What if we have a civil or revolutionary war - Page 4 - MP-Pistol Forum

What if we have a civil or revolutionary war

This is a discussion on What if we have a civil or revolutionary war within the Survival forums, part of the Armory category; What makes anyone think our election process is even marginally functional? We have a single ruling class divided into two parties that fight publicly but ...


Go Back   MP-Pistol Forum > Armory > Survival

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 7th, 2013, 09:08 AM   #46
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: People's Republik of New York
Posts: 377
What makes anyone think our election process is even marginally functional? We have a single ruling class divided into two parties that fight publicly but put their mutual survival above all else. There is no party that supports freedom or the Constitution on the ballot no matter what they want you to think.
40fan is offline  
Old June 7th, 2013, 09:54 AM   #47
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern, VA.
Posts: 214
Re: What if we have a civil or revolutionary war

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40fan View Post
What makes anyone think our election process is even marginally functional? We have a single ruling class divided into two parties that fight publicly but put their mutual survival above all else. There is no party that supports freedom or the Constitution on the ballot no matter what they want you to think.
There is no law that says we have to have 2 parties, if you want a 3rd party start one.

There is a little math problem you will have to deal with however.
bfayer is offline  
Old June 7th, 2013, 10:23 AM   #48
Member
 
mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ill
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40fan View Post
What makes anyone think our election process is even marginally functional? We have a single ruling class divided into two parties that fight publicly but put their mutual survival above all else. There is no party that supports freedom or the Constitution on the ballot no matter what they want you to think.
Amen to that!
mojo is offline  
 
Old June 7th, 2013, 11:05 AM   #49
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: People's Republik of New York
Posts: 377
Actually, there are laws that restrict who can get on the ballot and how. In some states it is a lot easier than others.
40fan is offline  
Old June 7th, 2013, 11:17 AM   #50
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern, VA.
Posts: 214
Re: What if we have a civil or revolutionary war

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40fan View Post
Actually, there are laws that restrict who can get on the ballot and how. In some states it is a lot easier than others.
Federal law does not allow states to restrict elections to specific parties. States can restrict who can vote in party primaries.

Anyone can create a party and run for office (freedom of association). Each state has different requirements to get your name on the ballot, but party affiliation cannot be one of the requirements. Fees, petitions, citizenship are all fair game, but not party.
bfayer is offline  
Old June 7th, 2013, 01:03 PM   #51
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: People's Republik of New York
Posts: 377
What good is starting a new party if the existing parties can effectively block your candidates from getting on the ballot? What good is electing a third party candidate if they are forced to caucus with one of the big two in order to get any committee appointments or have any input into the bill writing process?

If you think you are living in a free democracy where the will of the voters matters, you are sadly mistaken.
40fan is offline  
Old March 25th, 2014, 02:55 PM   #52
Junior Member
 
ellisoc6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 27
I know I'm digging up a dead thread here. But there were a lot of great points made in it. And they are especially poignant now (maybe even more so since the last post in June of 2013).

First, I believe there has been a civil war taking place in this country for a long time now. Not necessarily (or should I say always, with guns), but in the sense of changing America. Some new freedoms are given, while others are taken away. One group is given "equal rights" while another has theirs curtailed. The school system, economy, family unit have all vastly changed in the last 20 + years. And people tend to either agree with those changes or resist them. That in itself has created a schism in this country.

Lately, or should I say since 2008, that schism has grown even larger. With each passing year, both sides become more emboldened and firm in their stance. At some point, those two sides will collide.

How it collides? It could be as simple as a political shift in this country from center left to center right. As serious as states attempting to secede or as violent as armed confrontations. As others have mentioned, I firmly believe, at the federal level, their "teeth" do not reside in boots on the ground or physical force. But in the appearance of doing so. Of testing the limits and seeing what, if anything, happens as a result.

