22 thoughts on “American Thinker: What does it take to start a civil war?”

  1. Let Mother Jones start speculating about a new Civil War and “conservative” heads would explode. This article is a verbose invocation of those famous Second Amendment solutions that are always dancing around in “conservative” heads when they cannot sell their ideas in the “marketplace of ideas.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Most conservatives, and certainly Libertarians, simply want to be left alone. It is the left that ceaselessly impose its will on others by force, though usually through the surrogate of government.

      I would say that what it takes to start a Civil War is the denial of peaceful alternatives. The issue of slavery had been around before the Constitution was ratified. It was the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise that triggered war.

      That is not an excuse for trying to preserve slavery, But the issue did not come to violence(other than the ongoing violence against the slaves) until be balance of political power was upset by the prospect of certain loss in Congress.

      I don’t know of many conservatives seriously considering civil war over issues of taxation or regulation. The only precipitating issue I see on the horizon would be if Democrats were successful in bypassing the 2nd Amendment and placing gun owners in a “Use it or lose it” position.

      Anything else can be negotiated and settled in the electoral battlefield. But once effectively disarmed, there is no going back.

      It amazes me that the left seems intent on threatening civil war. Our side has 20 million militia suitable firearms and 7 trillion rounds of ammunition. Your side doesn’t know what bathroom to use. Going to war is not your best choice.

      Like

      Reply

      1. RE: “The only precipitating issue I see on the horizon would be if Democrats were successful in bypassing the 2nd Amendment and placing gun owners in a ‘Use it or lose it’ position.”

        That would certainly work, but so might a run on the banks or any of a number of other disruptive events which are conceivable at almost any moment.

        I was surprised American Thinker chose to raise the issue, since they are very close to a mainstream conservative publication. Rush Limbaugh, for example, mentions them often. At the same time, I have noticed an up tick in civil war talk in the fever swamps of the Internet I surf through. So maybe its not just an idle concern.

        Mostly, I’d say the mood I’ve seen is one of preparation rather than militancy. No one I have come across wants a civil war, but many are resigned to the expectation that it is inevitable.

        One prepper I listened to in a video earlier tonight made an impassioned plea for civil disobedience. For her, that meant growing a Victory Garden so you don’t have to pay taxes on the tomatoes you eat. Her main message is one I hear with increasing frequency: The time for talk is over.

        I agree, but I keep talking anyway.

        Like

        Reply

      2. I have never heard a Democratic Senator or Congressman or President suggest ANY political circumstance where Second Amendment solutions would be appropriate. Not once. But it is commonplace among Republicans and yet you claim that it is the “left that is intent on threatening civil war.”

        The week-end woods are full of right wing militias and White Nationalists playing army man and yet you claim that it is the “left that is intent on threatening civil war.” If, for example, a Black Panthers militia movement similar to these jackasses were to emerge it would be considered outrageous, revolutionary and dangerous at the very least.

        You refer to “our side” and cite statistics of how heavily armed you are and yet you claim that it is the “left that is intent on threatening civil war.”

        You end by saying to “The Left” ( roughly 2/3 of the population) “Going to war is not your best choice.” I would offer “your side” the same advice so, maybe, quit day dreaming about it.

        Like

        Reply

          1. You threatened more than self-defense. You threatened violence if laws are passed that you don’t care for.

            It is a problem for any decent person because the price in blood of coddling your adolescent fantasies is way too high.

            Like

          2. We’re talking about a lot more than passing a law I ‘don’t like.’ We’re talking about mob rule violating the Constitution.

            If we allow ourselves to be disarmed, there is no going back. That’s why it’s called a ‘use it or lose it’ dilemma.

            Sort of like what the British were attempting to do at Lexington and Concord.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Those conservative “ideas” are were slipped in while we were supposed to keep an eye on the border for Pancho Villa’s grandchildren with bandoleers and pistols blazing, one in each hand.

      Next thing you know, health insurance is through the roof, tax refunds tank, and the national debt hit $22++ Trillion. Roads are still crumbling and NK is still nuclear, but Trump trusts and, I guess, still loves KIm.

