped up while I was writing this:

I wouldn't worry about '321 fools' that overreact. While 'groupthink' can be very powerful, and once things get rolling, they can be veryhard to stop, if a bunch of idiots try something violent, they will be taken down pretty hard.

Look at the lunatics who decided to go out and "hunt down some cops".

EVERY ONE died. None were taken into custody alive. One was even blown up by a robot (Dallas). You think that isn't an object lesson?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Bolas 5]

quade

I'm reasonably certain it's just as likely there would be civil unrest if Trump won and I think it could be started by people emboldened by it.

The night of November 8th has some really bad potential. I hope people hold it together and don't do stupid shit.

Or those opposed to his win. Some aren't waiting for the results.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/north-carolina-gop-office-vandalized/

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[tonyhays 86]

Who says it was people opposed to him that did this? Just as much evidence saying it was his supporters doing it to take the focus off his stupidity....which is to say zero evidence.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[TriGirl 319]

wolfriverjoe

But saying those things and actually doing them are two totally different propositions.

Kind of the same argument Trump supporters like to throw out there when confronted with the more outrageous campaign promises Mr. Trump has made ("oh, he doesn't actually mean he'll do that"). Not sure why it's okay to dismiss half the things Mr. Trump claims he'll do while touting the radical political shake-up he also claims. What puts one claim into the "well, he won't actually DO that" bin, and another claim into the "he's going to do such great things for this country!" bin?

At least now we have the same assessment for beliefs about Sec. Clinton -- if they believe she'll try to take away everyone's guns, then why wouldn't they accept that premise being tossed into the "well, she won't actually do THAT" bin?

(Yeah, I know -- the question is rhetorical)

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Iago

******
But saying those things and actually doing theym are two totally different propositions.

Kind of the same argument Trump supporters like to throw out there when confronted with the more outrageous campaign promises Mr. Trump has made ("oh, he doesn't actually mean he'll do that"). Not sure why it's okay to dismiss half the things Mr. Trump claims he'll do while touting the radical political shake-up he also claims. What puts one claim into the "well, he won't actually DO that" bin, and another claim into the "he's going to do such great things for this country!" bin?

At least now we have the same assessment for beliefs about Sec. Clinton -- if they believe she'll try to take away everyone's guns, then why wouldn't they accept that premise being tossed into the "well, she won't actually do THAT" bin?

(Yeah, I know -- the question is rhetorical)

Well that's a pretty good point. They both say they'll do things they know will never happen to energize part of their base and get votes.

Well, motivating the base and getting votes is part of it.

Another part is that she probably does want to do those things. Maybe not "prohibition, confiscation and destruction" of all semi auto long guns, but I don't doubt she would like to get stricter legislation. She may even try to do it.

I think (I haven't had an opportunity to ask him personally, you know ) that Obama really wanted stronger gun control. He was not a politician back in the 90s, so he may not have understood how bad an idea it was. After the battle to get the ACA passed, I think he had learned a very difficult and expensive lesson (not "$" expensive) on pushing through legislation that half the country was against. So he decided it was unrealistic to push gun control through.
Then, after the tragedy at Sandy Hook, he saw that there was significant, vocal support for controls. And, as I pointed out, a history of successful gun controls in the aftermath of this type of tragedy.

But he failed to understand the "grassroots" power of the gun rights crowd. They don't just sit on the sidelines and shout. They act. They write their legislators. And they vote. And the legislators know that.

In the runup to the Senate failing to move any sort of gun control to the floor, one senator was noted as saying something like:

'I know the polls say 90% of the people are in favor of stronger laws, but the mail I'm getting is 90% against it.'

Knowing that people who just answer polls aren't anywhere near as likely to vote as people who write letters, the senators wanted to keep their jobs.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 2,027]

wolfriverjoe

Except "well regulated" in the context of the way it was written, and the language of the times, does not mean "subject to lots of rules and regulations."

It means "operating properly".

I don't think 10,000 gun murders every year indicates that the armed militia is operating properly, or anything remotely like it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 62]

About 5200 of those are inner city black on black street thug murders.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 2,027]

RonD1120

About 5200 of those are inner city black on black street thug murders.

QED.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[yoink 321]

RonD1120

About 5200 of those are inner city black on black street thug murders.

How were you EVER a councilor???

'5200 of those are criminals shooting each other' - a defensible statement. You could make an argument that it's morally justifiable to care less about people who choose to be criminals shooting each other. I could go with that.

'5200 of those are inner city street thug murders' - A very confusing statement. Are they criminal on criminal, or criminal on innocent, because it matters. (see above)

'5200 of those are black on black...' Nope. You've lost ANY moral high ground your were trying to take.

Do you admit to yourself how racist you are and how that colors your world-view?

[tkhayes 348]

there are no enough people visceral enough to pick up arms. the handful that do will be dealt with by existing LEO's and put in jail. that simple.

Presidential security will cost more again and everyone will complain about it. Most of the complaints will come from those that openly threaten the president....

[RonD1120 62]

yoink

***About 5200 of those are inner city black on black street thug murders.

How were you EVER a councilor???

'5200 of those are criminals shooting each other' - a defensible statement. You could make an argument that it's morally justifiable to care less about people who choose to be criminals shooting each other. I could go with that.

'5200 of those are inner city street thug murders' - A very confusing statement. Are they criminal on criminal, or criminal on innocent, because it matters. (see above)

'5200 of those are black on black...' Nope. You've lost ANY moral high ground your were trying to take.

Do you admit to yourself how racist you are and how that colors your world-view?

That is simply a current statistic, 13% of the population commit 52% of the murders.

Councilor is a lawyer, I was a substance use disorder counselor. I worked primarily with court ordered convicted felons. My world view, your term not mine, is based on my experience. Black on black murder is a common term among professionals in the Tampa Bay Area. Maybe it is not elsewhere.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[GoHuskers 0]

wolfriverjoe

EVERY ONE died. None were taken into custody alive. One was even blown up by a robot (Dallas). You think that isn't an object lesson?

People who irrationally target LE probably don't objectively look at much of anything. I don't think surviving the attack is really a consideration.

[DanG 1]

Quote

That is simply a current statistic, 13% of the population commit 52% of the murders.

No, it is not a current statistic, it is fucking incorrect.

You're lumping all black people together (13%) and saying that all those people are responsible for the murders that a small numbers of blacks commit. You could equally validly say that 50% of the population (males) commit over 90% of the murders. While true, it implies that you and I are murderers because we are part of that 50%.

Your 'statistic' is bullshit.

How about this: 0.004% of the population is responsible for 100% of the murders. Of those 0.004% of the population, 53% of them are black.

- Dan G