Last edited by ellisoc6; March 25th, 2014 at 03:01 PM.
ellisoc6 is offline  
Old March 25th, 2014, 08:44 PM   #53
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: AZ
Posts: 10
lookie what I found
Ohio National Guard Training Envisions Right-Wing Terrorism
Documents from an Ohio National Guard (ONG) training drill conducted last January reveal the details of a mock disaster where Second Amendment supporters with “anti-government” opinions were portrayed as domestic terrorists.

The ONG 52nd Civil Support Team training scenario involved a plot from local school district employees to use biological weapons in order to advance their beliefs about “protecting Gun Rights and Second Amendment rights.”

Portsmouth Chief of Police Bill Raisin told NBC 3 WSAZ-TV in Huntington, West Virginia that the drill accurately represented “the reality of the world we live in,” adding that such training “helps us all be prepared.”

Internal ONG documents provided to Media Trackers after repeated delays provide further context to what WSAZ-TV reported last winter.

In the disaster-preparedness scenario, two Portsmouth Junior High School employees poisoned school lunches with mustard gas, acting on orders from white-nationalist leader William Pierce.

The ONG team discovered biological weapons being produced in the school, requiring activation of containment and decontamination procedures.

Participants in the disaster drill located documents expressing the school employees’ “anti-government” sentiments, as well as a note identifying Pierce as the fictional right-wing terrorists’ leader.

ONG’s 52nd Civil Support Unit participated in a similar drill involving left-wing terrorists with Athens County first responders last year; public officials apologized for that training the next day in response to complaints from local environmentalist groups.

No apology to Ohioans who support limited government and the Second Amendment appears to be forthcoming.

Scioto County Emergency Management Agency director Kim Carver refused to comment, telling Media Trackers she was “not going to get into an Ohio Army National Guard issue that you have with them.”

Ohio National Guard Communications Director James Sims II suggested Media Trackers was “inferring” from the ONG document’s contents as opposed to “what’s actually in the report.”

After excerpts of the report were read to him, Sims said it was “not relevant” to understand why conservatives may feel unduly targeted by ONG’s training scenario.

“Okay, I’m gonna stop ya there. I’m going to quit this conversation,” Sims concluded. “You have a good day.”

Buckeye Firearms Association spokesman Chad Baus told Media Trackers that “it is a scary day indeed when law enforcement are being trained that Second Amendment advocates are the enemy,”

“The revelation of this information is appalling to me, and to all citizens of Ohio who are true conservatives and patriots, who don’t have guns for any other reason than that the Second Amendment gives them that right,” Portage County TEA Party Executive Director Tom Zawistowski said in a separate Media Trackers interview.

Media Trackers reached out to Portsmouth-area state legislators Representative Terry Johnson and Senator Joe Uecker for comment about the drill, which took place within their respective districts. Neither replied to phone calls or emails in time for publication.

ONG’s January 2013 training exercise is one of many instances where government officials have identified those with limited-government or pro-Second Amendment opinions as potential terror threats.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned law enforcement agencies that a predicted rise in“right-wing extremism” would be fueled by “proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans” and “the election of the first African American president.”

Throughout modern history, groups and individuals associated with left-wing causes have proven far more likely to commit acts of domestic terror.

In 2012, members of the anarcho-socialist Occupy Cleveland movement were arrested and prosecuted for attempting to destroy the Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge with explosives, to commemorate International Workers’ Day.

Last year, leftist groups Earth First and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) claimed responsibility for the sabotage and property destruction of businesses in Washington and Van Wert counties.
thoml is offline  
Old March 25th, 2014, 08:51 PM   #54
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: AZ
Posts: 10
this is where it came from

Ohio National Guard Training Envisions Right-Wing Terrorism

Thom
thoml is offline  
Old March 25th, 2014, 08:54 PM   #55
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: AZ
Posts: 10
Another Example

Why does a police department which hasn’t had an officer killed in the line of duty in over 125 years in a town of less than 20,000 people need tactical military vests like those used by soldiers in Afghanistan? For that matter, why does a police department in a city of 35,000 people need a military-grade helicopter? And what possible use could police at Ohio State University have for acquiring a heavily-armored vehicle intended to withstand IED blasts?