      Hey, maybe this is Civil War stuff. Crosses on public property might not make the grade, but tax refunds…whoa.

      Paul, how is this even a topic?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  2. We didn’t lose our right to own guns under that Nigerian Communist, so I doubt that is even a threat. The only threats I know of come from the right as in “2nd Amendment solutions”.

    That translates to: “If I don’t like something, I’ll shoot someone”. No idea who he will shoot and neither does he.

    Really Don, aren’t we being a bit childish. ” I have 200 snowballs ready if those boys down the street show up.”

    That americanthinker (now there is false advertising for a site if there ever was one) article is patently ridiculous except for the fact that the writer is trying hard to incite something…anything.

    If what I say doesn’t convince you, take a gander at about the 1st 20 or so comments. Praising violence and hoping to get a job as torturer when these nutjobs take over the country.

    Here is another take: if we devolve into Civil War we have lost our nation for good. Life will look like Syria or Iraq.
    People hanging from lamposts, neighbors turning in neighbors to someone else. The economy will tank completely.

    And we will never recover for decades, if ever.

    So you can follow the old “pry this gun from my cold dead hands” mantra if you think that is the smart choice for America. But you will leave your grandchildren a fractured American version of the Balkan states.

    If they survive.

    Bottom line: the threat to peace in our nation is coming from extremists who write crap on sites such as americanthinker, frontpagemag, zerohedge, etc.

    IMHO of course.

    (Now, ease the hammer down. Thank you.)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  3. First, it’s Kenyan, not Nigerian. 🙂

    But really, you are going an awfully long way to miss the point.

    What triggers civil wars isn’t not getting your way in the marketplace of ideas, it is being denied that route.

    Note that I did not say that Democrats repealing the 2nd Amendment would trigger civil war, it is bypassing the Constitution any interpreting the 2nd contrary to its original intent without going through the process of repeal that would. A nationwide ban on militia-type arms would be one such trigger.

    It is denying the peaceful process that is the last straw.

    So long as we are armed, a despotic government cannot succeed here. We cannot give up that ultimate check-and-balance.

    Like

    Reply

    1. There you go again. Threatening violence. If our Constitutional and democratic processes result in change in gun laws that YOU think is bypassing the Constitution and contrary to its original intent according to YOU, that would be a legitimate casus belli. That is what people do when they cannot win in the “marketplace of ideas.”

      Maybe when the shooting starts you can murder this Peters fellow first . . .

      https://video.foxnews.com/v/5739834858001/#sp=show-clips

      Like

      Reply

  4. A nationwide ban on militia type weapons? Whatever that means.

    So where are the battle lines? Granby St.? I-64? The Mississippi River?

    Who is the enemy and when does the shooting start? And where?

    Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds? In my neighborhood alone we have people across the spectrum. Police, military officers, Marines and I live here. The same as all over the country.

    There is no Mason-Dixon Line.

    Get a grip on reality before you inspire some yahoo to start murdering like the synagogue shooter. You know he picked that place because they helped immigrants. And the anti-immigrant fever from the administration surely did not help. “Hordes at the border”.

    This is nuts.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. People, even on the Left, are talking about civil war at the moment. Today, both PJMedia and Breitbart have articles on the topic.

      It is not “nuts” to join a conversation others are having. On the contrary it is nuts to pretend the conversation isn’t real.

      Like

      Reply

      1. OK, the “nuts” part is no so much about the conversation but about the concept of a civil war. I read the two articles at PJmedia and Breitbart.

        There is no doubt people are discussing this. But no one seems to draw the battle lines.The assumption seems to be liberal v. conservative.

        Well, there are liberals who oppose abortion. And probably some that voted for Trump. That are NRA members and have plenty of firearms. Who are concerned about the deficit and debt. Who opposed the elitism of the Clintons. Who support the wall.

