# When SHTF, which of these weapons would you choose?



## The2ndAmendment

Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.

My choice is the AA-12 and sabre


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Only two votes?


----------



## Pogo

The2ndAmendment said:


> Only two votes?



You've got six choices, and they're all _weapons_.

Duh?


----------



## PredFan

Why can't i just use the ones I have:

M-1 Garand
Remington 12ga pump shotgun.
44 magnum Virginian Dragoon
40 cal auto
380 Kel-Tek auto
9mm Astro auto
25 ca Raven auto


----------



## Missourian

If it's a long gun, edged weapon combination,  I think I've got mine already.

None of the above.

AR-15 and a Parang.

I picked this one up at Walmart for $34


----------



## lizzie

The2ndAmendment said:


> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube


 
I would choose an AK, because it's tough, reliable, and although not the most accurate, it is capable of doing the job at a good distance. For all-around usefulness and tolerance to abuse, it's the best in that class.


----------



## Pogo

lizzie said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would choose an AK, because it's tough, reliable, and although not the most accurate, it is capable of doing the job at a good distance. For all-around usefulness and tolerance to abuse, it's the best in that class.
Click to expand...



-- And what exactly is "the job"?


----------



## lizzie

Pogo said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would choose an AK, because it's tough, reliable, and although not the most accurate, it is capable of doing the job at a good distance. For all-around usefulness and tolerance to abuse, it's the best in that class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
Click to expand...

 
Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.


----------



## TNHarley

I would stick with what I.got
samurai sword, kubar knife, 9 milli, ak and soon to be added to the list 12 gauge tactical


----------



## TakeAStepBack

probably my Mossberg 500, ruger .22 long and 22 mag.


----------



## Pogo

lizzie said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would choose an AK, because it's tough, reliable, and although not the most accurate, it is capable of doing the job at a good distance. For all-around usefulness and tolerance to abuse, it's the best in that class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
Click to expand...


-- And what exactly is "whatever"?

You've picked a specific instrument; you must necessarily have some specific function in mind beyond "whatever".
For instance you've cited "accuracy at a good distance".  Accuracy for doing what?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Pogo said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "whatever"?
> 
> You've picked a specific instrument; you must necessarily have some specific function in mind beyond "whatever".
> For instance you've cited "accuracy at a good distance".  Accuracy for doing what?
Click to expand...


Are you aware of what "the shit hits the fan" actually means?

There are a number of things:

- hunting for food
- fending off mauraders


As two examples. You live ina  bubble?


----------



## lizzie

Pogo said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "whatever"?
> 
> You've picked a specific instrument; you must necessarily have some specific function in mind beyond "whatever".
> For instance you've cited "accuracy at a good distance". Accuracy for doing what?
Click to expand...

 
Please don't tell me you're not bright enough to figure this stuff out. I don't buy it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

TakeAStepBack said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "whatever"?
> 
> You've picked a specific instrument; you must necessarily have some specific function in mind beyond "whatever".
> For instance you've cited "accuracy at a good distance".  Accuracy for doing what?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware of what "the shit hits the fan" actually means?
> 
> There are a number of things:
> 
> - hunting for food
> - fending off mauraders
> 
> 
> As two examples. You live ina  bubble?
Click to expand...


Hunting for food assumes that there is food to hunt. The SHTF scenario might mean that there is none in which case there is nothing to shoot.

Fending off "mauraders" happens in video games. In real life a single gun is not going to stop "mauraders" because there are more of them than there are of you. They can take turns sleeping but you have to remain awake 24*365. They can encircle you but you can't do the same to them.


----------



## lizzie

Derideo_Te said:


> Hunting for food assumes that there is food to hunt. The SHTF scenario might mean that there is none in which case there is nothing to shoot.
> 
> Fending off "mauraders" happens in video games. In real life a single gun is not going to stop "mauraders" because there are more of them than there are of you. They can take turns sleeping but you have to remain awake 24*365. They can encircle you but you can't do the same to them.


 
You are assuming that people would be living alone, which is not likely for the most part.


----------



## Derideo_Te

lizzie said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunting for food assumes that there is food to hunt. The SHTF scenario might mean that there is none in which case there is nothing to shoot.
> 
> Fending off "mauraders" happens in video games. In real life a single gun is not going to stop "mauraders" because there are more of them than there are of you. They can take turns sleeping but you have to remain awake 24*365. They can encircle you but you can't do the same to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming that people would be living alone, which is not likely for the most part.
Click to expand...


The OP made that original assumption and it has been carried throughout the thread. If you want to change the premise then take it up with the OP.


----------



## lizzie

Derideo_Te said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunting for food assumes that there is food to hunt. The SHTF scenario might mean that there is none in which case there is nothing to shoot.
> 
> Fending off "mauraders" happens in video games. In real life a single gun is not going to stop "mauraders" because there are more of them than there are of you. They can take turns sleeping but you have to remain awake 24*365. They can encircle you but you can't do the same to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming that people would be living alone, which is not likely for the most part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP made that original assumption and it has been carried throughout the thread. If you want to change the premise then take it up with the OP.
Click to expand...

 
Then I would still stick with my original choice- the AK- since I don't have a license to buy a full auto.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Derideo_Te said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "whatever"?
> 
> You've picked a specific instrument; you must necessarily have some specific function in mind beyond "whatever".
> For instance you've cited "accuracy at a good distance".  Accuracy for doing what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware of what "the shit hits the fan" actually means?
> 
> There are a number of things:
> 
> - hunting for food
> - fending off mauraders
> 
> 
> As two examples. You live ina  bubble?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hunting for food assumes that there is food to hunt. The SHTF scenario might mean that there is none in which case there is nothing to shoot.
> 
> Fending off "mauraders" happens in video games. In real life a single gun is not going to stop "mauraders" because there are more of them than there are of you. They can take turns sleeping but you have to remain awake 24*365. They can encircle you but you can't do the same to them.
Click to expand...




Sure. No one except you indicated that it was 1 vs. many. You injected that nonsense. Otherwise, you're only attempting to dampen the discussion presumably because you think yourself an intellectual and two, you dont like the idea of guns.


Sure, in a SHTF scenario where an asteroid hits the earth, the chances of needing a firearm are slim. That said, obviously the OP isn't pointing to such a scenario as it would be a moot discussion.

Genius.


----------



## Derideo_Te

TakeAStepBack said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware of what "the shit hits the fan" actually means?
> 
> There are a number of things:
> 
> - hunting for food
> - fending off mauraders
> 
> 
> As two examples. You live ina  bubble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunting for food assumes that there is food to hunt. The SHTF scenario might mean that there is none in which case there is nothing to shoot.
> 
> Fending off "mauraders" happens in video games. In real life a single gun is not going to stop "mauraders" because there are more of them than there are of you. They can take turns sleeping but you have to remain awake 24*365. They can encircle you but you can't do the same to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. No one except you indicated that it was 1 vs. many. You injected that nonsense. Otherwise, you're only attempting to dampen the discussion presumably because you think yourself an intellectual and two, you dont like the idea of guns.
> 
> 
> Sure, in a SHTF scenario where an asteroid hits the earth, the chances of needing a firearm are slim. That said, obviously the OP isn't pointing to such a scenario as it would be a moot discussion.
> 
> Genius.
Click to expand...


Kindly refrain from making erroneous assumptions about me. Having had the benefit of law enforcement weapons training I prefer reality to fantasy when it comes to firearms.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

PRAYER 

The most powerful weapon on earth....   one angel slew 145,000 men while Joshua slept.   Let me know when one of you can match those results.  Keep your earthly weapons and .. I'll keep and use the weapons of my warfare through prayer ...  thanks..

- Jeri


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Derideo_Te said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunting for food assumes that there is food to hunt. The SHTF scenario might mean that there is none in which case there is nothing to shoot.
> 
> Fending off "mauraders" happens in video games. In real life a single gun is not going to stop "mauraders" because there are more of them than there are of you. They can take turns sleeping but you have to remain awake 24*365. They can encircle you but you can't do the same to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. No one except you indicated that it was 1 vs. many. You injected that nonsense. Otherwise, you're only attempting to dampen the discussion presumably because you think yourself an intellectual and two, you dont like the idea of guns.
> 
> 
> Sure, in a SHTF scenario where an asteroid hits the earth, the chances of needing a firearm are slim. That said, obviously the OP isn't pointing to such a scenario as it would be a moot discussion.
> 
> Genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kindly refrain from making erroneous assumptions about me. Having had the benefit of law enforcement weapons training I prefer reality to fantasy when it comes to firearms.
Click to expand...


----------



## R.C. Christian

I'd stick with my M1-A1, the decked out M-4, 357 magnum, and my k-bar.


----------



## Pogo

TakeAStepBack said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "whatever"?
> 
> You've picked a specific instrument; you must necessarily have some specific function in mind beyond "whatever".
> For instance you've cited "accuracy at a good distance".  Accuracy for doing what?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware of what "the shit hits the fan" actually means?
> 
> There are a number of things:
> 
> - hunting for food
> - fending off mauraders
> 
> 
> As two examples. You live ina  bubble?
Click to expand...


 there's nothing like that going on anywhere I've been, and I travel a lot, so no I guess I don't live in a bubble.

Another place I've never lived or visited is the whole fantasy role-play doom and gloom video game, so thanks for that imagery.  I feel so enriched.


----------



## Pogo

lizzie said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "whatever"?
> 
> You've picked a specific instrument; you must necessarily have some specific function in mind beyond "whatever".
> For instance you've cited "accuracy at a good distance". Accuracy for doing what?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't tell me you're not bright enough to figure this stuff out. I don't buy it.
Click to expand...


Posing a question isn't always done because the asker doesn't know the answer.
Please don't tell me you're not bright enough to actually finish your thought beyond the concept "whatever"?

Wasssamatta?  Afraid of what you might find?


----------



## Pogo

Jeremiah said:


> PRAYER
> 
> The most powerful weapon on earth....   one angel slew 145,000 men while Joshua slept.   Let me know when one of you can match those results.  Keep your earthly weapons and .. I'll keep and use the weapons of my warfare through prayer ...  thanks..
> 
> - Jeri



Much as I don't cotton to organized religion and its concepts, this ^^ makes a lot more sense than the shortsighted laundry list in the poll.

