5 votes

Civil War I: Slavery - Civil War II: Guns?

There's been a lot of talk lately, perhaps too much talk about the possibility of another Civil War happening within the United States.

Personally, I don't think that is possible - we're too tight, black and white. We all bleed red. Too many people know what's up, and too many Americans of every race and religion are smarter than most people think. More of us are on the same page than anyone could ever imagine, and some have fallen behind in previous chapters but at least their reading the same book called TRUTH.

The first Civil War was not fought over slavery, but the issue was exploited to its full political benefit.

The second Civil War, which the powers that be are trying to foment will not be fought over the 2nd Amendment, but the issue will be exploited to its full political benefit as we can all see on TV.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Abraham Lincoln
Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

2013 Version:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the UNion, and is not either to save or to destroy the 2nd Amendment. If I could save the UNion by implementing a ban on all guns I would do it, and if I could save the UNion by making firearms free to all I would do it; and if I could save the UNion by making guns legal, but restricting their access I would also do that. What I do about guns, and the gun culture in America, I do because I believe it helps to save the UNion."



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lexington and Concord occurred because of "gun control".

I am sure those British Redcoats never imagined "loyal subjects" would fire on the British Crown right up to the instant their heads exploded.

Experience

That depends on experience. The 'greener' soldiers from Britain were likely all piss and vinegar, just like ours when they come out of training. Some of the experienced British soldiers, especially the officers, knew full well what they were starting and they faced it with a sense of pure dread... because they knew the colonists would give them more of a fight than the younger, less experienced soldiers believed. Good military officers know not to underestimate their adversaries and fall victim to pride. It doesn't matter what century or even what nation... the rule generally applies based on experience. Our military people who have been in places like Afghan for a few years have a wildly different perspective that those who are fresh from training... and those experienced soldiers will know that disarmament is no cake walk. In fact, they have not accomplished it in any Middle Eastern country we've invaded.

"Those who know war not will welcome it with a dance"