It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What will happen if there is a civil war in America?

page: 9
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Purty well thought out. If I ever meet you on the lam, I will yell out, I was an "ATS member". Hopefully, you'll not put buckshot in my butt.

In fact, if tshtf because of the supposed EOs, and we have to give up our guns, and it goes crazy, "ATS member" would be a good enough password to state for me. I'll spare a round meant for any zombie that has the presence of mind to say "ATS member" before they identity themselves. Better say it loud, a few times.

The only way you would know to say that password is by reading it here, right now. Spread the word. The post-SHTF password is "ATS MEMBER".

OMG, I'm not paranoid. Lol.

I just like to plan. Just like the OP.



Ha! We going to run around shouting "Ats Member!" or "Deny Ignorance!"




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SKMDC1
Any scenario that describes DHS going door to door to confiscate guns is pure fantasy. You might as well throw zombies in at that point. The US Census Bureau has to hire hundreds of thousands of people every 10 years to do door to door questionaires. So many people are hired it makes all employment data for the whole country skewed for about 6 months. Federal officials going door to door enforcing a gun law is assinine and impossible and it's ridiculous "assumptions" like that which make the community of "preppers" and "survivalists" look like idiots when they try to talk seriously about current issues.

Worst Case Scenario for a Gun Owner: You have to register your semi-automatic assault weapons
Worst Case Scenario for a Gun Buyer: You have to go through a background check

Sorry guys. I don't see either one of those leading to civil war. I understand there's a lot of gun owners that really really really want to use their guns in meaningful ways and a civil war is just perfect for that, but it would take the Federal government going so far that the military and local law enforcement were too outraged to fulfill their oaths and duty. I don't see that happening with minor gun control legislation they are talking about at the moment.

This whole conversation is a straw man.



Thank you for missing the point. The whole point was that there was a civil war, not what caused it.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plotus
Well my first stop was to your profile and your 'Join Date'. Your previous threads also was scrutinized. 2010 was your join date, and most of your threads seemed to be less than provocative in the lead-up to this thread. That would lead me to believe it's likely you are not a government shill. Topic selection was what lead me to that conclusion. Then your location Beaufort Texas. That gave me pause as George Bush's home state and his Crawford TX hometown, a distance of roughly 245 miles to your east.
I'm still doing a little looking here.

The topic can be used to gather information 'Outside the Box' as it were, by Homeland Security from those who become boastful and display their bravado suggesting courses of action. That in itself would be highly counterproductive, as it would give ammunition for TPTB in their measures to counter any response from citizens.

Needless to say, many measures to counter the governments intrusion are available and most don't even require weapons. For examples just look at the French resistance in WWII, or for that matter, any resistance movement and their tactics.

But one thing that would be evident and difficult to hush would be the ramping up for such an operation to confiscate weapons, both by military, federal and local law enforcement. Any movement in that dirrection would be made public very quickly. There would also be a likely 50/50 consensus with regard to complying to such an order.
edit on 15-1-2013 by Plotus because: (no reason given)


Are you talking to me? I don't live in Texas, never have.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensible1
reply to post by dave_welch
 


HOW DARE YOU CALL OUR MILITARY TRAITORS!!!

They successfully defended blacks in America (from other racist Americans) 150 years ago when SLAVERY was the culture, and whites were the MAJORITY.

Now whites are the minority and the DoD forces will DEFEND America from new racist Americans who don't like a Black President. Noone called for civil war when Clinton haad an assualt rifle ban passed.. (wonder why?) ...


edit on 15-1-2013 by sensible1 because: spl



It has nothing to do with race. I'm not even sure what you're so upset about as it is a hypothetical topic and nothing more. In this hypothetical world portrayed in the thread, it is a complete gun ban, which is unlikely. Did I even mention the name of the President? I was pretty sure to not mention President Barack Obama to avoid this kind of response. I couldn't care less if he was black, white, red, yellow, green, it makes no difference to me what the President's race is.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensible1
Obama actually expanded gun rights in America (CC in State parks) , and Bush declined 2 nd amendment rights and GOT THE RIGHT TO CONFISCATE with the PATRIOT ACT. Nobody in the GOP called for HIM to be impeached.. This is PARTY and RACIST foolishness and we as Americans are ASHAMED of you. The talk on this site about the US is worse than on an AL Qeada site!! The first thing a Dictatorship does is tell everybody ONLY THE WAY I THINK IS PATRIOTISM.. Everyone else is a TRAITOR!!! Hitler and Mussolini did it.... Chinia and North Korea do it now.. And the Right Wing is the one trying to do it now. Saying "LET US HAVE ASSAULT RIFLES" and the saying horrible things about our "DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT" .... The PEOPLE elected teh Pres! Are you sou POWERFUL that you can Tell THE REST OF AMERICA that WE HAVE TO GO YOUR WAY OR YOU WILL KILL US IN WAR???
edit on 15-1-2013 by sensible1 because: spl