At least it's a start for thinking outside the bubble.

Wonder why the OP abandoned his own thread... 
Maybe because it's stoopid.


----------



## KissMy

The2ndAmendment said:


> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.



My choice may depend on who is paying. Are you buying. Is the government finally going to give us guns & fund the 2nd amendment?


----------



## westwall

The2ndAmendment said:


> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube







I'm with you on the saber but I'll take the M4 as I can't have my HK.


----------



## lizzie

Pogo said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "whatever"?
> 
> You've picked a specific instrument; you must necessarily have some specific function in mind beyond "whatever".
> For instance you've cited "accuracy at a good distance". Accuracy for doing what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't tell me you're not bright enough to figure this stuff out. I don't buy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Posing a question isn't always done because the asker doesn't know the answer.
> Please don't tell me you're not bright enough to actually finish your thought beyond the concept "whatever"?
> 
> Wasssamatta? Afraid of what you might find?
Click to expand...

Not afraid at all. I just don't like game-playing with people who apparently like to play stupid.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> PRAYER
> 
> The most powerful weapon on earth....   one angel slew 145,000 men while Joshua slept.   Let me know when one of you can match those results.  Keep your earthly weapons and .. I'll keep and use the weapons of my warfare through prayer ...  thanks..
> 
> - Jeri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much as I don't cotton to organized religion and its concepts, this ^^ makes a lot more sense than the shortsighted laundry list in the poll.
> 
> At least it's a start for thinking outside the bubble.
> 
> Wonder why the OP abandoned his own thread...
> Maybe because it's stoopid.
Click to expand...


Or maybe he was tired of pompous asses pretending to be superior.

Yes, that seems much more likely.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> PRAYER
> 
> The most powerful weapon on earth....   one angel slew 145,000 men while Joshua slept.   Let me know when one of you can match those results.  Keep your earthly weapons and .. I'll keep and use the weapons of my warfare through prayer ...  thanks..
> 
> - Jeri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much as I don't cotton to organized religion and its concepts, this ^^ makes a lot more sense than the shortsighted laundry list in the poll.
> 
> At least it's a start for thinking outside the bubble.
> 
> Wonder why the OP abandoned his own thread...
> Maybe because it's stoopid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or maybe he was tired of pompous asses pretending to be superior.
> 
> Yes, that seems much more likely.
Click to expand...


"pretending to be superior"  -- from a guy with guns in both hands   Oh the irony.

Anyway I doubt that.  He's in *New York*.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Pogo said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "whatever"?
> 
> You've picked a specific instrument; you must necessarily have some specific function in mind beyond "whatever".
> For instance you've cited "accuracy at a good distance".  Accuracy for doing what?
Click to expand...


OK, how's this: I'd select the tools most suited to stopping anybody who assumed they were entitled to my stuff.  Lethal force is pretty convincing and they won't be back a second time.


----------



## westwall

lizzie said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would choose an AK, because it's tough, reliable, and although not the most accurate, it is capable of doing the job at a good distance. For all-around usefulness and tolerance to abuse, it's the best in that class.
Click to expand...






AK's are very accurate if you give them good ammo.  The Chinese crap and the older eastern bloc stuff is pretty awful, but the Remington shoots very well out of every AK I've ever run it through.


----------



## westwall

Pogo said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would choose an AK, because it's tough, reliable, and although not the most accurate, it is capable of doing the job at a good distance. For all-around usefulness and tolerance to abuse, it's the best in that class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
Click to expand...






Putting food on the table, and keeping two legged predators under control...DUH!


----------



## jon_berzerk

lizzie said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would choose an AK, because it's tough, reliable, and although not the most accurate, it is capable of doing the job at a good distance. For all-around usefulness and tolerance to abuse, it's the best in that class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
Click to expand...


the concept of self reliance is a lost on the left 

they have for years bought into the idea that the government 

will take care of your every need  when the shtf

look at the folks who stayed behind 

in the tropical storm sandy on the east coast 

so ill prepared and so dependent on the government 

that they had to wait and rely on the government 

to hand them out "matches" to make fire 

*fire* the most basic of human needs couldnt do it 

sad really what the government has done to the people


----------



## Politico

None of them.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much as I don't cotton to organized religion and its concepts, this ^^ makes a lot more sense than the shortsighted laundry list in the poll.
> 
> At least it's a start for thinking outside the bubble.
> 
> Wonder why the OP abandoned his own thread...
> Maybe because it's stoopid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe he was tired of pompous asses pretending to be superior.
> 
> Yes, that seems much more likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "pretending to be superior"  -- from a guy with guns in both hands   Oh the irony.
Click to expand...

You'd think an English major would be able to properly use the word "irony".

Guess not.


Pogo said:


> Anyway I doubt that.  He's in *New York*.


You have a point.  NYC is FULL of pompous ass liberals.


----------



## Missourian

Are you stationary,  or on the move?

I've always started from the assumption that any teotwawki event may require mobility.

That means equipment must serve as many functions as possible.

That's why the sword and morning star etc. were immediately eliminated.

The parang serves a similar function...but can also be used to construct deadfall traps,  baton kindling,  chop saplings,   clear or cut trails,  etc.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LO6CZ77BJU]Coldsteel Kukri vs Gerber Bear Grylls Parang, Review and Field Test - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall

jon_berzerk said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the concept of self reliance is a lost on the left
> 
> they have for years bought into the idea that the government
> 
> will take care of your every need  when the shtf
> 
> look at the folks who stayed behind
> 
> in the tropical storm sandy on the east coast
> 
> so ill prepared and so dependent on the government
> 
> that they had to wait and rely on the government
> 
> to hand them out "matches" to make fire
> 
> *fire* the most basic of human needs couldnt do it
> 
> sad really what the government has done to the people
Click to expand...







We don't call them "sheeple" for nothing...


----------



## westwall

Missourian said:


> Are you stationary,  or on the move?
> 
> I've always started from the assumption that any teotwawki event may require mobility.
> 
> That means equipment must serve as many functions as possible.
> 
> That's why the sword and morning star etc. were immediately eliminated.
> 
> The parang serves a similar function...but can also be used to construct deadfall traps,  baton kindling,  chop saplings,   clear or cut trails,  etc.
> 
> Coldsteel Kukri vs Gerber Bear Grylls Parang, Review and Field Test - YouTube










Everything depends on the scenario.  I am too old to do the ground trek though in that situation my primary weapon would have been a Ruger 10/22,  backup a Colt Delta Elite 10mm, and my Bagwell bowie as primary knife.

In a vehicular situation that all changes.  Now it's my HK G3, the same pistol and knife combo but adding a lot more ammo.

But even that is becoming a less likely situation for me.  Now I'm a "stay at home" so we are very well prepared here.


----------



## Missourian

westwall said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you stationary,  or on the move?
> 
> I've always started from the assumption that any teotwawki event may require mobility.
> 
> That means equipment must serve as many functions as possible.
> 
> That's why the sword and morning star etc. were immediately eliminated.
> 
> The parang serves a similar function...but can also be used to construct deadfall traps,  baton kindling,  chop saplings,   clear or cut trails,  etc.
> 
> Coldsteel Kukri vs Gerber Bear Grylls Parang, Review and Field Test - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything depends on the scenario.  I am too old to do the ground trek though in that situation my primary weapon would have been a Ruger 10/22,  backup a Colt Delta Elite 10mm, and my Bagwell bowie as primary knife.
> 
> In a *vehicular situation* that all changes.  Now it's my HK G3, the same pistol and knife combo but adding a lot more ammo.
> 
> But even that is becoming a less likely situation for me.  Now I'm a "stay at home" so we are very well prepared here.
Click to expand...



The SHTF vehicle,  fodder for another thread.


----------



## westwall

Missourian said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you stationary,  or on the move?
> 
> I've always started from the assumption that any teotwawki event may require mobility.
> 
> That means equipment must serve as many functions as possible.
> 
> That's why the sword and morning star etc. were immediately eliminated.
> 
> The parang serves a similar function...but can also be used to construct deadfall traps,  baton kindling,  chop saplings,   clear or cut trails,  etc.
> 
> Coldsteel Kukri vs Gerber Bear Grylls Parang, Review and Field Test - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything depends on the scenario.  I am too old to do the ground trek though in that situation my primary weapon would have been a Ruger 10/22,  backup a Colt Delta Elite 10mm, and my Bagwell bowie as primary knife.
> 
> In a *vehicular situation* that all changes.  Now it's my HK G3, the same pistol and knife combo but adding a lot more ammo.
> 
> But even that is becoming a less likely situation for me.  Now I'm a "stay at home" so we are very well prepared here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The SHTF vehicle,  fodder for another thread.
Click to expand...







Wellllll, this is my dream SHTF vehicle....  The reality is far, far different!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDoRmT0iRic]The Marauder - South Africa's Ten Ton Military Vehicle - Top Gear - BBC - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## jon_berzerk

westwall said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the concept of self reliance is a lost on the left
> 
> they have for years bought into the idea that the government
> 
> will take care of your every need  when the shtf
> 
> look at the folks who stayed behind
> 
> in the tropical storm sandy on the east coast
> 
> so ill prepared and so dependent on the government
> 
> that they had to wait and rely on the government
> 
> to hand them out "matches" to make fire
> 
> *fire* the most basic of human needs couldnt do it
> 
> sad really what the government has done to the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't call them "sheeple" for nothing...
Click to expand...


obama supporters waiting for the prezbo to speak of hope and change


----------



## Esmeralda

lizzie said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would choose an AK, because it's tough, reliable, and although not the most accurate, it is capable of doing the job at a good distance. For all-around usefulness and tolerance to abuse, it's the best in that class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
Click to expand...


These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Esmeralda said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.
Click to expand...


what is so funny about having the right to defend yourself 

the tshtf all over the place everyday 

it happened in a gun free naval shipyard the other day for example


----------



## Esmeralda

lizzie said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "whatever"?
> 
> You've picked a specific instrument; you must necessarily have some specific function in mind beyond "whatever".
> For instance you've cited "accuracy at a good distance". Accuracy for doing what?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't tell me you're not bright enough to figure this stuff out. I don't buy it.
Click to expand...


