The 2nd amendment

Not a civil war so much as a purge.

File: flag-cross.jpg (47KB, 570x261px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 570x261px

>>53603046
So the evangelicals can establish a Christian Republic?

>>53602903
The military and law enforcement has sworn to uphold the constitution and does not pledge allegiance to government officials. A massive percentage of the military and law enforcement enjoy their right to privately own firearms. If anything would happen I believe there would be a military coupe to remove government officials infringing on our inalienable rights, rather than a citizens vs military scenario.

>>53602903
It would be Texas and allied red states most likely. Nat Guard would be rallied to state banners and most likely there would be massive civil unrest in general. States would have to control themselves and the union would probably deteriorate because, unlike the Civil War, the revolutionaries would be totally justified and we have little in the way of a home army.
For this to happen, in full, the Supreme Court would have to uphold a federal law that severely restricts the amendment; any new amendment to the Constitution would not make the 3/4 of the states necessary. Then, after they uphold the law, barring no impeachments brought through by Congress, governors would probably be ordering zero enforcement of the law and State Legislatures would enact protections. Likely, many states would revive the veto that early states almost had.
So, overall, it almost definitely will not happen, unless, of course, some bullshit goes down with a supreme court ruling and dems block impeachment.

>>53603199
>>53603311

You guys are assuming the unrest will be about the 2nd amendment being infringed. That's likely not going to happen.

And you guys are assuming that the military that there won't be infighting in the military itself.

>>53602903
The problem is it's one of those frog in the pot kind of things. Every country's population usually just accepts what changes take place as long as it is bit by bit.

If the United States government said "Tomorrow, all firearms must be turned in and there will be a curfew put in place. Any resistance or voicing of opinions against the government will now result in inprosonment or death" then people would flip their shit.

Then you have examples like the UK where the country used to be outstanding fifty years ago and it's slowly gotten to the point where you can get jail time for saying something mean and a simple tool like a knife has an age requirement to buy. Not to say the country is uninhabitable but things can be done in small steps and people don't care.

I mean, what exactly do you think would happen if a president became tyrannical somehow? And that's assuming the majority of people agree with you on the president being tyrannical and people don't think you were the military junta that unconstitutionally removed an elected official.

Time to set up the new government, and with that come compromises over how things should be run. Just like how liberals Madison and Jefferson had to compromise with monarchists like Alexander Hamilton.

What could very likely happen is a new civil war vs your new government, or complete balkanization of the nation and the USA never reemerges.

>>53603176

I doubt they'll last either.

>>53602903
Happened once, why can't it happen again?

>>53602903
>What I'm wonder if people seriously believe a civil war could actually happen where its 'the people' VS a tyrannical government?
The point of the 2nd amendment is to act as a deterrent so that things never reach that point.

>>53602903
>What I'm wonder if people seriously believe a civil war could actually happen where its 'the people' VS a tyrannical government?
I would also like to point out the utter mouth-dribbling retardation of anyone claiming that civil wars or revolutions are somehow a "thing of the past".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars#1945_to_2000

There have been over 60 civil wars worldwide since 1945. There have been more than 10 in the past 6 years alone.

And I haven't even addressed revolutions or military coups yet.

Best case scenario for a revolution: In 2009-2010 Iceland deposed their entire parliament, revised their constitution, and held new elections. It took them 3 years to accomplish this and the first year involved extreme resistance from the government. They had no casualties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Icelandic_financial_crisis_protests

Military coup and oppressive regime: Myanmar Military Coups 1962 to 1990

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar#Military_rule_.281962.E2.80.932011.29

Worst case scenario: Khmer Rouge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

>>53605483
Oh, I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just doubtful that it will be such a black and white simplistic affair where its the citizens VS the government. Instead of something more depressingly bleak and tragic.

File: CivilWar[1].png (529KB, 1103x541px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1103x541px

>>53606979
>Instead of something more depressingly bleak and tragic.
Nobody has ever claimed that it would be easy.
Nobody has ever claimed that people aren't going to die.
Nobody has ever claimed it would be binary.

There will be sides and there will be people that won't fight, won't back either combatant, or would just leave the country.

War isn't an organized sport. It's an argument that involves lethal attrition to determine the winner.

The citizenry of this country has more weapons and more manpower than the government by an enormous factor.
The government has checks and balances built into it that were specifically designed to forestall tyranny, but it's always a possibility for it to exist. It's far more likely to take place on a more local level though where nepotism and collusion can happen at a much faster pace.

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to help prevent us from ever personally finding out what it would be like.