Go to Google and input, “will there be a civil war in the united states 2019”. It gives 664 million as results of the search. Even if it were only 664 the basic idea is that as put forth in the Merriam-Webster definition of civil war: ‘A war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.’
You can argue as much as you want about the semantics of it, how it depends which definition is used and which word applies best. But it’s the optics, the actual, palpable scenario of it that will matter to those who would be experiencing the conflict. If a large number of civilians start to throw rocks, bottles, incendiary devices, or send bullets in each other’s direction it won’t matter what it’s called, what will matter is how to survive it.
Let’s look at the facts: I live in Nevada. In 2017 the ATF statistics noted that there were 76,888 registered guns in the state. Remember, that’s only ‘registered’. We don’t have to put on our thinking caps to figure that the number of ‘unregistered’ guns would be enough for, as the article stated, “a lot of angry people causing a lot of mayhem”. And here’s an extra dash of salt: Nevada does not require the registration of firearms.
Now, take all of that and read this: [i]"…those who see owning a gun as central to their overall identity are particularly committed to gun ownership. For example, 89% of gun owners who see owning a gun as very or somewhat important to their overall identity say they can’t see themselves ever not owning a gun, compared with 58% of those who say owning a gun is not too important or not at all important their sense of identity.
And while 85% of gun owners who say the right to own guns is essential to their sense of freedom say they can’t see themselves ever not owning a gun at some point, 41% of those who don’t see the right to own guns as essential say the same."[/i] url=https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership[/url]
Take that identity-freedom stance, mix it in with all those whose garbanzo-size brains tell them that Trump is their savior, and you have a recipe for a potentially bitter scenario. Call it civil unrest, rioting, revolt, widespread urban conflict, call it a civil brawl if you like. But whatever you call it make sure it means a scenario where your very life could be on the line.
Do I personally want a scenario like that to happen? No, of course not. Something like, no matter what you call it, would set this country back decades and the damage done on different levels would take decades if not more to repair. In short, you won’t have to worry about the semantics or any “foundational confusion” if any of that shit goes down.
Then let us hope, for Left, Right, and Center, that the scenario remains nothing more than a thread in a philosophy discussion forum. If someone reads this in the future and say to themselves, “Wow, that Del Ivers was so wrong”. Then I will be a happy man.