Why are police departments across the country acquiring heavy-duty military equipment and weaponry? For the same reason that perfectly good roads get repaved, perfectly good equipment gets retired and replaced, and perfectly good employees spend their days twiddling their thumbs—and all of it at taxpayer expense. It’s called make-work programs, except in this case, instead of unnecessary busy work to keep people employed, communities across America are finding themselves “gifted” with drones, tanks, grenade launchers and other military equipment better suited to the battlefield. And as I document in my book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, it’s all being done through federal programs that allow the military to “gift” battlefield-appropriate weapons, vehicles and equipment to domestic police departments across the country.

It’s a Trojan Horse, of course, one that is sold to communities as a benefit, all the while the real purpose is to keep the defense industry churning out profits, bring police departments in line with the military, and establish a standing army. As journalists Andrew Becker and G. W. Schulz report in their insightful piece, “Local Cops Ready for War With Homeland Security-Funded Military Weapons,” federal grants provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have “transformed local police departments into small, army-like forces, and put intimidating equipment into the hands of civilian officers. And that is raising questions about whether the strategy has gone too far, creating a culture and capability that jeopardizes public safety and civil rights while creating an expensive false sense of security.” For example, note Becker and Schulz:

In Montgomery County, Texas, the sheriff’s department owns a $300,000 pilotless surveillance drone, like those used to hunt down al Qaeda terrorists in the remote tribal regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Augusta, Maine, with fewer than 20,000 people and where an officer hasn’t died from gunfire in the line of duty in more than 125 years, police bought eight $1,500 tactical vests. Police in Des Moines, Iowa, bought two $180,000 bomb-disarming robots, while an Arizona sheriff is now the proud owner of a surplus Army tank.

Small counties and cities throughout the country are now being “gifted” with 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. MRAPs are built to withstand IED blasts, a function which seems unnecessary for any form of domestic policing, yet police in Jefferson County, New York, Boise and Nampa, Idaho, as well as High Springs, Florida, have all acquired MRAPs. Police in West Lafayette, Indiana also have an MRAP, valued at half a million dollars.

Universities are getting in on the program as well. In September 2013, the Ohio State University Department of Public Safety acquired an MRAP, which a university spokesperson said will be used for “officer rescue, hostage scenarios, bomb evaluation,” situations which are not increasingly common on OSU’s campus. In reality, it will be used for crowd control at football games.

Almost 13,000 agencies in all 50 states and four U.S. territories participate in the military “recycling” program, and the share of equipment and weaponry gifted each year continues to expand. In 2011, $500 million worth of military equipment was distributed to law enforcement agencies throughout the country. That number jumped to $546 million in 2012. Since 1990, $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies through the 1033 program, in addition to various other programs supposedly aimed at fighting the so-called War on Drugs and War on Terror. For example, the Department of Homeland Security has delivered roughly $34 billion to police departments throughout the country since 9/11, ostensibly to purchase more gear for their steady growing arsenals of military weapons and equipment.

It doesn’t look like this trend towards the militarization of domestic police forces will be slowing down anytime soon, either. In fact, it seems to have opened up a new market for military contractors. According to a December 2011 report, “the homeland security market for state and local agencies is projected to reach $19.2 billion by 2014, up from an estimated $15.8 billion in fiscal 2009.”

In addition to being an astounding waste of taxpayer money, this equipping of police with military-grade equipment and weapons also gives rise to a dangerous mindset in which police feel compelled to put their newly high-power toys and weapons to use. The results are deadly, as can be seen in the growing numbers of unarmed civilians shot by police during relatively routine encounters and in the use of SWAT teams to carry out relatively routine tasks. For example, a team of police in Austin, Texas broke into a home in order to search for a stolen koi fish. In Florida, over 50 barbershops were raided by police donning masks and guns in order to enforce barber licensing laws.

