Are We Headed For Another Civil War?

 

Some years back, I wrote a book, 'Tipping Point', that laid out a possible scenario in which The United States suffered a second civil war.  I deliberately made it very 'not pretty' with atrocities being committed by both sides, because civil wars are like that — recall Sherman's March To The Sea that needlessly destroyed civilian croplands and, in the fullness of time, the civilians who relied upon them.  'Tipping Point' hypothesized an assault on the Second Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as the casus belli, but near the end of the book I had one of the characters recall that "...guns were merely a convenient symbol...".  That is, I think, important to keep in mind going forward.  If we are lurching toward a second civil war, it may not be 'guns' that gets us there.

Little more than a year ago, a group of Republican congressmen was ambushed while playing softball — by a disgruntled supporter of Bernie Sanders.  Many of the comments attached to news reports of the incident expressed disappointment that so few deaths resulted.  Within the month, two officials of the Trump administration have been the targets of mobs demanding they not be served at public restaurants.  Within the week, a Democrat congresswoman, Maxine Waters, has publicly issued a call for more of the same.  Whether you call them 'Democrats' or 'the left' or 'progressives' (all of which are marginally inaccurate), there is one segment of society that seems to be actively soliciting our next civil war, and their targets, whether you call them 'Republicans' or 'the right' or 'conservatives' (all of which are marginally inaccurate), are meekly suffering the slings and arrows.

Meanwhile, it's becoming increasingly clear that the FBI and the Department of Justice have, together, badly perverted what's left of our system of justice, and Congress seems reluctant to actually throw somebody into prison, perhaps because they fear turnabout should the next election place them in an exposed position.  This is not a good situation to be in.  This is not a safe place from which to watch somebody else get involved in a civil war.

One hundred million (maybe 120 million) Americans own 350 million (or more) guns and 200 billion rounds of ammunition.  If you look at the map showing electoral districts won by Trump and Clinton in the last Presidential election, it's a startling sight: the blue (Clinton) districts are all relatively tiny (high population density; big cities and metro areas; serious electoral clout) while the red (Trump) districts define the vast bulk of the country's land area (low population density; rural areas; thin electoral power).  It goes without saying, I suppose, that almost all of those guns and gun-owners are in red districts.  What in heaven's name are those Democrats thinking?  They're deliberately trying to anger a population that's better-armed than any WW-II maquis unit, possibly under the assumption that they're so law-abiding they would never turn violent.  What if they're wrong?

If there is another civil war, this one between the Reds and the Blues, the outcome is easy to predict:

1. the Reds are going win.  It's not even theoretically possible for small enclaved cities to overwhelm the heartland, but it is possible for the heartland to cut the cities off from food, water, and electricity.  Game over.
2. the heartland is going to want to secede.  They'll cut the blue districts loose because conquering them is counter-productive.
3. Blue America will turn into a third-world country.  Red America will strictly control its border with Blue America.  There will not be an 'illegal immigrant problem'.
4. Within a few years at most, those blue areas will bid to be annexed simply because the government model they use is unsustainable without inexpensive supplies coming in from red areas.  The blue model requires the red model far more than the red requires the blue.

In short, what the Democrats are doing is so severely against their self-interest it's fair to wonder whether they have thought this problem through to its logical conclusion.  This might be an opportune time for them to correct that lest they accidentally turn 'Tipping Point' from 'fiction' to 'documentary'.

 

Just call 9-1-1.

 

Andrew Pollack, father of Meadow Pollack who was killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, has filed suit against former deputy Scot Peterson for failing to do his duty, presumably his duty to protect Meadow Pollack from getting killed.  The lawyer for Peterson is seeking a dismissal on the grounds that Peterson had no duty to any individual person, only a duty to the community at large.  Mr. Pollack is going to lose this one.  It is a 'matter of settled law' that the police do not have a duty to protect any particular person.

This complaint-and-rebuttal presents a serious problem for those who say we don't need our guns because we can always call 9-1-1 and the police will send help.  It's an even more serious problem for those who argue that teachers shouldn't be armed because the school has an SRO or two.  If the police have no duty to protect, the presence of SROs at the school is irrelevant;  they can ignore the screams and the shots with impunity.  The only people with motivation to confront the shooter are those who are themselves in peril, i.e.: teachers, and if they're going to confront a shooter, they had better be equipped to do so, i.e.: armed.

When the scene shifts to 'college', another dynamic complicates the issue.  College students may be adults and may have concealed weapon permits and, in case of a shooting incident, may similarly be motivated to confront the shooter except that most college campuses are 'gun-free zones' (victim disarmament zones) where they may not be armed and are therefore at a severe disadvantage in that situation.  Again, police may respond when called or they may not.

What to do...  What to do...