The only anti gun types I know are main stream Dems not progressives.

The only ones I know are the progressives.

But main stream where I live may be quite different from main stream where you live.

Bingo. The only people who would mentally [and otherwise] crumble under “got some groceries, some peanut butter, to last a couple of days” would be the rich. Bringing a war against the poor would be…like turning the gun on themselves. It would be the dragon eating the very very last little bit of its tail.

They've had plenty of experience already with bureaucracy; why takeover much, much more, plus inherit a host of present and future problems?

The de facto unitary state (nation) supplanting the federal republic is decades old.

There's no true legal, or moral or logical, underpinning of it. (There is plenty of blabbering and much that is disguised or dishonestly packaged at such underpinning, i.e., rationalization of it and approval-seeking of it, but that's not the same!) What underpins it is not only mere acquiescence but widespread public acceptance and (often whole-hearted) approval of it and a desire for more.

“We are more likely to see attempts at seccession by a few states than a takeover of the federal government by military coup.”

It could happen, but it wouldn't be easy. (Just look at the case with many “soveregntists,” i.e., who are largely less-than-fully-up-front separatists, in Quebec — avoiding the subsequent problems of secession by substituting other concepts, with ironical retention of many former-nation features such as currency and even Canadian citizenship!) Existing state (territorial) divisions would not be intact; partition would always be a consideration, and there is the question these days (especially with the Obama-term fiscal nightmare) the question of federal debt (and unfunded future federal liabilities) and how this would be divided. That's assuming the states would be able to leave peacefully at all, which is far from given.

That's aside from the dispassionate (and untainted by lefty politics) view of secession is, if it makes sense or not, which is the real-world, practical test of viability. Would a state that seceded survive and thrive on its own? (This implies what might happen is a bloc of states such as the Southeast might secede rather than one state by itself to form a new nation.)

The trend toward centrality of authority in Washington and continued replacement of federalism with our own kind of nationalism is unabated, and this confounds even what should reasonably happen in some states that are already or will become larger in population and economy in the Sun Belt-dominated future, especially California, Texas, and Florida. While it's perfectly understandable, and in fact is what amounts to long-overdue resolution of wrongful trend-setting in the other direction, devolution of authority now held by Washington especially to the larger states, in special cases, creating a number of exceptions to uniformity, is perfectly sensible as an alternative to secession. That is, California first and foremost but possibly other states later who are truly larger and more self-sufficient and competent alone, at least in theory (Florida would probably come next to California, followed by Texas, though many in Texas would argue the opposite), could and probably should have large measures of autonomy and policy decision-making carried out by and within such a state or states than by Washington. (It is deliberately anti-constitutional in fact to conceive of so much of what would be done in this way, to say the state(s) involved “should be allowed to do” X or Y, when they should correctly be seen as possessing these powers already, which have been arrogated by Washington, but such is our inverted situation of the past several decades.) California could obviously be seen as setting its own policy; certainly any state like that, which could be viewed seriously as having some right to substantial kinds of authority because it would pass the real-world test of viability if it were to secede. (I recall one work on the relation of California and the rest of the nation with a future-autonomy scenario that would include possible veto power over federal legislation within the state.)

That's a nice fantasy for a spy novel but is patently absurd in 2009. There may come a point when such a thing is possible, but it is at least a generation away.

Decadence and its exploitation, if not further fueling –

“Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect”: Done, as of the 1930s, by the Democrats.

“Bread and circuses”: Done already in Roman days, and the bread part already has been done by the Democrats (as of the 1960s, in earnest). Media (when not among the Dem participants) has provided the circuses in the past decades, as well.

Just wait until the music stops, or can't continue, in about the next 10-20+ years, as financial problems related to entitlement programs grow and can't be ignored (they are unsustainable) and the still-largely unfunded liabilities of governments materialize.

None of that foretells a military coup to try to arrest or brake this process and the related problems — the most authoritarian experiences we have had already are already cause enough for concern, and the cause of many of our problems (fruition of decades of such practices). It's nowhere bad enough to make anyone worry about a coup right now. Nor, later. (Default on federal debt, maybe, along with monetizing much of it and witnessing substantial inflations for other, “bread and circuses,” reasons as well, though.) The real issue here always has been and remains, the problems that lead to speculation about the consequences.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I take it any progressives out their who fear a coup support the Second Amendment?

That is one of the reasons we maintain the separation of military branches. They have separate power structures and are difficult to coordinate. That's a good thing. The Army could not take down the government with the Marine Corps standing in its way. The only way anyone, be it Obama or Cheney (for you Silhouette), could take us into a coup is to totally control all branches with no resistance from the power structure. It just cannot happen until it does. I'm not sweatin' it yet.

If Uncle Cheney wants to attack US citizens do you think he'll be sitting in his bomb shelter doing it by himself? He'll need support. Indeed, solidarity is the problem. More to the point, morality and personal introspection is the problem. Aiming artillery at US citizens is the same thing as aiming it at himself. The cushy lifestyle his rich backers are used to will be uprooted in a nanosecond. You know the Talking Heads' song about Life During War Time right?

“..This ain't no party, this ain't no disco
this ain't no fooling around
This ain't no mudd club, or C. B. G. B.
I ain't got time for that now

Heard about Houston? Heard about Detroit?
Heard about Pittsburgh, PA?
You oughta know not to stand by the window
somebody might see you up there
I got some groceries, some peanut butter
to last a couple of days
But I ain't got no speakers
ain't got no headphones
ain't got no records to play”
*********
When the grunts who make their goodies decide they won't anymore, or can't anymore, then Cheneyco will have to get by on “some groceries, some peanut butter to last a couple of days”.

It won't be no party, won't be no disco, won't be no foolin' around..

The citizens have a right to bear arms. Just about everyone I know has a gun, plenty of ammo and knows how to use them

Assuming that you get all those people to shoot in the right direction (Good Luck), you have no idea the shit Uncle Sam can throw at you and will throw at you…

The problem isn't guns, it's solidarity…

The citizens have a right to bear arms. Just about everyone I know has a gun, plenty of ammo and knows how to use them and they don't all answer to Dick Cheney's crew [the people you were alluding to that might instigate one on a more large scale than they already have been].

So, you know…do the math. Tens of millions Vs a bunch of grunts who may or may not decide mutiny against their sworn duty to the US Constitution is a good idea…