Thus, while recycling unused military equipment might sound thrifty and practical, the ramifications are proving to be far more dangerous and deadly. This is what happens when you have police not only acquiring the gear of American soldiers, but also the mindset of an army occupying hostile territory. In this way, the American citizen is no longer seen as an employer or master to be served by public servants like police officers. With police playing the part of soldiers on the battlefield and the American citizen left to play the part of an enemy combatant, it’s a pretty safe bet that this particular exercise in the absurd will not have a happy ending.

Attorney John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, a non-profit legal agency concerned with constitutional rights and religious freedoms. His column runs on Tuesdays. Reach him at johnw@rutherford.org.
thoml is offline  
Old March 26th, 2014, 05:30 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
JeffWard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Posts: 3,552
If it happens, it will originate EXTERNALLY. An attack on the US which wipes out a large portion of the federal infrastructure, resulting in a power vacuum. That vacuum will be filled by those who are ready to fill it.

It would be a revolution of opportunity.

My best guess.

JW
JeffWard is offline  
Old March 26th, 2014, 08:43 AM   #57
Member
 
24th id's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Commifornia
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRahl View Post
The other day a few of us at work we were having a discussion about the possibility of another domestic war, either revolutionary or civil.

One guy was insisting that the people would have no chance against the government because the president would just declare martial law and order the military to deploy heavy hardware such as tanks and helicopter gunships along with fighter and bomber aircraft.

Some of the guys believe that many in the military, particularly the National Guard, would resist firing on their own countrymen and would actually side with the people. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that if Americans did fight back against a tyrannical government it would be in any conventional manner (of which they would have no chance of winning) but more of guerrilla actions. Guerrilla actions have proven effective in just about every conflict since the founding of America.

I am curious as to what everybody else’s position is on this scenario?

Also what would happen if we became embroiled in civil war of conservative vs liberal government?



Many times in the past, the US military has fired on its own citizens.


Tanks, helicopters, planes, and troops are not a big deal. The Government has far superior weapons that you don't know about and cannot defend yourself against. First of all, they will just let you kill each other and starve. Then they will pick off the resistors one by one.




.
24th id is offline  
Old March 26th, 2014, 08:50 AM   #58
Member
 
24th id's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Commifornia
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by thoml View Post
Another Example

Why does a police department which hasn’t had an officer killed in the line of duty in over 125 years in a town of less than 20,000 people need tactical military vests like those used by soldiers in Afghanistan? For that matter, why does a police department in a city of 35,000 people need a military-grade helicopter? And what possible use could police at Ohio State University have for acquiring a heavily-armored vehicle intended to withstand IED blasts?

Why are police departments across the country acquiring heavy-duty military equipment and weaponry? For the same reason that perfectly good roads get repaved, perfectly good equipment gets retired and replaced, and perfectly good employees spend their days twiddling their thumbs—and all of it at taxpayer expense. It’s called make-work programs, except in this case, instead of unnecessary busy work to keep people employed, communities across America are finding themselves “gifted” with drones, tanks, grenade launchers and other military equipment better suited to the battlefield. And as I document in my book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, it’s all being done through federal programs that allow the military to “gift” battlefield-appropriate weapons, vehicles and equipment to domestic police departments across the country.

It’s a Trojan Horse, of course, one that is sold to communities as a benefit, all the while the real purpose is to keep the defense industry churning out profits, bring police departments in line with the military, and establish a standing army. As journalists Andrew Becker and G. W. Schulz report in their insightful piece, “Local Cops Ready for War With Homeland Security-Funded Military Weapons,” federal grants provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have “transformed local police departments into small, army-like forces, and put intimidating equipment into the hands of civilian officers. And that is raising questions about whether the strategy has gone too far, creating a culture and capability that jeopardizes public safety and civil rights while creating an expensive false sense of security.” For example, note Becker and Schulz:

In Montgomery County, Texas, the sheriff’s department owns a $300,000 pilotless surveillance drone, like those used to hunt down al Qaeda terrorists in the remote tribal regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Augusta, Maine, with fewer than 20,000 people and where an officer hasn’t died from gunfire in the line of duty in more than 125 years, police bought eight $1,500 tactical vests. Police in Des Moines, Iowa, bought two $180,000 bomb-disarming robots, while an Arizona sheriff is now the proud owner of a surplus Army tank.