LOL Yet another one who doesn't get irony and sarcasm.


----------



## westwall

Esmeralda said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
Click to expand...







Tell that to the Angelino's during the King riots or to the New Orleans folks after Katrina.  You see dear silly person a SHTF scenario is any which renders local government incapable of doing its job.

You naturally jump to the ludicrous assumption (thereby making an ass of yourself....no surprise there) that we are preparing for revolution when all we are preparing for is an earthquake in my situation, another hurricane in other posters areas,  and other like events.


----------



## Esmeralda

jon_berzerk said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all suffering from paranoid delusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is so funny about having the right to defend yourself
> 
> the tshtf all over the place everyday
> 
> it happened in a gun free naval shipyard the other day for example
Click to expand...


Had there been stricter gun control laws, it would not have happened. A mentally ill person was allowed to buy a gun, to get security access to a naval base, to enter the base with a weapon, etc.  That's the problem, not the shit hitting the fan.  There would be no need for people to protect themselves if these nuts didn't have guns.  Such things no longer happen in countries which have instituted strict gun control laws.

You people don't even reason logically about it.  First, when things like the naval base shooting happen, you say it isn't a big deal, that more people are killed and murdered in other ways, that this is a small matter. Then you turn around and call it the shit hitting the fan and say you need to own weapons to protect yourself from such events.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## daveman

Esmeralda said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
Click to expand...

You would have huddled in the stinking dark of New Orleans' Superdome after Katrina, sobbing and demanding that the government take care of you.

Guaranteed.


----------



## Esmeralda

daveman said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have huddled in the stinking dark of New Orleans' Superdome after Katrina, sobbing and demanding that the government take care of you.
> 
> Guaranteed.
Click to expand...


A post which makes it clear you ignore any logical point made in this thread and continue chanting your pro-gun mantra.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Esmeralda said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all suffering from paranoid delusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is so funny about having the right to defend yourself
> 
> the tshtf all over the place everyday
> 
> it happened in a gun free naval shipyard the other day for example
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had there been stricter gun control laws, it would not have happened. A mentally ill person was allowed to buy a gun, to get security access to a naval base, to enter the base with a weapon, etc.  That's the problem, not the shit hitting the fan.  There would be no need for people to protect themselves if these nuts didn't have guns.  Such things no longer happen in countries which have instituted strict gun control laws.
> 
> You people don't even reason logically about it.  First, when things like the naval base shooting happen, you say it isn't a big deal, that more people are killed and murdered in other ways, that this is a small matter. Then you turn around and call it the shit hitting the fan and say you need to own weapons to protect yourself from such events.  You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


*Had there been stricter gun control laws, it would not have happened.*

really which law would have done that 

*A mentally ill person was allowed to buy a gun, to get security access to a naval base*,

those are social issues not gun control issues 

* you say it isn't a big deal, that more people are killed and murdered in other ways, that this is a small matter. *

when did i way that 

I said it is a shame that people are defenseless in gun free zones 

to be shot like fish in a barrel 

*Then you turn around and call it the shit hitting the fan* 

the courts and more so the Supreme Court has ruled 

that the police has no affirmative duty or responsibility to protect you 

from harm when tshtf which obligates you to defend yourself 

perhaps you do not understand what shtf means


----------



## gallantwarrior

Esmeralda said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
Click to expand...


Manson appears to have been a few years before the time.  I wonder what he thinks of the current situation, rife with racial tensions, blacks attacking whites (and other blacks) at the slightest provocation, and getting a pass.


----------



## gallantwarrior

westwall said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Angelino's during the King riots or to the New Orleans folks after Katrina.  You see dear silly person a SHTF scenario is any which renders local government incapable of doing its job.
> 
> You naturally jump to the ludicrous assumption (thereby making an ass of yourself....no surprise there) that we are preparing for revolution when all we are preparing for is an earthquake in my situation, another hurricane in other posters areas,  and other like events.
Click to expand...


Yup.  In my situation it could be an earthquake, volcanic eruption, or any other event that would disrupt transportation of supplies into Alaska.  This state is extremely dependent on "imports" for food and other staples.  While a greater majority of Alaskan residents are self-sufficient and capable of living off the land, we still have our "urban" populations who would not think twice about killing someone for a Twinkie of a bottle of rotgut.  It's their _right_.


----------



## Esmeralda

gallantwarrior said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manson appears to have been a few years before the time.  I wonder what he thinks of the current situation, rife with racial tensions, blacks attacking whites (and other blacks) at the slightest provocation, and getting a pass.
Click to expand...


LOL We are as close to a civil war between blacks and whites as we are to colonizing Mars.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Esmeralda said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all suffering from paranoid delusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is so funny about having the right to defend yourself
> 
> the tshtf all over the place everyday
> 
> it happened in a gun free naval shipyard the other day for example
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had there been stricter gun control laws, it would not have happened. A mentally ill person was allowed to buy a gun, to get security access to a naval base, to enter the base with a weapon, etc.  That's the problem, not the shit hitting the fan.  There would be no need for people to protect themselves if these nuts didn't have guns.  Such things no longer happen in countries which have instituted strict gun control laws.
> 
> You people don't even reason logically about it.  First, when things like the naval base shooting happen, you say it isn't a big deal, that more people are killed and murdered in other ways, that this is a small matter. Then you turn around and call it the shit hitting the fan and say you need to own weapons to protect yourself from such events.  You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


No, the problem is _not_ having stricter gun control laws.  DC has some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in the Nation.  Didn't help, did it?  What is needed are better nutball deterrent laws.  Nutballs very clearly think twice before selecting a target to shoot up.  Or haven't you noticed they tend to select venues where gun control laws are most restrictive?  Do you ever shut your mouth and open you mind long enough to understand that the possibility of encountering people who might shoot back is a very definite deterrent for these nuts?

Nah, didn't think so.


----------



## westwall

Esmeralda said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
> 
> 
> 
> You would have huddled in the stinking dark of New Orleans' Superdome after Katrina, sobbing and demanding that the government take care of you.
> 
> Guaranteed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A post which makes it clear you ignore any logical point made in this thread and continue chanting your pro-gun mantra.
Click to expand...







What logical point?  It was illegal for him to take the shotgun onto the base, it was illegal for him to shoot the cop and take his pistol, it was then illegal for him to kill all of those poor people.  It was also ILLEGAL FOR ANY OF THEM TO HAVE THE MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

Thus, the mentally ill criminal was able to kill at will till SOMEONE ELSE WITH A GUN SHOWED UP.

You are yet another in a long line of stupid twats who will blissfully stand by while hundreds are killed and then when the government is finally able to disarm the populace will happily man the camp towers.

Fuck you..


----------



## MisterBeale

Esmeralda said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
Click to expand...

Ah. . . . I see you were listening to that PBS propaganda last Sunday.  That was fascinating, wasn't it?


----------



## Missourian

Esmeralda said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
> 
> 
> 
> You would have huddled in the stinking dark of New Orleans' Superdome after Katrina, sobbing and demanding that the government take care of you.
> 
> Guaranteed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A post which makes it clear you ignore any logical point made in this thread and continue chanting your pro-gun mantra.
Click to expand...


Explain the logic in this...

Lanza stole a firearm.

Cho,  Joker,  Loughner and Alexis all passed firearm background checks and bought guns.

So what do the gun grabbers propose?

Background checks on private gun sales...

So Cho,  Joker,  Loughner and Alexis can pass background checks on private sales as well.


----------



## Missourian

Brandon Hill,  the crazy man that shot up the school in Georgia,  but was talked down.

He was a convicted felon,  but did he try to purchase from a private party?

Nope.

He stole the gun from a friend.

Gun control just doesn't work...


----------



## MisterBeale

Esmeralda said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all suffering from paranoid delusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is so funny about having the right to defend yourself
> 
> the tshtf all over the place everyday
> 
> it happened in a gun free naval shipyard the other day for example
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had there been stricter gun control laws, it would not have happened. A mentally ill person was allowed to buy a gun, to get security access to a naval base, to enter the base with a weapon, etc.  That's the problem, not the shit hitting the fan.  There would be no need for people to protect themselves if these nuts didn't have guns.  Such things no longer happen in countries which have instituted strict gun control laws.
> 
> You people don't even reason logically about it.  First, when things like the naval base shooting happen, you say it isn't a big deal, that more people are killed and murdered in other ways, that this is a small matter. Then you turn around and call it the shit hitting the fan and say you need to own weapons to protect yourself from such events.  You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Supposition.  Please post proof.  I have read nearly ever gun control thread on this forum, and when ever the ivy league and government sponsored studies are rolled out to prove just the opposite, that particular gun grabber shuts up and goes away.  Need they be posted yet again for you?

Yes, you are right.  Laws and codes already exist that should have prevented this individual from having a weapon, soooo, we must seek to answer the question, why did he have the weapon, and why did he have clearance to get on the base.  Perhaps we should just take the discussion directly to the conspiracy zone if you like.  For really, that is the only reasonable and logical explanation at this point anyone can expect to explain the shooting.  Anyway, why you have to derail and troll a perfectly interesting and intriguing thread?  I don't know shit about weapons, but I sure do enjoy reading a good pissing contest.  If you can't participate, stop your trollin'


----------



## Pogo

Esmeralda said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
Click to expand...


This inane thread is in the wrong forum.

Should be in "XBox-Playstation".  Until we get a "wackadoodle paranoia" forum.


----------



## Moonglow

When the shit does hit the fan I will just use my wife's mouth, it's always shooting shit continuously.


----------



## Esmeralda

MisterBeale said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. . . . I see you were listening to that PBS propaganda last Sunday.  That was fascinating, wasn't it?
Click to expand...


