Also bear in mind that there are roughly 90 Million lawful firearm owners in the US. That is one hell of a militia. Combine that with a lot of Veterans in any given area that have become familiar with asymetrical warfare thanks to long involvement in the Middle East and the fact that any War Material may well be commandeered by local militias, an all out civil war would be terrifying.

Note that the U.S. Democratic party is "left" leaning only with respect to the U.S.-specific Overton window. In Europe it would be considered centrist at best, even center-right. It's nowhere near a Socialist party; from across the ocean it looks to be more like traditional European center-right parties such as the Conservative party of the U.K. or the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. AFAIK, there is no consensus in the U.S. Democratic party to introduce strict gun control, and no inclination towards nationalization of companies.

This was so close to my answer it's creepy...

@AlexP While true, how the US leans in regards to other nations is irrelevant to how it leans in regards to itself. The perception of Democrats as Communists is FAR more important in the context of this question than how Communist they actually are.

@Nosajimiki-ReinstateMonica: My point was that they are, in fact, very much not Communists or even Socialists, and thus they will not, in fact, implement any kind of Communist or Socialist policies which would trigger mass resistance. I'm not at all current with American politics, but doesn't the Democratic party actually have an iron grip on California? And didn't they actually live very well with a two-term Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger? Isn't California one of the richest and most dynamic states, home of many flourishing companies?

@PaulTIKI Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I really would only classify them as a militia rather than an actually army purely on the basis that they would not yet have a standing structure or the unified training to deem them regulars (at least at that point). Still a hell of a fighting force though.

@AlexP The events wouldn't be caused by actuality of policies, it would entirely be perception. It doesn't matter if the Democratic party is actually socialist or communist. The conservatives just have to think they are, and in turn hate them for it. Politics really is just as, if not more, divisive than religion here. People are more than willing to killing eachother over their beliefs, and simply don't because of the rule of law. The fact that so many people on both ends of the spectrum distrust the law doesn't help either.

@AlexP Not exactly, California's government went bankrupt under Schwarzenegger's policies despite tons of wealth. Many of those rich companies are leaving that state in favor of Texas and Colorado throwing fuel on the fire. Democratic party is popular there because their economy has been so screwed by the ultra rich that most people can barely afford a subsistence level lifestyle unless they are an actors, major business owner, doctors, senior programmers, etc.

@AlexP The platform advanced by most prominent Democrat party members has a very strong lean towards gun control and confiscation. This gets muddled somewhat because of the way our representation is divided out by States and Districts. A Democrat in most of Kansas would be committing political suicide with a pro gun confiscation stance while in San Francisco, not so much. Anyway, the Bulk of Democrat Party leadership is pro Gun Control, but they can't just push it too hard too fast because there is actually something in the constitution and that is VERY hard to change (second amendment)

@TitaniumTurtle You would be surprised at the level of training most firearm owners have in common. There is no real discernable difference between NRA training and the firearm safety every soldier in boot camp gets. A great many legal firearm owners have had or teach NRA firearm safety, and I have never been to a gun shop or range that does not strongly endorse NRA sanctioned classes.

@AlexP One thing to think about is exactly how the US Constitution works. It is a really (surprisingly) short Document that gives a basic structure for the government and then has 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) that specifically calls out what the government CANNOT do. It is very hard to alter the Constitution, and there is a long history of various laws that get struck down because they go against the Bill of Rights. It's an interesting bit of history and philosophy.

@PaulTIKI I wasn't referring to firearm usage at all. I was referring to tactical training, teamwork, following orders, discipline. Any group of gun owners can fire accurately, but a well trained team is far superior to a force in any comparable numbers, even outnumbered. That is the difference between a standing military and a militia.

@TitaniumTurtle Many of those firearms owners are veterans. And a sizeable percentage of those veterans never really readapted to civilian life and would jump at the chance to go to war again. Especially if it was for a cause that was central to their identity, like gun ownership.

"I personally hate the party system" - you never lived under a "single party system", did you? No possibility for a civil war, for sure.

@fraxinus That's pretty obviously a complaint about lack of parties, i.e. that there are only two relevant ones instead of 5 or more like in real democracies.

In my opinion you should heed AlexP's complaint and elaborate on perception part versus actual policy.

The most basic problem here though is that this requires an explicit rejection of democracy by the right-wing. A Democrat government can only get in through the democratic process, which needs (as a first approximation, allowing for Electoral Colleges and gerrymandering) more people voting for them than not. However much hardcore Republicans may dislike the result, it's hard to see anything like a majority of Republicans rejecting democracy as a concept. Libertarian gun nuts may go for it, but they aren't the majority, even in Texas.

@Graham See how people got upset that Donald Trump won, even though he received less than 50% of the votes. Now turn it around so it's Republicans who are upset. It's easy to see why people reject a concept of democracy where the minority wins.

Personally I think it's more likely that the government will back down from its most extreme policies when they realize that state and local law enforcement will not back them up (see how Virginia's new gov't seems to be backing off from their gun confiscation plans), so it's more likely that an "unofficial" branch of the Democrat party like "Antifa" might take it upon themselves to commit acts of guerrilla violence against right-leaning groups. If it were to escalate (and I don't think it would, really) the government would eventually take a side, with the excuse that they had no choice.

@user253751 Of course people dislike that, because it adds an element of gerrymandering. I didn't see anyone rejecting the concept of democracy though. I saw plenty of people protesting the fact that a compulsive liar, self-confessed sex offender and serial failure as a businessman had been elected, the same as I saw plenty of people protesting Obama's liberal views. But don't confuse protesting policies or even protesting the person with protesting the concept of goverment.

@AlexP: That other countries regard the US Democratic Party as "centrist at best" is THEIR problem. It certainly would be relevant if we were discussing why those countries don't have civil wars (at least not recently), but we aren't,