        There are conservatives who really don’t like Trump over a variety of issues. Who don’t have a lot of weapons. Are pro-choice. Who may have voted for Clinton. Who are pro-immigration and for amnesty in certain circumstances.

        There are the log cabin Republicans. Gays who want limited government or are fiscally conservative.

        The point is who is going to take up arms against whom?

        Talk about Trump raising a private army is interesting? First of all, that is treason. He maybe CIC of the military, but the military swore and oath to uphold the Constitution and not just Trump.

        In any given neighborhood, whether it is primarily red or blue, the key is “primarily”.

        So who gets shot? By whom? And why?

        Governor’s still command the states’ National Guards if a group of Trump supporters try to take over a municipal building or charge a “liberal” neighborhood. Riot control is part of their job.

        Every conversation I read online that threatens civil war leave out the details. It is one thing to be politically opposed to something, or even to escalate civil disobedience to a riot and fully another to aim and kill a neighbor.

        That is my take.

        Oh, and if people think we are on the brink of some civil war, they are probably too young to remember the 60’s and Watts, Newark, The Weathermen, bombings, the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

        There was some serious tension then. And the lines were pretty distinct. Civil Rights and Vietnam.

        And still no civil war.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. RE: “The point is who is going to take up arms against whom?”

          That’s a good question. I think Dr. Tabor’s observation that gun owners against gun takers is the most likely flash point to lead to the drawing of physical battle lines.

          On the other hand, I have zero confidence that our society is so pluralistic that civil war cannot occur. Were some random incident to inspire armed conflict, I suspect the chaos would quickly organize into coalitions of patriots against coalitions of socialists, those being the most likely labels the combatants themselves might choose.

          Like

          Reply

          1. The idea of being a “socialist” and a “patriot” are not mutually exclusive. And that is especially true since modern “conservatives” label everything that they wish the government was not doing or any politician they do not care for as “socialist.” As a matter of fact, I can think of two self declared Democratic Socialists who are demonstrably more patriotic that almost any remaining Republican politician – Bernie Sanders and AOC. They do not hate America and the majority of the people in it. They have never colluded with a foreign power or engaged in a criminal conspiracy for the sake of electoral advantage.

            Like

          2. Random incidents have always been causes of riots and localized civil disturbances. Nothing new and no civil war.

            “Patriots v. Socialists”.

            Sounds like Cowboys and Indians or ring-o-livio.

            Like

          3. RE: “The idea of being a ‘socialist’ and a ‘patriot’ are not mutually exclusive.”

            One can certainly be a patriot of a socialist country, but good arguments are often made that Constitutional language respecting private property rights makes socialism effectively illegal in this country. Or should That’s one reason I expect the labels would fall out as suggested.

            Like

          4. RE: “Random incidents have always been causes of riots and localized civil disturbances. Nothing new and no civil war.”

            Civil wars have always begun with random incidents and localized civil disturbances. Does it really make sense to believe that because such events happen, a civil war wouldn’t?

            Like

          5. Well it is pretty obvious tha you, Don and others on the extreme right are just hoping for a civil war. Most of us are trying to live our lives and accept some compromises.
            .
            I hope you fail and we prevail. I enjoy life and if it is not perfect that is ok too.

            Please don’t kill too many people. Some might actuality be good folks.

            Thanks.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. The only mention of property rights in the Constitution is in the Fifth Amendment where it is stated that “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” So, if socialists take over America it would not be unconstitutional for them to take ownership of, say Ford, so long as the shareowners receive “just compensation.”

            Bottom line, there is no “good argument” to be made from Constitutional principles as you claim. You can be both a patriot and a socialist and many millions of people are – probably a majority of Americans based on your very broad definition of what a “socialist” is.

            Finally, your challenging the patriotism of ANYBODY while supporting Donald Trump as you do is really kind of ridiculous.

            Like

          7. _RE: “The only mention of property rights in the Constitution is in the Fifth Amendment”

            There are many examples of Constitutional language respecting private property rights which don’t specifically use the term “private property.” The 3rd Amendment for example, or the 13th.

            Like

Leave a comment