I don't even have PBS where I live.  No idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Esmeralda

MisterBeale said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is so funny about having the right to defend yourself
> 
> the tshtf all over the place everyday
> 
> it happened in a gun free naval shipyard the other day for example
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had there been stricter gun control laws, it would not have happened. A mentally ill person was allowed to buy a gun, to get security access to a naval base, to enter the base with a weapon, etc.  That's the problem, not the shit hitting the fan.  There would be no need for people to protect themselves if these nuts didn't have guns.  Such things no longer happen in countries which have instituted strict gun control laws.
> 
> You people don't even reason logically about it.  First, when things like the naval base shooting happen, you say it isn't a big deal, that more people are killed and murdered in other ways, that this is a small matter. Then you turn around and call it the shit hitting the fan and say you need to own weapons to protect yourself from such events.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supposition.  Please post proof.  I have read nearly ever gun control thread on this forum, and when ever the ivy league and government sponsored studies are rolled out to prove just the opposite, that particular gun grabber shuts up and goes away.  Need they be posted yet again for you?
> 
> Yes, you are right.  Laws and codes already exist that should have prevented this individual from having a weapon, soooo, we must seek to answer the question, why did he have the weapon, and why did he have clearance to get on the base.  Perhaps we should just take the discussion directly to the conspiracy zone if you like.  For really, that is the only reasonable and logical explanation at this point anyone can expect to explain the shooting.  Anyway, why you have to derail and troll a perfectly interesting and intriguing thread?  I don't know shit about weapons, but I sure do enjoy reading a good pissing contest.  If you can't participate, stop your trollin'
Click to expand...


It's perfectly interesting and intriguing to sit around imagining what weapon you'd like to use to kill people when Armageddon comes along?  LOL You all belong in loony bins. Yep.. Like it's perfectly interesting and intriguing to sit around and supposition about just when and where you are going to be abducted by aliens.  

You folks are never going to get the use out of your weapons you are just dying to get (pun intended) as  long as you stay in America.  My  best suggestion is move to Yemen or Somalia.  

And I am not trolling. I am answering the question. I wouldn't choose any weapon because the likelihood of the 'shit hitting the fan,' as you folks seem in envision it, is very small, something like 20 million to one.  You guys need to stop drinking that paranoia tea.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "the job"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- And what exactly is "whatever"?
> 
> You've picked a specific instrument; you must necessarily have some specific function in mind beyond "whatever".
> For instance you've cited "accuracy at a good distance".  Accuracy for doing what?
Click to expand...


The question is all about when one needs to defend home and family, could be anarchy could just be a home invasion. SO to answer your question we are asked what weapons we would use to wound or kill our adversaries.


----------



## Missourian

Pogo said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever I need to do in order to protect my life and my property, if tshtf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This inane thread is in the wrong forum.
> 
> Should be in "XBox-Playstation".  Until we get a "wackadoodle paranoia" forum.
Click to expand...


Of course there has been no occasion where the police have abandoned the citizenry to defend themselves,  their home and their businesses from roving gangs of looters,  arsonist,  and murderers.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An8LJ_fv0mo]'CLASH OF COLORS' The 1992 Los Angeles Riots from the Korean-American Perspective - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umq0hpAnHrc&list=PL29uzlPUbUd8MClNWSp6_4Mc-D3PUUNOK]1992 LA Riots - Korean Merchants Defend Their Businesses with Firearms - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6tmD0W5r4w]Armed Korean Merchants Protect Stores - 1992 LA Riots - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_SgpyJWRY]L.A. Riots Reginald Denny beating - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csb3TWY3ptQ]1992 Los Angeles Riots - A City Under Fire - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman

Esmeralda said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
> 
> 
> 
> You would have huddled in the stinking dark of New Orleans' Superdome after Katrina, sobbing and demanding that the government take care of you.
> 
> Guaranteed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A post which makes it clear you ignore any logical point made in this thread and continue chanting your pro-gun mantra.
Click to expand...


You made a logical point?  

Huh.  Guess it got lost in all your emoting and faux superiority.

Nevertheless, my correct characterization of you in the Superdome scenario had nothing to do with guns.  It had everything to do with your desired utter dependence on government and absolute inability to take responsibility for yourself.


----------



## jon_berzerk

daveman said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have huddled in the stinking dark of New Orleans' Superdome after Katrina, sobbing and demanding that the government take care of you.
> 
> Guaranteed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A post which makes it clear you ignore any logical point made in this thread and continue chanting your pro-gun mantra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a logical point?
> 
> Huh.  Guess it got lost in all your emoting and faux superiority.
> 
> Nevertheless, my correct characterization of you in the Superdome scenario had nothing to do with guns.  It had everything to do with your desired utter dependence on government and absolute inability to take responsibility for yourself.
Click to expand...


*You made a logical point?  *

not so much


----------



## westwall

Missourian said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This inane thread is in the wrong forum.
> 
> Should be in "XBox-Playstation".  Until we get a "wackadoodle paranoia" forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there has been no occasion where the police have abandoned the citizenry to defend themselves,  their home and their businesses from roving gangs of looters,  arsonist,  and murderers.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An8LJ_fv0mo]'CLASH OF COLORS' The 1992 Los Angeles Riots from the Korean-American Perspective - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umq0hpAnHrc&list=PL29uzlPUbUd8MClNWSp6_4Mc-D3PUUNOK]1992 LA Riots - Korean Merchants Defend Their Businesses with Firearms - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6tmD0W5r4w]Armed Korean Merchants Protect Stores - 1992 LA Riots - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_SgpyJWRY]L.A. Riots Reginald Denny beating - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csb3TWY3ptQ]1992 Los Angeles Riots - A City Under Fire - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...










"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see".


----------



## Esmeralda

westwall said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This inane thread is in the wrong forum.
> 
> Should be in "XBox-Playstation".  Until we get a "wackadoodle paranoia" forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there has been no occasion where the police have abandoned the citizenry to defend themselves,  their home and their businesses from roving gangs of looters,  arsonist,  and murderers.  :eusa_whi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see".
Click to expand...


Yes, and you are the one who is blind.  The odds of something like a terrorist attack, your neighborhood exploding into riot, a single shooter massacre, the government turning into a totalitarian state, or  your home and family  under attack are astronomical, especially if you don't live in a ghetto or in Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea or Afghanistan.  The fact is, all you are doing with your kind of thinking is persuading yourself you are justified in keeping guns.  No one with any sense and who lacks the paranoia gene agrees with you.  As has been noted, although there are many guns in America today, they are all owned by 30% of the population, who all apparently own far more than they need.  Bunch of paranoid, delusional nutters.

In fact, you are much, much more likely to die of cancer: you have a one in four chance of dying of some form of cancer. Any sane, intelligent person would be concerned about eating a proper diet and getting good exerise, not about carrying a gun around hoping for a chance to blow someone away while living out a video game/action movie fantasy.  And if you own a  gun, you are far more likely to accidently or purposely kill yourself, a friend, acquaintance or family member than some stranger who attacks you.


----------



## Pogo

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there has been no occasion where the police have abandoned the citizenry to defend themselves,  their home and their businesses from roving gangs of looters,  arsonist,  and murderers.  :eusa_whi
> 
> 
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and you are the one who is blind.  The odds of something like a terrorist attack, your neighborhood exploding into riot, a single shooter massacre, the government turning into a totalitarian state, or  your home and family  under attack are astronomical, especially if you don't live in a ghetto or in Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea or Afghanistan.  The fact is, all you are doing with your kind of thinking is persuading yourself you are justified in keeping guns.  No one with any sense and who lacks the paranoia gene agrees with you.  As has been noted, although there are many guns in America today, they are all owned by 30% of the population, who all apparently own far more than they need.  Bunch of paranoid, delusional nutters.
> 
> In fact, you are much, much more likely to die of cancer: you have a one in four chance of dying of some form of cancer. Any sane, intelligent person would be concerned about eating a proper diet and getting good exerise, not about carrying a gun around hoping for a chance to blow someone away while living out a video game/action movie fantasy.  And if you own a  gun, you are far more likely to accidently or purposely kill yourself, a friend, acquaintance or family member than some stranger who attacks you.
Click to expand...


That, and the inane shortsighted premise of the OP that "when the SHTF" (whatever that means), the way to deal with it is, naturally, _violence_.  

What a maroon.  No wonder he abandoned this mindless thread.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there has been no occasion where the police have abandoned the citizenry to defend themselves,  their home and their businesses from roving gangs of looters,  arsonist,  and murderers.  :eusa_whi
> 
> 
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and you are the one who is blind.  The odds of something like a terrorist attack, your neighborhood exploding into riot, a single shooter massacre, the government turning into a totalitarian state, or  your home and family  under attack are astronomical, especially if you don't live in a ghetto or in Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea or Afghanistan.  The fact is, all you are doing with your kind of thinking is persuading yourself you are justified in keeping guns.  No one with any sense and who lacks the paranoia gene agrees with you.  As has been noted, although there are many guns in America today, they are all owned by 30% of the population, who all apparently own far more than they need.  Bunch of paranoid, delusional nutters.
> 
> In fact, you are much, much more likely to die of cancer: you have a one in four chance of dying of some form of cancer. Any sane, intelligent person would be concerned about eating a proper diet and getting good exerise, not about carrying a gun around hoping for a chance to blow someone away while living out a video game/action movie fantasy.  And if you own a  gun, you are far more likely to accidently or purposely kill yourself, a friend, acquaintance or family member than some stranger who attacks you.
Click to expand...


thanks for making  the point of no need for more gun control since the odds are so low


----------



## jon_berzerk

Pogo said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and you are the one who is blind.  The odds of something like a terrorist attack, your neighborhood exploding into riot, a single shooter massacre, the government turning into a totalitarian state, or  your home and family  under attack are astronomical, especially if you don't live in a ghetto or in Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea or Afghanistan.  The fact is, all you are doing with your kind of thinking is persuading yourself you are justified in keeping guns.  No one with any sense and who lacks the paranoia gene agrees with you.  As has been noted, although there are many guns in America today, they are all owned by 30% of the population, who all apparently own far more than they need.  Bunch of paranoid, delusional nutters.
> 
> In fact, you are much, much more likely to die of cancer: you have a one in four chance of dying of some form of cancer. Any sane, intelligent person would be concerned about eating a proper diet and getting good exerise, not about carrying a gun around hoping for a chance to blow someone away while living out a video game/action movie fantasy.  And if you own a  gun, you are far more likely to accidently or purposely kill yourself, a friend, acquaintance or family member than some stranger who attacks you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That, and the inane shortsighted premise of the OP that "when the SHTF" (whatever that means), the way to deal with it is, naturally, _violence_.
> 
> What a maroon.  No wonder he abandoned this mindless thread.
Click to expand...


as opposed to curling up in a ball and dying


----------



## westwall

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there has been no occasion where the police have abandoned the citizenry to defend themselves,  their home and their businesses from roving gangs of looters,  arsonist,  and murderers.  :eusa_whi
> 
> 
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and you are the one who is blind.  The odds of something like a terrorist attack, your neighborhood exploding into riot, a single shooter massacre, the government turning into a totalitarian state, or  your home and family  under attack are astronomical, especially if you don't live in a ghetto or in Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea or Afghanistan.  The fact is, all you are doing with your kind of thinking is persuading yourself you are justified in keeping guns.  No one with any sense and who lacks the paranoia gene agrees with you.  As has been noted, although there are many guns in America today, they are all owned by 30% of the population, who all apparently own far more than they need.  Bunch of paranoid, delusional nutters.
> 
> In fact, you are much, much more likely to die of cancer: you have a one in four chance of dying of some form of cancer. Any sane, intelligent person would be concerned about eating a proper diet and getting good exerise, not about carrying a gun around hoping for a chance to blow someone away while living out a video game/action movie fantasy.  And if you own a  gun, you are far more likely to accidently or purposely kill yourself, a friend, acquaintance or family member than some stranger who attacks you.
Click to expand...







