So, I was thinking about this today... on the Peoria.com Forums

I, honestly believe this country, is headed for civil, all out war... we are well over due, and the haves and have nots divide is increaing daily. Over the last 10 years, especially, we work our asses off every day to pay for a govt that caters to the rich which makes policy for the rest of us. they throw us crumbs every now and then to try to quell our displeasure with their actions, they have attempted to buy out the poor with social services while forcing the dwindling middle class to pay for it... they raise taxes, fees and regulations on small businesses, and then force us into bankruptcy they have made routine healthcare for those that work and pay the nations bills, so expensive it bankrupts us. if your middle class, and cant afford exorbant insurance fees, and get hurt you are penalized while the poor and rich get a free, or next to free, ride. Notice Rush Limbaugh - as one example, never disclosed what it cost him for care, in hawaii... why? because that would 'hurt' the agenda.

Time is no longer on the side of the rich, which is why we have a plethora of anti gun laws in the works, the rich want to disarm the masses. Unfortunately, for most of us, I feel, that civil violance on a scale, not seen since the first civil war is quickly approaching. and its not because we, middle and low class citizens follow the rules, but its because the rich and elite change the rules to suit them.

Banks got trillions of our money yet are unwilling to refinance mortgages? Illegal immigration is out of control and our federal govt compares a state, which decides to stand its ground, to countries such as Pakistan, and saudi Arabia. the divide is growing, daily, and unfortunately for us, reg folk, the **** is going to hit the fan in a very bad way. if you dont believe it, just take a look at gun and ammo sales.

The entire system is a disaster.

I was thinking about this at work today, I, like a lot of people I know, work 2 jobs, and, like those other dualy empolyed people I know, still struggle to be finacially sound.

Think about the unemployment rate and what a hit it would take if everyone working more than one job could give one up to someone that's not working....

But then, even fewer people would be financially stable....

I'm not particularly disagreeing with your post; just about the part of why people are stockpiling guns and ammo. I think the true stockpliler is afraid Obama will eventually make guns and ammo harder to come by and they are loading up now. Ammo prices did take a huge $$ increase when he took office.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the Repubs represent what you call the "haves" and are not generally in favor of gun control. It's usually the Dems that want to keep guns out of honest, law abiding citizens hands.
Second, it's the Dems, Obama and his boys, that are dropping charges against illegals that have already been arrested.
I do believe that the divide is getting larger though. My opinion is that the "haves" are tired of footing the bill for the "have nots" that have a "hand out."

I'm staying out of this one.

I don't understand this post. Your party of choice has been in absolute power now for nearly two years. Is that not working out for you?

The Independants are in power???
Damn, where have I been?

I wish Obama and his goons would quit trying to appease the other side....go hard or go home, bitches.

reason.com/archives/2010/02/15/obama-spurns-gun-control

Obama Spurns Gun Control

Among the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America.

So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.

Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked—except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking him on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it."

Had he listened to the candidate in 2008, he would have believed. At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. … There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

The Brady Center must have hoped he was being less than honest. And he was: He had no intention of pushing those "common-sense" laws he had previously favored. On the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.

So he has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Clinton—and allowed to expire in 2004—has no visible place on his agenda.

Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced.

Still, the NRA is not rushing to recant. A spokesman admits the president has signed some provisions it favors, but notes that they were attached to legislation he wanted, making them hard to veto. Says Andrew Arulanandam, "He has disappointed us with his appointments," particularly Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, neither a darling of the shooting set.

But those are petty matters given Obama's overall refusal to do anything to advance gun control. On this issue, he took such a strong, clear position during the campaign that he has no room to maneuver. That was not accidental. It was deliberate—the equivalent of burning his ships to eliminate the option of retreat.

In terms of actual policy, rather than his previous record, Obama is a long way from being anti-gun. This is not because he has fond memories of sitting in a deer stand as a lad in Hawaii or of talking shotguns with Dick Cheney. It's because his mother didn't raise a fool.

Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table.

Off the table is exactly where he intends to keep it. Last year, 65 House Democrats wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. The president has enough trouble getting legislation that enjoys overwhelming support in his party. He is not about to pick a fight with centrist Democrats over gun control.

Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a canny politician in the White House: He doesn't have to.

K...I stated that it's usually the Dems that are in favor of gun control...and it is. If Barry isn't, good for him.
But, the part of my post that you quoted was in reference to illegal aliens, that have already been caught, being released because they haven't done anything "really" illegal.

Ooops. deleted the wrong part

One industry is more than happy to let this meme fester. That would be the gun industry as they are laughing all the way to the bank.

As far as civil wars go... I don't see a strong fault line along Marxist principles.

The most serious fault line is religious, between the increasingly hard core fundamentalist Christians and well everyone else. They want to align and define society and politics along their narrow biblical interpretation, while at the same time wrapping themselves in the flag. Christofascists, the Christian answer to Islamofascism. Our radicals aren't as militant yet. All the bogeymen are in place; gays, Muslims, immigrants, atheists, secularists.

Maybe civil war was too indicitive of mass rioting in the streets, etc, although....

I agree on the religious divisions, but I disagree with what Stray said about the haves nad have-nots.

Believe me, I'm not in favor of more free handouts. I despise standing in the store at night ringing up polar pops and 20 dollars worth of over-priced garbage and then handed a LINK card. And the worst is when their kids come in an hour later with the card and buy 10 dollars more.
And since thewy're the cheapest made cards you can find, I have to key the numbers in most times and I'll see the same cards sometimes 3 - 4 times a night, with different people using it.

At the same time, you cannot deny that the "rich" are further being distanced form the "poor" and that the Middle Class is shrinking faster than anyone could have predicted.

Once upon a time, one person, usually the man of the house, went out and got a job, took care of his family, paid his bills, bought a house, put his kids through college....

Not any more. Not as common place, anyhow.

Sounds like we're on the same page regarding handouts and even the mis-uses and abuses of the system. What part do you disagree with?
Just last week I stood in line at Comcast waiting to pay my cable bill. I was standing behind two women who were discussing the fine points of how to get even more government aid, and signing up for the program that pays your power bill in the winter. When it was the womans turn to pay, she pulled out a rather large wad of cash from her pocket. In that same fistfull of large bills was a LINK card. Her cable bill was well over $100 dollars, yet she needs the "Gubmint" to pay for her groceries and power bill? Really?
It's things like that that make people angry. HipKat,You are working two jobs and barely squeeking by, but these women are milking the system for all it's worth. They have a LINK card and can buy whatever crap they want, their CILCO will be paid, and they have full cable. You on the other hand, might have to shop at ALDI for bargains, keep your house cooler this winter because your power bill is too high and cut back to basic cable. YOU worked for that money, shouldn't YOU be able to have those things? HELL, if it's going to be that easy to get government aid, then lets ALL quit working and live on the dole. Oh wait..someone has to generate the tax dollars that pay for those programs.

I don't get government assistance of any kind but rather than be angry against those who do I appreciate the fact that I have a good job and could afford to buy a house, car, pay my bills, and take care of my child.

I think the only part we disagree on is the haves getting tired of the have nots, when it's the have greediniess that is creating more and more of the have nots...

There's a difference between the have nots and the people that we're talking about that milk the system