Small counties and cities throughout the country are now being “gifted” with 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. MRAPs are built to withstand IED blasts, a function which seems unnecessary for any form of domestic policing, yet police in Jefferson County, New York, Boise and Nampa, Idaho, as well as High Springs, Florida, have all acquired MRAPs. Police in West Lafayette, Indiana also have an MRAP, valued at half a million dollars.

Universities are getting in on the program as well. In September 2013, the Ohio State University Department of Public Safety acquired an MRAP, which a university spokesperson said will be used for “officer rescue, hostage scenarios, bomb evaluation,” situations which are not increasingly common on OSU’s campus. In reality, it will be used for crowd control at football games.

Almost 13,000 agencies in all 50 states and four U.S. territories participate in the military “recycling” program, and the share of equipment and weaponry gifted each year continues to expand. In 2011, $500 million worth of military equipment was distributed to law enforcement agencies throughout the country. That number jumped to $546 million in 2012. Since 1990, $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies through the 1033 program, in addition to various other programs supposedly aimed at fighting the so-called War on Drugs and War on Terror. For example, the Department of Homeland Security has delivered roughly $34 billion to police departments throughout the country since 9/11, ostensibly to purchase more gear for their steady growing arsenals of military weapons and equipment.

It doesn’t look like this trend towards the militarization of domestic police forces will be slowing down anytime soon, either. In fact, it seems to have opened up a new market for military contractors. According to a December 2011 report, “the homeland security market for state and local agencies is projected to reach $19.2 billion by 2014, up from an estimated $15.8 billion in fiscal 2009.”

In addition to being an astounding waste of taxpayer money, this equipping of police with military-grade equipment and weapons also gives rise to a dangerous mindset in which police feel compelled to put their newly high-power toys and weapons to use. The results are deadly, as can be seen in the growing numbers of unarmed civilians shot by police during relatively routine encounters and in the use of SWAT teams to carry out relatively routine tasks. For example, a team of police in Austin, Texas broke into a home in order to search for a stolen koi fish. In Florida, over 50 barbershops were raided by police donning masks and guns in order to enforce barber licensing laws.

Thus, while recycling unused military equipment might sound thrifty and practical, the ramifications are proving to be far more dangerous and deadly. This is what happens when you have police not only acquiring the gear of American soldiers, but also the mindset of an army occupying hostile territory. In this way, the American citizen is no longer seen as an employer or master to be served by public servants like police officers. With police playing the part of soldiers on the battlefield and the American citizen left to play the part of an enemy combatant, it’s a pretty safe bet that this particular exercise in the absurd will not have a happy ending.

Attorney John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, a non-profit legal agency concerned with constitutional rights and religious freedoms. His column runs on Tuesdays. Reach him at johnw@rutherford.org.

24th id is offline  
Reply

  MP-Pistol Forum > Armory > Survival


Search tags for this page
2nd civil/revolutionary war
,
2nd revolutionary war is coming 2013
,
civil vs revolutionary war
,

civil war coming to america

,
civil war vs revolutionary war
,
coming of the revolutionary war
,
firearm changes between the civil and revolutionary war
,
guerrilla tactics soviets stalingrad
,
is a revolutionary war coming
,
revolutionary war likelihood
,
revolutionary wars in 2008 to 2013
,
us civil war -memorial -history -museum -ebay -game -mod -commemoration -reenactment -1861 -1862 -1863 -1864 -1865
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The next U.S. Civil War will be caused by the Teaparty Mr. Busracer Survival 27 April 26th, 2016 08:13 PM



Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2006-2012 MP-Pistol. All rights reserved.
MP-Pistol is a M&P pistol enthusiast forum, but it is in no way affiliated with, nor does it represent Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. of Springfield, MA.