And look who's wrong yet again.  I've been through two major earthquakes and one major firestorm where I lost my home.  I also was visiting a colleague at USC when the King riots broke out.  In all of those cases I was armed and able to go about my business because of it.

I exercise (I'm almost 70, how old are you monkey boy?) and have drawn down on three people without ever pulling the trigger.  I did actually shoot near some bandits in Morocco back in the 1970's but made sure not to hit anyone as I didn't want them pursuing a vendetta against me.  It kept them at distance though and we were able to make our escape so no, I have no desire to kill anyone either.

And your bullshit figures about my guns killing me or a loved one were PROVEN false over two decades ago, do try and get more current...your propaganda is cute but that's all it is propaganda.

Finally, people like me who actually DO stuff often find ourselves in places where there are bad people or dangerous critters.  We do fine while you become lunch.  Just don't ever whine to us if a disaster ever hits your area and you are left bereft of government help.


----------



## westwall

Pogo said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and you are the one who is blind.  The odds of something like a terrorist attack, your neighborhood exploding into riot, a single shooter massacre, the government turning into a totalitarian state, or  your home and family  under attack are astronomical, especially if you don't live in a ghetto or in Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea or Afghanistan.  The fact is, all you are doing with your kind of thinking is persuading yourself you are justified in keeping guns.  No one with any sense and who lacks the paranoia gene agrees with you.  As has been noted, although there are many guns in America today, they are all owned by 30% of the population, who all apparently own far more than they need.  Bunch of paranoid, delusional nutters.
> 
> In fact, you are much, much more likely to die of cancer: you have a one in four chance of dying of some form of cancer. Any sane, intelligent person would be concerned about eating a proper diet and getting good exerise, not about carrying a gun around hoping for a chance to blow someone away while living out a video game/action movie fantasy.  And if you own a  gun, you are far more likely to accidently or purposely kill yourself, a friend, acquaintance or family member than some stranger who attacks you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That, and the inane shortsighted premise of the OP that "when the SHTF" (whatever that means), the way to deal with it is, naturally, _violence_.
> 
> What a maroon.  No wonder he abandoned this mindless thread.
Click to expand...






No, the maroon is you.  There is a very old saying "peace through superior firepower".  Amazingly enough bad guys don't like to get shot, so when disasters occur they prey on weaklings like you and they leave people like me alone.


----------



## Esmeralda

westwall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and you are the one who is blind.  The odds of something like a terrorist attack, your neighborhood exploding into riot, a single shooter massacre, the government turning into a totalitarian state, or  your home and family  under attack are astronomical, especially if you don't live in a ghetto or in Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea or Afghanistan.  The fact is, all you are doing with your kind of thinking is persuading yourself you are justified in keeping guns.  No one with any sense and who lacks the paranoia gene agrees with you.  As has been noted, although there are many guns in America today, they are all owned by 30% of the population, who all apparently own far more than they need.  Bunch of paranoid, delusional nutters.
> 
> In fact, you are much, much more likely to die of cancer: you have a one in four chance of dying of some form of cancer. Any sane, intelligent person would be concerned about eating a proper diet and getting good exerise, not about carrying a gun around hoping for a chance to blow someone away while living out a video game/action movie fantasy.  And if you own a  gun, you are far more likely to accidently or purposely kill yourself, a friend, acquaintance or family member than some stranger who attacks you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, and the inane shortsighted premise of the OP that "when the SHTF" (whatever that means), the way to deal with it is, naturally, _violence_.
> 
> What a maroon.  No wonder he abandoned this mindless thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the maroon is you.  There is a very old saying "peace through superior firepower".  Amazingly enough bad guys don't like to get shot, so when disasters occur they prey on weaklings like you and they leave people like me alone.
Click to expand...


LMAO  You people just don't get that you are total paranoids.  Stop worrying about a great disaster that is most likely not going to happen to you, where anarchy will run wild, and start thinking about your one in four chance of dying of one or another form of cancer: stop smoking, started eating right and exercising and taking care of your mental health. That will give  you a better chance of avoiding what you are really at risk for.

Oh, and Pogo, stop being such a maroon.   Divertido.


----------



## Missourian

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That, and the inane shortsighted premise of the OP that "when the SHTF" (whatever that means), the way to deal with it is, naturally, _violence_.
> 
> What a maroon.  No wonder he abandoned this mindless thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the maroon is you.  There is a very old saying "peace through superior firepower".  Amazingly enough bad guys don't like to get shot, so when disasters occur they prey on weaklings like you and they leave people like me alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO  You people just don't get that you are total paranoids.  Stop worrying about a great disaster that is most likely not going to happen to you, where anarchy will run wild, and start thinking about your one in four chance of dying of one or another form of cancer: stop smoking, started eating right and exercising and taking care of your mental health. That will give  you a better chance of avoiding what you are really at risk for.
> 
> Oh, and Pogo, stop being such a maroon.   Divertido.
Click to expand...


I can do all that AND contemplate the zombie apocalypse at the same time. 

Seriously...I'm buying the gun anyway...why not take all the possibilities into account.

Sure,  the chances I'm going to need it are miniscule.

I haven't had a flat in fifteen years,  but I still carry a spare tire.

I'm probably not going to die in the next 10 years,  but I still pay my term life premiums.

A certain amount of paranoia is healthy.

Planning for uncertainty is healthy.

Being prepared is healthy.


----------



## Pogo

westwall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and you are the one who is blind.  The odds of something like a terrorist attack, your neighborhood exploding into riot, a single shooter massacre, the government turning into a totalitarian state, or  your home and family  under attack are astronomical, especially if you don't live in a ghetto or in Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea or Afghanistan.  The fact is, all you are doing with your kind of thinking is persuading yourself you are justified in keeping guns.  No one with any sense and who lacks the paranoia gene agrees with you.  As has been noted, although there are many guns in America today, they are all owned by 30% of the population, who all apparently own far more than they need.  Bunch of paranoid, delusional nutters.
> 
> In fact, you are much, much more likely to die of cancer: you have a one in four chance of dying of some form of cancer. Any sane, intelligent person would be concerned about eating a proper diet and getting good exerise, not about carrying a gun around hoping for a chance to blow someone away while living out a video game/action movie fantasy.  And if you own a  gun, you are far more likely to accidently or purposely kill yourself, a friend, acquaintance or family member than some stranger who attacks you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, and the inane shortsighted premise of the OP that "when the SHTF" (whatever that means), the way to deal with it is, naturally, _violence_.
> 
> What a maroon.  No wonder he abandoned this mindless thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, the maroon is you.  There is a very old saying "peace through superior firepower".  Amazingly enough bad guys don't like to get shot, so when disasters occur they prey on weaklings like you and they leave people like me alone.
Click to expand...


Uh -- yeah right.  I'm saying the idea of coping with life by blowing things away is mindlessly simplistic, and that makes ME the maroon and a "weakling".   

I'd say the weakling is the cretin who can't think of anything deeper than rerunning the old cowboys and indians script, don't you think?



> There is a very old saying "peace through superior firepower".



No, there isn't.  You just made it up.


----------



## whitehall

Hand to hand weapon? It might be a fantasy to some people to defend themselves with the skillful use of a blade but it ain't gonna happen. Chances are that once you realize that you are in trouble the perp will kill you with a firearm.


----------



## Missourian

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xMLVMEQmhTQ]Argentina's Economic Collapse Part 1 of 12 - YouTube[/ame]

Economic collapse of Argentina,  2001.

I believe that when the IMF refused to loan Argentina money,  their deficit to GDP was 2.5% and their external debt was 50% of GDP

Our current deficit to GDP is 8.7...US Federal Deficit as Percentage of GDP

Our current external debt to GDP is 106%...List of countries by external debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our current public debt to GDP is 67.7%...US Federal Debt as Percentage of GDP


----------



## daveman

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That, and the inane shortsighted premise of the OP that "when the SHTF" (whatever that means), the way to deal with it is, naturally, _violence_.
> 
> What a maroon.  No wonder he abandoned this mindless thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the maroon is you.  There is a very old saying "peace through superior firepower".  Amazingly enough bad guys don't like to get shot, so when disasters occur they prey on weaklings like you and they leave people like me alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO  You people just don't get that you are total paranoids.  Stop worrying about a great disaster that is most likely not going to happen to you, where anarchy will run wild, and start thinking about your one in four chance of dying of one or another form of cancer: stop smoking, started eating right and exercising and taking care of your mental health. That will give  you a better chance of avoiding what you are really at risk for.
Click to expand...

