Do you agree with this claim?

[Twalli]

I don't know if this is accurate, but it makes sense. Let's say there's a civil war between the right and left. It won't be a right-wing victory. The left wing holds most cities. These are essentially fortified areas, with a lot of places to lie in wait for ambushes and cover. The right mostly lives outside cities with little cover and protection. So, in order to attack the left, the right needs to attack heavily fortified areas. While they may have more guns, a person can't carry a full arsenal with them, so at best they can carry 2 guns with ammunition, even if they have over 20 on their property. It's also pretty much a foregone conclusion that the left won't actually launch an attack. They have no desire to do so. So, the right would start the conflict. Most of the military is loyal to the nation. Thus, the right starting the conflict would mean they're attacking the country. That would mean the military is supporting those attacked, the left. The right is therefore attacking fortified areas defended by the military and people who also have guns (albeit fewer). One thing the south had, that the right won't have is uniformity. The south was one area, a civil war between the right and left has no large area with a lot of people for the right to draw from. The left doesn't either, but they have cities and the military on their side.

Updates

8 mo

I am not advocating for a civil war; I just wanted to point out that it won't be as one-sided as the right seems to think it will be.

[Syntosi]

I dont think the number of guns or where each side is concentrated would matter all that much. The ones who would win such a civil war is the one who can organize and mobilize better. Its kind of like the idea of random people going up against an organization.

If we use protest marches as a demonstration of the organization ability of each side since it requires much the same stuff that would be needed to win a civil war including logistics and communication. There simply is no comparison, the left wing completely blows anything the right wing can accomplish out of the water.

While there are a lot of right wing people as demonstrated by election results, they regularly fail to organize them with the biggest right wing demonstration that I know of only amounting to 300k as opposed to the left wings 20-26 million.

The right wing would be absolutely crushed and USA does not have a military big enough to control a population of Americas size so the military would be mostly helpless too against the left wing even if you ignore how willing they would be to attack American civilians etc..

[Twalli]

I'm just saying, the way it works is that the ones attacking are attacking the US, that would be the right wing (most likely). In that case the military would protect those attacked, the left wing.

[Syntosi]

True, but since the left wing could probably overpower the military anyways it kind of does not matter which side attacks first either.

[OneViewpoint]

It will be similar to the first Civil War. A mess. Dividing friends and families. States and cities. All the Reich Wing mouthing off is coming from a handful of radicalized militias made up of losers who couldn't cut it in the US military but are spending the rest of their life pretending they're warriors and teenage losers they recruit from the internet. None of them have any real training or experience. But any moron with enough delusion can pull a trigger. However they will fold like a wet paper bag the moment it gets real. I think the best thing that can happen is if they start an insurrection which allows the US military to step in and slaughter them. Hunt them. And eliminate the problem.

Not that the left would be any better off. It would be a total shit show just like 1860. And it would leave the USA as a former Super Power reduced to the status of a Russia. A broken economy. A crushed national spirit. A totally unmotivated population. Welcome to the end of the experiment.

[Agape93]

Plus those cities and areas with higher left hand populations, they hold a high amount of commerce and funding. They can indirectly pressure companies to cut funding or logistics to right leaning areas, and even cut off finances in general off.

That said, cities are a bad place to get stuck. You have hundreds of thousands of people, up to a couple million maybe, that you have to feed, get water, provide sanitation and medical care to, while being beseiged or invaded with easily sabotaged infrastructure. You have maybe a month before everyone there is starving to death. Not to mention the few guns actually available there doesn't bode well if heavily armed groups start kicking down doors or lighting buildings on fire.

[Twalli]

Airplanes

[lightbulb27]

I was thinking like that. take nyc... cutoff the trucks and deliveries and it becomes a hell hole in short time... not that it isn't already, but there's plenty of food. there's only a few bridges. Whom supplies all the food... but whom is providing the $ to get the food?
it always comes down to money and resources.
It's a reason I don't see a divorce either... maybe a state can divorce but not the whole of country.

[Lliam]

Conservatives are prepared to defend themselves but I don't see them starting a war of aggression. Why would they invade cities? How would they know who was a leftist?

It's the left that starts riots, vandalizes, loots, commits arson and attacks police. They are the ones who are constantly at war with inflammatory language and inciting rancor, hate and divisiveness. They are the ones who are in a war of ideology, as opposed to the majority of people who believe in "live and let live".

So if there was any sort of civil war, I think conservatives would wait for the leftist aggressors to come to them. Mobs of leftists with baseball bats, skateboards, Molotov cocktails and cell phones would be left lying in the street full of holes for the garbage collectors.

It wouldn't take many armed urban conservatives to clear the streets of leftist rioters bent on destruction. That's why left-wing mayors want to ban guns.

[DonaldDarko]

I've heard it compared to the civil war in Columbia long ago. Basically cities vs rural arias. Gang members fought for the leftists, the usual hunters and outdoor types fought for the right wing. It was a stalemate that went on for a while till the military finally put a stop to it. How well that translates to the US I don't know, there are a lot of right wing people in the cities and the left is different here. There weren't leftists in the past that talked about pronouns and "gay pride". Also the left no longer holds the working class. Gang members are as likely to turn on them and take over as help them. We saw some of that at the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone.

[exitseven]

No, yes the cities can be fortified but that just turns them into no mans land. Soon the liberals living in the cities will be eating each other when they run out of food. Conservatives will be picking them off from their front porches when the come begging.

[Still-alive]

Yeah people on the right aren't known for their critical thinking skills. so i doubt they truly thought how it would all play out.

It's simply they really want to use the guns and they'll think later...

[beefcakebradybatson]

An unpleasant prospect with the enormous casualties and fatalities, but sans MAJOR changes in American domestic policies, inevitable by 2035, perhaps (likely?) sooner.

[Twalli]

I don't think it will happen.

[msc545]

Nobody wins a war, and both sides always lose.

[FunkyMonkee]

I guess you can dream.