What is the most realistic sequence of events that would lead to armed domestic conflict in the US?
Is there really a possibility of this happening on a wide scale (as opposed to occasional local flare-ups like timothy mcveigh style attacks or riots that escalate)?
>>71931413
>Democrats stack the Supreme Court and enact gun control
>Militias pissed, begin armed rebellion
>Russia begins arming US rebels through the Mexican border
I fully expect this to happen if Trump loses.
>CNN debate, Trump vs. Clinton
>Super Bowl level viewership, entire nation glued to the TV
>Moderators not giving Trump a chance to get even a slight word in, just an endless barrage of "racist", "sexist" and Clinton cackles
>Trump ends up screaming over the moderator and dropping redpills on Clinton to the entire country
>CNN cuts the feed live
Guarantee you there would be mass riots and defection from police forces in a matter of HOURS.
>>71931413
If they run out of burgers
>>71931413
anything that interrupts or suspends the supermarket and trucking cycle for more than 50 or so hours
>>71931777
That's no laughing matter, don't even joke about it!
Burgers are an inalienable right!
>>71931777
Not even joking, that would do it. Any functioning society is just 3 missed meals away from a revolution.
As long as the general population is wealthy, there's no way any armed resistance is happening. Even if they take your guns.
Cletus and friends may take up arms but the average middle-class suburban gun owner has too much to lose to join some revolution.
>>71932023
You are a smart motherfucker, anon.
>>71932900
Once the government starts cracking down hard it becomes a lot harder to stay neutral. If you defend yourself, you're a rebel in their eyes.
Look at Romania. Ceausescu had everything all set up and he was going to give a speech to calm everyone down after some minor riots and then shit spiraled out of control SUPER fast. And they didn't even have guns.
>>71931413
Things would actually have to get really bad before people would consider rising up. Like unemployment reaching the point of welfare programs collapsing, or a significant portion of the population going hungry as a result of production breakdown and/or poverty. Unless the Federal Government did some blatant, cartoon supervillian tier villainy, I can't see a revolt happening.
>>71933507
I would have agreed until this election. I'm not usually huge on this postmodernist language influencing thought bullshit, but Trump has made discussing revolt normal. He's "normalized the discourse of revolution", as some Cultural Marxist shitstain might put it.
Only a year ago, people like Alex Jones who talked about how the government and (((media))) were all working together to fuck us over were considered loonies on the Internet. Now they're cited in the news. You can't tell me that hasn't changed a lot of people's perceptions of the world and what they can do to change it.
>>71933796
That's because Alex Jones is a loonie on the internet. He covers some legitimate things, but the bulk of what he does is completely insane drivel. Don't even get me started on some of the ridiculous stuff he shills for.
Anyway, nobody would consider the legitimate things he covered because of all the insanity thrown in. People are willing to consider it when Trump starts the conversation because he hasn't rambled on about things that are entirely retarded so far. Though he was pushing it with the few times he brought up autism.
>>71934198
Yes, but now that Trump has started the conversation, the concept of a revolt has left "insane" and become normal.