Or you could just mind your own business, and stop trying to tell other people how to live their lives.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> Uh -- yeah right.  I'm saying the idea of coping with life by blowing things away is mindlessly simplistic, and that makes ME the maroon and a "weakling".
> 
> I'd say the weakling is the cretin who can't think of anything deeper than rerunning the old cowboys and indians script, don't you think?


Offering to bake cookies with the bad guys who have guns and want your stuff and don't mind killing you to get it -- probably not a good strategy.


Pogo said:


> There is a very old saying "peace through superior firepower".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there isn't.  You just made it up.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't.  You probably should stop making such asinine claims.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pea...=955&dpr=1#q=peace+through+superior+firepower


----------



## jon_berzerk

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -- yeah right.  I'm saying the idea of coping with life by blowing things away is mindlessly simplistic, and that makes ME the maroon and a "weakling".
> 
> I'd say the weakling is the cretin who can't think of anything deeper than rerunning the old cowboys and indians script, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Offering to bake cookies with the bad guys who have guns and want your stuff and don't mind killing you to get it -- probably not a good strategy.
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a very old saying "peace through superior firepower".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there isn't.  You just made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he didn't.  You probably should stop making such asinine claims.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=pea...=955&dpr=1#q=peace+through+superior+firepower
Click to expand...


*Offering to bake cookies with the bad guys who have guns and want your stuff and don't mind killing you to get it -- probably not a good strategy.*

reminds me of that old david zucker ad 

the old is new again

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hzH6X8g34Y]The David Zucker Madeleine Albright ad - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman




----------



## MisterBeale

Esmeralda said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. . . . I see you were listening to that PBS propaganda last Sunday.  That was fascinating, wasn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even have PBS where I live.  No idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Eh, it was a while ago now, my mistake, it was NPR. 

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/21/224763887/fresh-air-weekend-jeff-guinn-robbie-fulks-linda-ronstadt


----------



## MisterBeale

Missourian said:


> Argentina's Economic Collapse Part 1 of 12 - YouTube
> 
> Economic collapse of Argentina,  2001.
> 
> I believe that when the IMF refused to loan Argentina money,  their deficit to GDP was 2.5% and their external debt was 50% of GDP
> 
> Our current deficit to GDP is 8.7...US Federal Deficit as Percentage of GDP
> 
> Our current external debt to GDP is 106%...List of countries by external debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Our current public debt to GDP is 67.7%...US Federal Debt as Percentage of GDP



This was an excellent post.  People are so obtuse to this fact.  I am acutely aware of this fact every black Friday when I watch how savage the American populace gets on "Black Friday."  I would hope we would be more civil and work together. . .but, from observing behavior on this forum, and on "black Friday," I think it will be dog eat dog.  Sad.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3q5NyxI8nk]The First 12 Hours of a US Dollar Collapse - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MisterBeale

whitehall said:


> Hand to hand weapon? It might be a fantasy to some people to defend themselves with the skillful use of a blade but it ain't gonna happen. Chances are that once you realize that you are in trouble the perp will kill you with a firearm.



Personally, I think all MSM is in the tank for the globalists, however, this is something to think about.  I think they probably stated with a conclusion that they wanted to prove, and then set things up to make it look like a knife was better in some circumstances, most people that know a gun is better will find lot of errors, however, in very close quarters, like I said, it is still something to think about.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz7EmDxhtU]Mythbusters Never Bring a Knife to a Gun Fight - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## The2ndAmendment

MisterBeale said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hand to hand weapon? It might be a fantasy to some people to defend themselves with the skillful use of a blade but it ain't gonna happen. Chances are that once you realize that you are in trouble the perp will kill you with a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I think all MSM is in the tank for the globalists, however, this is something to think about.  I think they probably stated with a conclusion that they wanted to prove, and then set things up to make it look like a knife was better in some circumstances, most people that know a gun is better will find lot of errors, however, in very close quarters, like I said, it is still something to think about.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz7EmDxhtU]Mythbusters Never Bring a Knife to a Gun Fight - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


There will be times be risking your life in hand to hand combat with an unarmed intruder is superior to taking the risk of using the last of your ammunition, because in now you'll have nothing to combat armed intruders in the future.


----------



## Pogo

There will be times when bumping a stupid thread like this runs the risk of draining whatever shred of credibility you were tenuously hanging on to.
The fatal flaw in the OP, now reignited for an entire new two-week generation of readers, was and remains the inane Neanderthal assumption that "crisis means violence".


Missing from the list altogether was my go-to weapon of choice:


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> There will be times when bumping a stupid thread like this runs the risk of draining whatever shred of credibility you were tenuously hanging on to.
> The fatal flaw in the OP, now reignited for an entire new two-week generation of readers, was and remains the inane Neanderthal assumption that "crisis means violence".
> 
> 
> Missing from the list altogether was my go-to weapon of choice:


Crisis can indeed mean violence.  To fail to take into account the possibility means you are NOT prepared.

Is your brain bullet-proof?


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be times when bumping a stupid thread like this runs the risk of draining whatever shred of credibility you were tenuously hanging on to.
> The fatal flaw in the OP, now reignited for an entire new two-week generation of readers, was and remains the inane Neanderthal assumption that "crisis means violence".
> 
> 
> Missing from the list altogether was my go-to weapon of choice:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crisis *can *indeed mean violence.  To fail to take into account the possibility means you are NOT prepared.
> 
> Is your brain bullet-proof?
Click to expand...


Is yours logic-proof?

You do understand what the word _can _means?  And how it's different from ... _must_?



The OP is a fool who lives every day in a fucking "action-figure" comic book.


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will be times when bumping a stupid thread like this runs the risk of draining whatever shred of credibility you were tenuously hanging on to.
> The fatal flaw in the OP, now reignited for an entire new two-week generation of readers, was and remains the inane Neanderthal assumption that "crisis means violence".
> 
> 
> Missing from the list altogether was my go-to weapon of choice:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crisis *can *indeed mean violence.  To fail to take into account the possibility means you are NOT prepared.
> 
> Is your brain bullet-proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is yours logic-proof?
> 
> You do understand what the word _can _means?  And how it's different from ... _must_?
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is a fool who lives every day in a fucking "action-figure" comic book.
Click to expand...

If you're not prepared for the most likely contingencies...you're not prepared.

But don't worry your vacuous little head about it.  I'm sure 9-1-1 response will be just a matter of minutes in the event of major breakdown of society.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crisis *can *indeed mean violence.  To fail to take into account the possibility means you are NOT prepared.
> 
> Is your brain bullet-proof?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is yours logic-proof?
> 
> You do understand what the word _can _means?  And how it's different from ... _must_?
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is a fool who lives every day in a fucking "action-figure" comic book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're not prepared for the most likely contingencies...you're not prepared.
> 
> But don't worry your vacuous little head about it.  I'm sure 9-1-1 response will be just a matter of minutes in the event of major breakdown of society.
Click to expand...


Whatever, Green Lantern....


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is yours logic-proof?
> 
> You do understand what the word _can _means?  And how it's different from ... _must_?
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is a fool who lives every day in a fucking "action-figure" comic book.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not prepared for the most likely contingencies...you're not prepared.
> 
> But don't worry your vacuous little head about it.  I'm sure 9-1-1 response will be just a matter of minutes in the event of major breakdown of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, Green Lantern....
Click to expand...

I hope for you and your family's sake that you have a prepper neighbor who's willing to take you in if necessary.

Because whining is not a survival-oriented skill when civilization collapses.  You can't eat commas, Skippy.


----------



## Pogo

daveman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not prepared for the most likely contingencies...you're not prepared.
> 
> But don't worry your vacuous little head about it.  I'm sure 9-1-1 response will be just a matter of minutes in the event of major breakdown of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, Green Lantern....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope for you and your family's sake that you have a prepper neighbor who's willing to take you in if necessary.
> 
> Because whining is not a survival-oriented skill when civilization collapses.  You can't eat commas, Skippy.
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, Green Lantern....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope for you and your family's sake that you have a prepper neighbor who's willing to take you in if necessary.
> 
> Because whining is not a survival-oriented skill when civilization collapses.  You can't eat commas, Skippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I know you don't like being reminded of your absolute dependence on government.

But, hey, that's what you wanted, right?


----------



## earlycuyler

The2ndAmendment said:


> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube



M$ and a 3 inch knife.


----------



## WinterBorn

Esmeralda said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all suffering from paranoid delusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is so funny about having the right to defend yourself
> 
> the tshtf all over the place everyday
> 
> it happened in a gun free naval shipyard the other day for example
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Had there been stricter gun control laws, it would not have happened. A mentally ill person was allowed to buy a gun, to get security access to a naval base, to enter the base with a weapon, etc.*  That's the problem, not the shit hitting the fan.  There would be no need for people to protect themselves if these nuts didn't have guns.  Such things no longer happen in countries which have instituted strict gun control laws.
Click to expand...


Take a moment to think about what you said.

"Had there been stricter gun control laws, it would not have happened. _[so you claim if things were against the law they would not happen?_ A mentally ill person was allowed to buy a gun _[If he had been declared mentally ill, it is against the law for him to buy a firearm]_, to get security access to a naval base _[thisi as  much more in-depth background check than the one required to buy a gun]_, to enter the base with a weapon _[so a military  base cannot guarantee security, but we are supposed to live our lives in the   hopes that we never fall prey to any criminal element?_, etc"


----------



## WinterBorn

I don't particularly care for the choices presented.   I would prefer my old 870 12 ga, and my springfield M1911.

THe more complicated the firearm gets the more likely it is to malfunction.  And if it will malfunction, it will do so at the worst time.

As for those who wish to ridicule preppers, that works for me.  If you are entertained by my have plans for several possible events in my future, I am glad to provide the laughs.

However, to pretend that you know that there will never be a breakdown society (either long or short term) and that our civilization is safe, is simply ignorance or bullshit.

We have some stored water, canned goods (and non-perishables), and a few plans.  We treat it like we do plans to evacuate if the house is on fire, or to seek shelter from a tornado.


----------



## westwall

Pogo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, Green Lantern....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope for you and your family's sake that you have a prepper neighbor who's willing to take you in if necessary.
> 
> Because whining is not a survival-oriented skill when civilization collapses.  You can't eat commas, Skippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...








