Could be, could be.
Those on the left will not allow a Trump victory, even should he win the popular vote and the Electoral College. They are used to getting what they want and like spoiled brats, have learned that tantrums work.
Should Donald Trump prevail in his bid for a second term, the left will go insane, deploying every “insurance policy” weapon at their disposal to negate four more years of the Orange Man. What Obama, Comey, and Brennan et al. did to Trump in his first term will seem mild in comparison to what the left is planning should he win.
Antifa, the military arm of the Democratic Party, has not spent the last three years practicing and organizing merely to sit on the sidelines. They have used the interregnum to mobilize and learn tactics, while probing to find what government will allow, media will trumpet, and the public will endure.
The skirling “resistance” has morphed from pajama-boy blobs of perpetually offended little dictators and pussy-hat sporting shriekers into balaclava-wearing avengers who crave the opportunity to put deplorables in their place and give them the government they deserve good and hard. They will flood the streets after a Trump victory in their Antifa costumes looking to bust the heads of anyone near enough to become part of their 15 minutes of YouTube fame.
It will start in the cities — the Democrat-run cities, of course — where the political leadership will provide them a measure of protection against identification and arrest. Seattle, Portland, LA, San Francisco, NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, and Baltimore, among others, will become flashpoints of unrest.
The riots will be portrayed by the media and the Democrats as a groundswell of support for deposing a racist president. They will bemoan the necessity of the violence, destruction, and loss of life, but remind Americans that “the people have spoken.” Some among the Antifa will be championed. In lockstep, both the New York Times and the Washington Post will run headlines calling them: “The New Founding Fathers.” People who fight back will quickly grow in number — even as the media label them “white supremacists.” Blood will be spilled.
And at that point, it probably ought to be. The next part is of more concern to me, honestly.
The right will never believe the Democrats didn’t cheat their way to victory; in addition to understanding that a Democratic President will undemocratically implement policies by executive order that are inimical to their interests and desires.
Both their suspicions and their fears would be justified, too. Onwards.
Many on the right are weary of leaders who prioritize good press over good policy, and who prefer losing gracefully over winning ugly. They believe they did build that and that they have not yet made enough money and are fed up with being portrayed as ignorant and evil just because of political disagreements. Eight years of Obama and three years of watching his slow-motion coup have made them angry.
Tone-deaf to this silent majority and emboldened by victory, the new president will borrow Barry’s “pen and phone” and start issuing executive orders throwing open our borders, banning fossil fuels, and of course, implementing “common sense” gun control. Buoyed by media, the new president will start with universal background checks and a gun registry.
Eventually, the president will overreach, signing an order for gun confiscation, euphemistically called, “mandatory buybacks.” Antifa and their ilk will flood the streets in support of seizing these “weapons of war.” Media will declare, “It’s the will of the people.”
And for the right, that will be the last straw (plastic or paper).
Ahhh, but there’s the rub: would it, really? I’ve long held that gun confiscation would indeed be the straw that finally breaks the American camel’s back; these days, though, I’m less certain of that than I once was. Already we’ve seen at least one gun owner killed by police in a red-flag-law confiscation attempt, without much more than a murmur from anyone. It will happen again; count on it. So what happens next time? The time after that? The time after that?
As I’ve said again and again: no sane, normal person wants to have to kill anybody, and will put up with one hell of a lot in order to avoid it. And the overwhelming majority of gun owners are more sane, normal, and above all responsible than most. Their perfectly justifiable reluctance to pull the trigger, especially on a cop, is one of the factors that make me doubt my previous blanket assumption that gun confiscation would amount to putting the match to the American powder keg.
I’m more inclined now to think that there’s actually but one thing capable of fanning the smoldering embers of Civil War 2.0 into full-on flame: hunger. Should hunger, for whatever currently-inconceivable cause, become a real problem in this country, violence must surely follow. No human being will just sit back and passively starve; even the most peaceful and law-abiding among us will be driven to extreme measures by hunger.
Worse, no man will tolerate seeing his children going hungry, not for very long. A man who would never dream of shooting a cop, even over a gun-confiscation raid, would be a lot less balked by the prospect of killing somebody, anybody, over food for a hungry young ‘un. A LOT. Should FedGovCo somehow come to be perceived as the cause of widespread hunger, FedGovCo will need to get its problem rectified, sharpish. Or else.
Most Americans long ago divorced themselves from high-minded Constitutional principle; liberty, self-determination, and such-like words are barely even a part of their vocabulary nowadays. Certainly tyranny is not something they have even the most rudimentary grasp of, and are not much bothered by it anyway. Not so with gun owners, of course. But I’m guessing as of now that, having seen the 2A rendered all but meaningless already by incremental encroachment, they’d probably be content to bury their arms in the backyard and bide their time for a while longer in preference to going all-out to defend the 2A. Not derogating them for it, mind. But if there’s really to be a Civil War 2.0, I no longer think it’s the 2A problem that will spark it.