Once again, you should take a breath and realize that you're being rediculous. There is nothing racist in my Op. In fact, once again that this is all hypothetical and unlikely.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I seriously doubt anyone with any credible power to do so is considering "banning civilian gun ownership." I think at worst they will completely ban certain kinds of firearms or ammunition, and at least require psychological screening for gun owners, and require gun owners with children or other family members without psychological screening to secure their weapon either on their person or otherwise out of reach of those individuals at all times. I really don't think there is any way they can outright ban all firearms. That's just not reasonable or feasible in my personal opinion.

That said, if a civil war happens... well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll likely die. I'm a pacifist. I'm unhealthy, having numerous health issues, as does the person with whom I live, for whom I provide care routinely. We are reliant on government aid just to make rent despite our best efforts, and likewise for our prescription healthcare coverage. We have no car. We have no means of escape, and no ability (or will) to fight. We are the picture of those who preppers say will likely die first in a societal collapse or civil war.

And I say so be it. If we are so far gone as a nation that it comes to that, I don't want to live in this world. A world where arguably, despite all its ills, the last best hope for a reasonable democratic republic to thrive is so deeply divided and lost that its only recourse is to consume itself from within.

Where on the one hand a government intended to be of the people, by the people, for the people, does not function for the good of the people but to expand its own long ago made excessive power, to the point that it strips said people of their constitutional rights, with gun ownership being only the most recent example; and on the other, my fellow countrymen are so incensed by any restriction on any weapons or any sort of litmus test for who can have them that they would gladly march to war against their own countrymen rather than find reasonable compromise if at all possible. Both sides disappoint and sadden me. And if neither can budge to the extent that civil war one day occurs, I will likely die, and gladly.

I don't want to live in that world.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkinsFan913
Sounds more like a fairy-tale than anything else smh!! I really wish that people would stop romanticizing about overthrowing our government. You and those like you would be branded as traitors to the US and ultimately terminated for it! Your rifles and shotguns will do nothing against our military might. Your ridiculous notion that guerilla tactics would work is a sure sign that you have limited knowledge about modern warfare and I pray that you wouldnt be one of the "resistance leaders" LMAO!! Obama has NEVER said anything even remotely suggesting that he was planning to ban all firearms so please chill the # out and go write a novel or something because you are living in a fantasy world!


It's true, the only warfare that I actually know much about is ASW. I never said anything about being any kind of warfare expert.

How many times will I have to tell you people that this is all hypothetical and unlikely?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diggz
Great read OP, but the only flaw with that I see is at the beginning of the story. When you said some military servicemembers would resist killing American civilians...thats completely true, but it wont be just a small percentage that will resist. Its called the 100th monkey effect, if enough people resist than everyone else will. No one wants to be the first one to speak up even if they know the activity is wrong.

I beleive that if enough military refused to shoot their own then the rest will follow, thus causing not only civilian resistance but military and police too.



Your'e right, I was just trying to keep people from starting arguments that the military wouldn't change sides, so I put that only some of them did. It's all hypothetical.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59

Originally posted by tovenar

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Since the resistance is forced out of the cities ... [snip]



Woah. Hold it right there.

Urban guerilla warfare is the most dangerous and exasperating combat environment for conventional military forces. There is lots of cover, and lots of locals to alienate if you lack fire control. Helicopters are a liability, as seen in Mogadhishu. Tanks cannot maneuver on the side-streets.

Fallujah was the very worst of the fighting for US forces in Iraq---a large urban center, filled with a hostile and motivated populace. The US had to blow up mosques, hospitals and museums to try and contain the enemy. The bulk of US casualties came from Fallujah.

Now just imagine if there is dissent or communication problems in the occupying force. Imagine that the occupiers don't possess unchallenged supply lines. Imagine a civilian population with a high proportion of young combat veterans, fresh from the middle east; with recent training the the most sophisticated tech used by the occupying force.