How quickly the brainless forget.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9C51OawLFA]North America - US - Rodney King Riots - 19920429 - Los Angeles - 1 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39J0alpEgeQ]LA Riots 1992 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NCgxIljvTQ]RODNEY KING RIOTS AND L.A. RIOTS // EXCLUSIVE VIDEO LEAKED // BREAKING NEWS - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## earlycuyler

WinterBorn said:


> I don't particularly care for the choices presented.   I would prefer my old 870 12 ga, and my springfield M1911.
> 
> THe more complicated the firearm gets the more likely it is to malfunction.  And if it will malfunction, it will do so at the worst time.
> 
> As for those who wish to ridicule preppers, that works for me.  If you are entertained by my have plans for several possible events in my future, I am glad to provide the laughs.
> 
> However, to pretend that you know that there will never be a breakdown society (either long or short term) and that our civilization is safe, is simply ignorance or bullshit.
> 
> We have some stored water, canned goods (and non-perishables), and a few plans.  We treat it like we do plans to evacuate if the house is on fire, or to seek shelter from a tornado.



Don't get more simple then a gun you can build with a punch, screw driver, vice grips, and a proper hammer. The 870 is a solid choice to. 1911 though, its a bit dated and not a real good choice for those who are not "gun nuts". I would take your 870 and chuck it in the safe with the civi M4 and add a glock.


----------



## WinterBorn

earlycuyler said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't particularly care for the choices presented.   I would prefer my old 870 12 ga, and my springfield M1911.
> 
> THe more complicated the firearm gets the more likely it is to malfunction.  And if it will malfunction, it will do so at the worst time.
> 
> As for those who wish to ridicule preppers, that works for me.  If you are entertained by my have plans for several possible events in my future, I am glad to provide the laughs.
> 
> However, to pretend that you know that there will never be a breakdown society (either long or short term) and that our civilization is safe, is simply ignorance or bullshit.
> 
> We have some stored water, canned goods (and non-perishables), and a few plans.  We treat it like we do plans to evacuate if the house is on fire, or to seek shelter from a tornado.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get more simple then a gun you can build with a punch, screw driver, vice grips, and a proper hammer. The 870 is a solid choice to. 1911 though, its a bit dated and not a real good choice for those who are not "gun nuts". I would take your 870 and chuck it in the safe with the civi M4 and add a glock.
Click to expand...


The 870 is as solid and reliable a firearm as I have ever owned.  With proper shell selection it can be both a defensive weapon and a hunting tool.   As for the 1911, I prefer it over Glocks, Sigs, or any other "newer" semi-auto.  It fits my hand better.  I am also more accustomed to it than any other.  I like the impact of the .45ACP round and the sturdiness of the pistol itself.  The only drawback would seem to be having 8 rounds per magazine instead of the 13 or more the Glocks hold.  But given the speed with which I can reload, that seems less an issue than my ability to shoot the pistol well and the gun's ability to withstand harsh environments.  

I'll keep these two as my "go to" guns.

I also wonder if anyone else has a couple of decent pellet rifles in their armory?  Quiet to shoot, inexpensive to stockpile ammo for, and capable of killing small game without alerting the "neighbors".


----------



## earlycuyler

WinterBorn said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't particularly care for the choices presented.   I would prefer my old 870 12 ga, and my springfield M1911.
> 
> THe more complicated the firearm gets the more likely it is to malfunction.  And if it will malfunction, it will do so at the worst time.
> 
> As for those who wish to ridicule preppers, that works for me.  If you are entertained by my have plans for several possible events in my future, I am glad to provide the laughs.
> 
> However, to pretend that you know that there will never be a breakdown society (either long or short term) and that our civilization is safe, is simply ignorance or bullshit.
> 
> We have some stored water, canned goods (and non-perishables), and a few plans.  We treat it like we do plans to evacuate if the house is on fire, or to seek shelter from a tornado.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get more simple then a gun you can build with a punch, screw driver, vice grips, and a proper hammer. The 870 is a solid choice to. 1911 though, its a bit dated and not a real good choice for those who are not "gun nuts". I would take your 870 and chuck it in the safe with the civi M4 and add a glock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 870 is as solid and reliable a firearm as I have ever owned.  With proper shell selection it can be both a defensive weapon and a hunting tool.   As for the 1911, I prefer it over Glocks, Sigs, or any other "newer" semi-auto.  It fits my hand better.  I am also more accustomed to it than any other.  I like the impact of the .45ACP round and the sturdiness of the pistol itself.  The only drawback would seem to be having 8 rounds per magazine instead of the 13 or more the Glocks hold.  But given the speed with which I can reload, that seems less an issue than my ability to shoot the pistol well and the gun's ability to withstand harsh environments.
> 
> I'll keep these two as my "go to" guns.
> 
> I also wonder if anyone else has a couple of decent pellet rifles in their armory?  Quiet to shoot, inexpensive to stockpile ammo for, and capable of killing small game without alerting the "neighbors".
Click to expand...


The plane old Benjamen Franklin pump is what I use for urban bunny and squirrel control. I have had this since I was a kid and it still works great. About 5 pumps will do it.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Missourian said:


> If it's a long gun, edged weapon combination,  I think I've got mine already.
> 
> None of the above.
> 
> AR-15 and a Parang.
> 
> I picked this one up at Walmart for $34
> 
> Bear Grylls Parang from Gerber - Machete - YouTube





   We're pretty close.
I'd go with the AR as well.
 But I would have to go with the Kukri or Gurkha...

Google Image Result for http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/image/kukri-extremaratio-knives/kukri-extremaratio-knives.jpg

KnifeHog - Cold Steel Gurkha Kukri SK-5 Knife 39LGKT


----------



## earlycuyler

Meh,
I would not touch anything from cold steel, and a kukri is more knife then I need.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

earlycuyler said:


> Meh,
> I would not touch anything from cold steel, and a kukri is more knife then I need.



 Didnt say what brand. Just a visual aid.
Most people have no idea what those look like.

   I like the idea that the kukri chops fire wood as well as arms and legs.


----------



## earlycuyler

HereWeGoAgain said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meh,
> I would not touch anything from cold steel, and a kukri is more knife then I need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didnt say what brand. Just a visual aid.
> Most people have no idea what those look like.
> 
> I like the idea that the kukri chops fire wood as well as arms and legs.
Click to expand...


Dang right they will chop! Its a powerful designe no doubt. I just dont need that much knife. And they are dangerous in the hands on non knife savy folks. The Enep is another chopping monster you may check out if you are into that stuff.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

The2ndAmendment said:


> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube



"Fantasizing about violence"?

This thread is about as "fantasy" as it gets, and it's pretty clear you've spent a lot of time fantasizing about killing your fellow Americans.



In addition to that - Am I correct in saying that you don't actually own any of the guns you've added as choices?

How do you plan on getting an AA-12, when (as you say) the shit hits the fan?

What possible situation have you come up with in your fantasies that an AA-12 would actually be useful? It's a cool-looking weapon, but that's it.


----------



## WinterBorn

theDoctorisIn said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fantasizing about violence"?
> 
> This thread is about as "fantasy" as it gets, and it's pretty clear you've spent a lot of time fantasizing about killing your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to that - Am I correct in saying that you don't actually own any of the guns you've added as choices?
> 
> How do you plan on getting an AA-12, when (as you say) the shit hits the fan?
> 
> What possible situation have you come up with in your fantasies that an AA-12 would actually be useful? It's a cool-looking weapon, but that's it.
Click to expand...


I think you are probably right.  I would imagine that the poster of the OP is a teenager with more experience playing video games than in actually shooting.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

theDoctorisIn said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fantasizing about violence"?
> 
> This thread is about as "fantasy" as it gets, and it's pretty clear you've spent a lot of time fantasizing about killing your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to that - Am I correct in saying that you don't actually own any of the guns you've added as choices?
> 
> How do you plan on getting an AA-12, when (as you say) the shit hits the fan?
> 
> What possible situation have you come up with in your fantasies that an AA-12 would actually be useful? It's a cool-looking weapon, but that's it.
Click to expand...


  Nah....just the liberal ones. Republicans shoot back.


----------



## MisterBeale

theDoctorisIn said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fantasizing about violence"?
> 
> This thread is about as "fantasy" as it gets, and it's pretty clear you've spent a lot of time fantasizing about killing your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to that - Am I correct in saying that you don't actually own any of the guns you've added as choices?
> 
> How do you plan on getting an AA-12, when (as you say) the shit hits the fan?
> 
> What possible situation have you come up with in your fantasies that an AA-12 would actually be useful? It's a cool-looking weapon, but that's it.
Click to expand...

You know, I have enjoyed this thread, but I have to admit, I know next to nothing about guns, so I have for the most part, stayed on the sidelines.  

I am in favor of the second Amendment however.  

What I don't get, is that when I went to wikipedia to find out what an M4 is, it turned out it is illegal for civilians to own.  I haven't wanted to say anything, becausee, well, I guess I am just ignorant as a school boy.  I did see on another forum where a guy built one out of an antique shovel, but I suppose that isn't exactly the same.  

So, someone please clarify, where do you acquire such military grade hardware, legally?