Which puts a Democrat-Socialist theft of the 2020 election right out the window as a probable cause. I could be all wet, of course. But right now that’s how it all looks to me.
Update! Don’t think for a second that the Democrat-Socialists are NOT going to try to take them, either. Not for a single moment.
During the September 12, 2019, Democrat debate, Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke confirmed his plans to take AR-15 and AK-47 rifles from Americans.
Beto O’Rourke was asked if he is ready to support confiscation, and he said, “I am if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.”
He then elaborated on how certain bullets are meant to operate in military guns, but he never explained that an AR-15 is not a military weapon. It is a civilian, semiautomatic rifle that shoots one round each time the trigger is pulled. The military weapon, an M4, shoots semiautomatic or fully automatic and is designed to handle the heat and stress of being shot on a battlefield. An AR-15 is not.
After inaccurately describing the AR-15, O’Rourke said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
As you would expect, Mayor Buttplug is, shall we say, all in.
In an interview with TMZ Live on Friday, Buttigieg was asked about the Twitter feud between former Congressman Beto O’Rourke and Texas Republican Representative Briscoe Cain.
After O’Rourke told gun owners that “Hell, yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15″ during the Democrat debate on Thursday, Cain dared Beto O’Rourke on Twitter to come and take his AR-15.
Buttigieg agreed with O’Rourke that Cain’s comment on Twitter was a “death threat,” and the South Bend mayor admonished Cain for failing to have a more intelligent conversation about gun issues.
Only if you try to come and take them, Buttplug. And lest you think Blotto and Buttplug are mere outliers:
After years of being told that we are paranoid for saying that the anti-gun Left wants to confiscate our weapons, the anti-gun Left is letting us know in no uncertain terms that they want to confiscate our weapons.
Last year, when the only constituency he was trying to woo consisted of residents of the great state of Texas, O’Rourke was still paying lip service to being a supporter of legal gun owners.
So much for that.
Kamala Harris got out in front of everything earlier in the year when she promised that she would almost immediately become an executive-action nightmare on gun control if Congress didn’t give her what she wanted.
While the Democrats keep referring to the AR-15 specifically, they also repeatedly use the phrase “weapons of war,” which puts the slippery in “slippery slope.”
“Weapons of war” is a catch-all that can also refer to sidearms, knives, and anything else ever used in a battle. They used to use rocks back in the catapult days, you know.
They naturally dismiss this idea as just more paranoia, even as they work to prove that none of us are actually paranoid.
Yep. The thing to remember about them—all of them, all of the time—is that they’re fucking liars. Well, that, and one other little thing:
The obvious takeaway from all of this is that we were right all along about the Democrats’ intentions, which provides a perfect example for future debates when they’re pretending to be anything other than what they truly are: Soviet-esque control-freak statists.
Bloody bloody update! Oddly, there’s no story beneath the Bee’s headline, just a picture. No matter, the headline says it all: “Beto: ‘Hell Yes I’m Going To Violate My Oath To Defend The Constitution.’” Ehhhh, big deal; every last one of them starts doing that about five minutes after being sworn in. Elsewhere, Insty chimes in in his usual concise, to-the-point manner:
THEY’RE UPSET BECAUSE ONLY LEFTISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO THREATEN VIOLENCE IF THEY DON’T GET THEIR WAY: New Republic: Conservatives: We’ll Spill Blood to Keep Our Guns. “‘There would be violence’ neatly elides what’s actually being claimed: Some gun-rights activists would murder government officials who try to enforce a duly passed law. This isn’t an extreme viewpoint among such gun enthusiasts. If anything, it’s one of their central tenets.”
What part of Molon Labe don’t you get? Well, probably all of it, given today’s dismal education system.
And a law that violates the Constitution — which gun confiscation absolutely would — isn’t a “duly passed law.” It’s a usurpation of authority. Funny that all these people who have been yammering about #Resistance and punching Nazis seem okay with the idea of laws that violate the Constitution, laws that are — of course — themselves enforced with guns and violence.
But should it come to that, which I doubt, I suspect it wouldn’t be the cops and troops enforcing this who would be targeted first.
Well, it shouldn’t be, in fact. The targets of right ought to be the Democrat-Socialist would-be tyrants responsible for it in the first place. “Okay with the idea of laws that violate the Constitution”? Of course they are. That’s their bread and butter, it’s what they’re all about—Progressivism distilled down to its purest essence. Once you recognize that, everything they do suddenly becomes crystal clear.