As much as I hare libs and would love to discount the idea all together, I do think it is a outside possibility if things get bad enough for them. Don’t get me wrong I hate them, they are trying to end my way of life because “fur is murder” and everyone should only eat imported plants instead of meat.
Two things chill my blood when I think of this.
One, there are a lot of these “people”. It is simple numbers, a group of 10 heavily armed men or women will not stand a chance against 1000 scrawny emaciated tree huggers. Granted the losses would be astronomical but in the end the numbers would overpower the heavily armed people. It would become a war of attrition, and it takes no time to become vegetarian cannon fodder but it takes months to train soldiers.
Two, there are a lot of fence sitters and they are armed. I even have to consider myself part of this group. These are the people who are actually in the middle on most issues. Most of these people could care less about gay rights or abortion or any of it, they like the status quo and do not want to rock the boat. My fear is that these people will throw their lot in with the liberals as soon as the conservatives go to far, and then it is not just the numbers but it is also armed people. For each one it will be a different trigger, a family member coming out or a rape that results in a abortion, but slowly they will align with the far left as politicians push to the right.
This gets compounded with the “moral” dilemma that will plague those who could care less but are expected to follow orders. How many people could pull the trigger on a unarmed (at least no firearms) person when they are ordered to protect some bank that foreclosed on their brother-in-laws house. This is why the occupy wall street people were allowed to go as far as they did, the people who were supposed to stop them had themselves been wronged by the institutions that needed protecting. Nobody wanted to shoot some guy throwing rocks at a bank because that bank had similarly screwed all the people that it needed to protect it. I imagine that a “new revolution” would go down the same way, and many could not stomach killing unarmed civilians. Look at the revolution in Ukraine, there may be a civil war now but at the time that power changed hands it was relatively bloodless as far as these things go.
On some level I think it might be good to have a limited confrontation, but once it starts I don’t think it will stop. If it was limited it would keep people from straying to far left or right, and the extremists on both sides would probably die. But again I don’t think it would be limited, and I’m sure there are many other angles I’m not seeing.
A very interesting thought exercise, thanks.
Statistics: Posted by Permafrost — Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:15 am