Now instead of a developing state, with only a few motor vehicles, picture a populace where there are 2 cars for every 3 people, and 1 firearm for every 8 persons. A quarter of the population has a college education. Occupying their city will mean that many of them will cease to have jobs to go to.


The reason why I made that statement is that I believe that the government will try to hold the major cities, as the highest concentration of potential slaves, as well as human shields would be at their disposal. Industrial and other important resources, such as, food, medicines and a whole host of other items, would be assets that either side would covet jealously.


That was pretty much what I was going for, mostly because of the bottlenecks that could easily be blocked to control traffic in and out, so they could maintain a large amount of the population.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TheToastmanCometh
 


Good post, I was just using DHS as a kind of be all for all the alphabet agencies, as it made it easier to write about without having to list FEMA, CIA, FBI, ATF, TSA and others.,



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I seriously doubt anyone with any credible power to do so is considering "banning civilian gun ownership." I think at worst they will completely ban certain kinds of firearms or ammunition, and at least require psychological screening for gun owners, and require gun owners with children or other family members without psychological screening to secure their weapon either on their person or otherwise out of reach of those individuals at all times. I really don't think there is any way they can outright ban all firearms. That's just not reasonable or feasible in my personal opinion.

That said, if a civil war happens... well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll likely die. I'm a pacifist. I'm unhealthy, having numerous health issues, as does the person with whom I live, for whom I provide care routinely. We are reliant on government aid just to make rent despite our best efforts, and likewise for our prescription healthcare coverage. We have no car. We have no means of escape, and no ability (or will) to fight. We are the picture of those who preppers say will likely die first in a societal collapse or civil war.

And I say so be it. If we are so far gone as a nation that it comes to that, I don't want to live in this world. A world where arguably, despite all its ills, the last best hope for a reasonable democratic republic to thrive is so deeply divided and lost that its only recourse is to consume itself from within.

Where on the one hand a government intended to be of the people, by the people, for the people, does not function for the good of the people but to expand its own long ago made excessive power, to the point that it strips said people of their constitutional rights, with gun ownership being only the most recent example; and on the other, my fellow countrymen are so incensed by any restriction on any weapons or any sort of litmus test for who can have them that they would gladly march to war against their own countrymen rather than find reasonable compromise if at all possible. Both sides disappoint and sadden me. And if neither can budge to the extent that civil war one day occurs, I will likely die, and gladly.

I don't want to live in that world.

Peace.


I, as well as many others I'm sure, would be obliged to defend you and yours. If that were not the case, then what would we be fighting for? "The meek shall inherit the Earth"!

( I would like to be on the winning side).

edit on 15-1-2013 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


What will happen is I will probably get rich lol....whatever side pays me the most I'll work for!

J/K



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by cosmicexplorer
 




That's funny, however in such a situation, you'd probably get paid with food rather than money, so maybe you'd get more food and thus be "rich".



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ajay59
 


And I would be obliged to dress any of your non-sucking, non-internal wounds, since that's the closest thing to a skill I have lol. (For either side, until I got killed finally.)

Peace.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


You don't understand if this were to happen we would need food,clothing and a place to sleep.Fighting would be a full time job.Only a few on this board would actually roll.Our families need homes, people would have to organize support as well not just fight.Also as it was said security escorts to safe areas,infrastructure security.Theres a job for every one.
So don't die ahead of time we'll kill them to make it better.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Opp, where does the governments zombie virus (weaponized rabies) fit into your story? Maybe they release the virus and then only give the antidote/vaccine to supporters.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrBigDave
 


Didn't know they weaponised rabies.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Several years ago, there is a couple threads about it here.

I've been thinking about a possible civil war and how the fema camps and all of those casket liners play into it. I cant imagine a civil war in itself being that deadly. Not unless the man used some sort of WMD on the American people. IE: weaponized rabies



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBigDave
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Several years ago, there is a couple threads about it here.

I've been thinking about a possible civil war and how the fema camps and all of those casket liners play into it. I cant imagine a civil war in itself being that deadly. Not unless the man used some sort of WMD on the American people. IE: weaponized rabies


Mass desolation would be suicidal. There ain't no way we're letting them get to those bunkers they built for themselves!



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Indeed, but I expect more rough housing from FEMA, CIA, FBI...if shtf. DHS and TSA aren't that threatening, just seeing who and what comes into the country.

I'd be more concerned about ATF though. Did you see what those guys did at Waco?




top topics



 
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join