Will a new Fed/State battle finally bring about a new Civil Conflict in the US?

Many historians have said it would be about race. Different Ideologies. Different thoughts. An extreme political or social movement. Something that would trigger in the US a battle between citizens once again.

Right now you have scenarios that are very similar to one that happened over 100 years ago. An extreme difference in how Federal and State laws are being enforced, followed and how the US Constitution is being pushed aside. Two major issues.

Multiple states already have laws, that if deemed 'not mentally fit' you can have your guns removed. This is against the 2nd Amendment. It is not about who should have it but interpretation of the law. Now, bills are being passed that not only age restrict but are demanding those in possession of banned firearms under 21 must turn them in or face a felony charge. What 20 y/o wants to turn in his 1700 custom AR? It is the confiscation of private property. Other states are trying to follow suit...

Link

Then, just after passing the bill they walked out to protest school gun violence. I cannot make this up.

Next, we have sanctuary cities. You literally have mayors and governors who will not assist the Federal Government with arrests. Standing in defiance of the Federal Government. In California it is illegal for a police officer to ask about citizenship. Think that out. A LAW to 'restrict' law enforcement from doing their job.

lINK

When you throw in the paid for protesting, the grass roots radical distraction and the threat of (INSERT MEDIA BOOGEYMAN) you have the makings of a very, very long summer I feel.

Now, when I say Civil conflict I am talking about citizen against citizen in certain regions. A US Flashpoint. How would we handle a 'conflict' in the US? We are a very large country and many larger countries deal with just such issues. Like Boston?

Gun grab is on in Illinois....

The Media Driven War is coming...

a reply to: matafuchs
It is a state right to instruct the local forces to do as the state wishes as long as it is within the constitution. The constitution states that a state can do this and if the FED really want to enforce the what ever law they wish then they can move in and do so. Read the constitution.

a reply to: matafuchs

Just curious.

I wonder what impact the media had on the Civil War (the first one).

Before, during, and after.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You saw a large rise in Newspapers but realize that the information they had was days or weeks old sometimes. It was though the first time in the US there was a real 'media' push to shape opinion.

Now, a media outlet can say " CIA director nominee directly waterboarded prisoners" and set a retraction the next day. Too late. No one reads the retraction because all they read are headlines. As long as you state partial truth in the story the headline means nothing.

I cannot remember the name but I read a good book about it and the influence of the government. Pretty interesting.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Correct. But when they do not abide by the constitution what happens when the Fed moves in? Or what about when they deny the Fed but others do not want the state decision?

THAT is what the OP is about. What happens?

So, think about this. I am 19 years old with a AR that my state wants to confiscate. It is illegal to do so according to the Constitution. So, if the local sheriff shows up do I call the ATF or the FBI?

It is not as simple as your answer...

a reply to: DBCowboy

They had media in 1862? Not many could read. It was between the elitist plantation owners in the south and the new industrialists in the north.

Pure devastation. It would destroy the US and Russia and China would split us up.

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: DBCowboy

They had media in 1862? Not many could read. It was between the elitist plantation owners in the south and the new industrialists in the north.

Pure devastation. It would destroy the US and Russia and China would split us up.

People got their information from the pulpit and word of mouth.

I understand that.

But was the print media manipulating things then?

a reply to: matafuchs You are correct it is most definitely not as simple as my answer. I would not know what to do in that exact situation. Since I am older and wiser now my answer would be to let them take it then call ATF. Bring in my legal team and go from there. I am very pro gun and do not wish this law to happen anywhere. I am also very pro constitution. This is a grey area and to be honest I don’t have the answer as I am sure most don’t. I know what I would like to happen but I tend to keep that info to myself lol

a reply to: DBCowboy I know for a “fact” Twitter played a YUGE part back then.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Civil war will bring devastating disease.

Look what a little poop from homeless is doing to people in L.A. and Sanfran.

a reply to: Allaroundyou


Nancy Pelosi was hawt back then.

a reply to: DBCowboy
Man you have no idea But I can think of a few articles of clothing that d—— NVM

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy

Civil war will bring devastating disease.

Look what a little poop from homeless is doing to people in L.A. and Sanfran.

It's what the left desires.

No way are they going to get the changes they want through peaceful means.


The only way they could forward their agenda is through the barrel of a gun. And sadly, they have about a third of the country wanting them to do it.

a reply to: DBCowboy. You mean to tell me our agenda of pooping on the street isn’t working??? Dang well can you just give us your guns then?

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: DBCowboy. You mean to tell me our agenda of pooping on the street isn’t working??? Dang well can you just give us your guns then?

Sorry.

You'll have to come and get them.

a reply to: DBCowboy Nawww I’m good. I got my own lol

No one i know in calif wants it to be a sanctuary state.

But then no one running the state ever ask the people in calif if they wanted the state to be a sanctuary state.

This is a big part of the emergence of the east west movement where a large part of rural calif wants to leave the small part of the state controlled by the big cities.
www.usatoday.com...

The illegals in calif are a big part of crime in calif.
But the democrats in the state hide most of the crimes done by the illegals.
There has been a big jump in rural and Agricultural crimes since illegal were able to get Driver's Licenses. i have helped make two arrests on metal thieves on friends property.

In both cases the illegal tried to claim they though the property was abandoned even though there were locked gates and fresh tire tracks of the property owner or his security person(me) the thieves also claimed to the cops they did not speak English or read English. signs on the property were in both.
images.mysecuritysign.com...

For every major crime committed by illegals that hits the papers there are 10,000s petty crimes committed by illegals in Calif

a reply to: DBCowboy

Of course, the print media in the big cities was owned by the ruling elite. However, the War Between the States began with the northern states attempting to control the economics for their gain against the southern states.

The majority of the people were ruled by a class system and did as they were told by the wealthy.

Most people worked and lived on farms so the newsprint did not have much influence.

The south felt threatened about losing their land and lifestyle and fear, as they were told by the plantation owners and ruling elite.

The truth is that both state and federal governments have long abused their authorities and slowly but surely continue to erode citizens rights. The water is getting hotter but the frog, now sweating, continues sitting in it.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DBCowboy


Look what a little poop from homeless is doing to people in L.A. and Sanfran.

California plagued with too much toxic crap...

Naw, too easy.