> U.S. civilian ownership
> 
> Sales of select-fire or full automatic M4s by Colt are restricted to military and law enforcement agencies. Only under special circumstances can a private citizen own an M4 in a select-fire or fully automatic configuration. While many machine guns can be legally owned with a proper tax stamp from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 barred the transfer to private citizens of machine guns made or registered in the U.S. after May 19, 1986. The only exception was for Special Occupational Taxpayers (SOT): licensed machine gun dealers with demonstration letters, manufacturers, and those dealing in exports and imports. As such, only the earliest Colt M4 prototypes built prior to May 19, 1986 would be legal to own by civilians not in the categories mentioned.[citation needed] The modular nature of the AR15 design, however, makes it a relatively simple matter to fit M4-specific components to a "pre-'86" select-fire AR15 lower receiver, producing an "M4" in all but name.
> 
> Civilian replicas of the M4 typically have 16 inch barrels (or standard 14.5 inch M4 barrels with permanently attached flash suppressors to bring the effective length to 16 inches) and are semi-automatic only to meet the legal definition of a rifle under Title I (Gun Control Act). The M4 falls under restrictions of Title II (National Firearms Act: the 14.5 inch barrel makes the M4 a Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) and select fire capability (semi- or full automatic) makes the M4 a machinegun. Civilian-legal M4s are also popular with police as a patrol carbine.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine#U.S._civilian_ownership


----------



## theDoctorisIn

MisterBeale said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fantasizing about violence"?
> 
> This thread is about as "fantasy" as it gets, and it's pretty clear you've spent a lot of time fantasizing about killing your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to that - Am I correct in saying that you don't actually own any of the guns you've added as choices?
> 
> How do you plan on getting an AA-12, when (as you say) the shit hits the fan?
> 
> What possible situation have you come up with in your fantasies that an AA-12 would actually be useful? It's a cool-looking weapon, but that's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I have enjoyed this thread, but I have to admit, I know next to nothing about guns, so I have for the most part, stayed on the sidelines.
> 
> I am in favor of the second Amendment however.
> 
> What I don't get, is that when I went to wikipedia to find out what an M4 is, it turned out it is illegal for civilians to own.  I haven't wanted to say anything, becausee, well, I guess I am just ignorant as a school boy.  I did see on another forum where a guy built one out of an antique shovel, but I suppose that isn't exactly the same.
> 
> So, someone please clarify, where do you acquire such military grade hardware, legally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. civilian ownership
> 
> Sales of select-fire or full automatic M4s by Colt are restricted to military and law enforcement agencies. Only under special circumstances can a private citizen own an M4 in a select-fire or fully automatic configuration. While many machine guns can be legally owned with a proper tax stamp from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 barred the transfer to private citizens of machine guns made or registered in the U.S. after May 19, 1986. The only exception was for Special Occupational Taxpayers (SOT): licensed machine gun dealers with demonstration letters, manufacturers, and those dealing in exports and imports. As such, only the earliest Colt M4 prototypes built prior to May 19, 1986 would be legal to own by civilians not in the categories mentioned.[citation needed] The modular nature of the AR15 design, however, makes it a relatively simple matter to fit M4-specific components to a "pre-'86" select-fire AR15 lower receiver, producing an "M4" in all but name.
> 
> Civilian replicas of the M4 typically have 16 inch barrels (or standard 14.5 inch M4 barrels with permanently attached flash suppressors to bring the effective length to 16 inches) and are semi-automatic only to meet the legal definition of a rifle under Title I (Gun Control Act). The M4 falls under restrictions of Title II (National Firearms Act: the 14.5 inch barrel makes the M4 a Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) and select fire capability (semi- or full automatic) makes the M4 a machinegun. Civilian-legal M4s are also popular with police as a patrol carbine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine#U.S._civilian_ownership
Click to expand...


There are plenty of legal M4s - it's only illegal if they're full-auto, burst, or select-fire. M4s sold to civilians are all semi-auto, therefore legal.

The AA-12, on the other hand, is not legal anywhere in the US.


----------



## WinterBorn

theDoctorisIn said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Fantasizing about violence"?
> 
> This thread is about as "fantasy" as it gets, and it's pretty clear you've spent a lot of time fantasizing about killing your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to that - Am I correct in saying that you don't actually own any of the guns you've added as choices?
> 
> How do you plan on getting an AA-12, when (as you say) the shit hits the fan?
> 
> What possible situation have you come up with in your fantasies that an AA-12 would actually be useful? It's a cool-looking weapon, but that's it.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I have enjoyed this thread, but I have to admit, I know next to nothing about guns, so I have for the most part, stayed on the sidelines.
> 
> I am in favor of the second Amendment however.
> 
> What I don't get, is that when I went to wikipedia to find out what an M4 is, it turned out it is illegal for civilians to own.  I haven't wanted to say anything, becausee, well, I guess I am just ignorant as a school boy.  I did see on another forum where a guy built one out of an antique shovel, but I suppose that isn't exactly the same.
> 
> So, someone please clarify, where do you acquire such military grade hardware, legally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. civilian ownership
> 
> Sales of select-fire or full automatic M4s by Colt are restricted to military and law enforcement agencies. Only under special circumstances can a private citizen own an M4 in a select-fire or fully automatic configuration. While many machine guns can be legally owned with a proper tax stamp from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 barred the transfer to private citizens of machine guns made or registered in the U.S. after May 19, 1986. The only exception was for Special Occupational Taxpayers (SOT): licensed machine gun dealers with demonstration letters, manufacturers, and those dealing in exports and imports. As such, only the earliest Colt M4 prototypes built prior to May 19, 1986 would be legal to own by civilians not in the categories mentioned.[citation needed] The modular nature of the AR15 design, however, makes it a relatively simple matter to fit M4-specific components to a "pre-'86" select-fire AR15 lower receiver, producing an "M4" in all but name.
> 
> Civilian replicas of the M4 typically have 16 inch barrels (or standard 14.5 inch M4 barrels with permanently attached flash suppressors to bring the effective length to 16 inches) and are semi-automatic only to meet the legal definition of a rifle under Title I (Gun Control Act). The M4 falls under restrictions of Title II (National Firearms Act: the 14.5 inch barrel makes the M4 a Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) and select fire capability (semi- or full automatic) makes the M4 a machinegun. Civilian-legal M4s are also popular with police as a patrol carbine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine#U.S._civilian_ownership
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of legal M4s - it's only illegal if they're full-auto, burst, or select-fire. M4s sold to civilians are all semi-auto, therefore legal.
> 
> The AA-12, on the other hand, is not legal anywhere in the US.
Click to expand...


I suspect the OP list was taken from some video game.

If a neophyte like him did manage to come into possession of either of those full auto weapons, it wouldn't be long before they would be scavenged from his corpse.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

theDoctorisIn said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Fantasizing about violence"?
> 
> This thread is about as "fantasy" as it gets, and it's pretty clear you've spent a lot of time fantasizing about killing your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to that - Am I correct in saying that you don't actually own any of the guns you've added as choices?
> 
> How do you plan on getting an AA-12, when (as you say) the shit hits the fan?
> 
> What possible situation have you come up with in your fantasies that an AA-12 would actually be useful? It's a cool-looking weapon, but that's it.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I have enjoyed this thread, but I have to admit, I know next to nothing about guns, so I have for the most part, stayed on the sidelines.
> 
> I am in favor of the second Amendment however.
> 
> What I don't get, is that when I went to wikipedia to find out what an M4 is, it turned out it is illegal for civilians to own.  I haven't wanted to say anything, becausee, well, I guess I am just ignorant as a school boy.  I did see on another forum where a guy built one out of an antique shovel, but I suppose that isn't exactly the same.
> 
> So, someone please clarify, where do you acquire such military grade hardware, legally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. civilian ownership
> 
> Sales of select-fire or full automatic M4s by Colt are restricted to military and law enforcement agencies. Only under special circumstances can a private citizen own an M4 in a select-fire or fully automatic configuration. While many machine guns can be legally owned with a proper tax stamp from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 barred the transfer to private citizens of machine guns made or registered in the U.S. after May 19, 1986. The only exception was for Special Occupational Taxpayers (SOT): licensed machine gun dealers with demonstration letters, manufacturers, and those dealing in exports and imports. As such, only the earliest Colt M4 prototypes built prior to May 19, 1986 would be legal to own by civilians not in the categories mentioned.[citation needed] The modular nature of the AR15 design, however, makes it a relatively simple matter to fit M4-specific components to a "pre-'86" select-fire AR15 lower receiver, producing an "M4" in all but name.
> 
> Civilian replicas of the M4 typically have 16 inch barrels (or standard 14.5 inch M4 barrels with permanently attached flash suppressors to bring the effective length to 16 inches) and are semi-automatic only to meet the legal definition of a rifle under Title I (Gun Control Act). The M4 falls under restrictions of Title II (National Firearms Act: the 14.5 inch barrel makes the M4 a Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) and select fire capability (semi- or full automatic) makes the M4 a machinegun. Civilian-legal M4s are also popular with police as a patrol carbine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine#U.S._civilian_ownership
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of legal M4s - it's only illegal if they're full-auto, burst, or select-fire. M4s sold to civilians are all semi-auto, therefore legal.
> 
> The AA-12, on the other hand, is not legal anywhere in the US.
Click to expand...


 Pretty sure if you have your class III license you can buy one. But good luck finding one.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

WinterBorn said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I have enjoyed this thread, but I have to admit, I know next to nothing about guns, so I have for the most part, stayed on the sidelines.
> 
> I am in favor of the second Amendment however.
> 
> What I don't get, is that when I went to wikipedia to find out what an M4 is, it turned out it is illegal for civilians to own.  I haven't wanted to say anything, becausee, well, I guess I am just ignorant as a school boy.  I did see on another forum where a guy built one out of an antique shovel, but I suppose that isn't exactly the same.
> 
> So, someone please clarify, where do you acquire such military grade hardware, legally?
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine#U.S._civilian_ownership
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of legal M4s - it's only illegal if they're full-auto, burst, or select-fire. M4s sold to civilians are all semi-auto, therefore legal.
> 
> The AA-12, on the other hand, is not legal anywhere in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect the OP list was taken from some video game.
> 
> If a neophyte like him did manage to come into possession of either of those full auto weapons, it wouldn't be long before they would be scavenged from his corpse.
Click to expand...


  Full auto weapons aren't really all that effective except for keeping the enemies head down. Three round burst and single fire is way more accurate.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

HereWeGoAgain said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I have enjoyed this thread, but I have to admit, I know next to nothing about guns, so I have for the most part, stayed on the sidelines.
> 
> I am in favor of the second Amendment however.
> 
> What I don't get, is that when I went to wikipedia to find out what an M4 is, it turned out it is illegal for civilians to own.  I haven't wanted to say anything, becausee, well, I guess I am just ignorant as a school boy.  I did see on another forum where a guy built one out of an antique shovel, but I suppose that isn't exactly the same.
> 
> So, someone please clarify, where do you acquire such military grade hardware, legally?
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine#U.S._civilian_ownership
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of legal M4s - it's only illegal if they're full-auto, burst, or select-fire. M4s sold to civilians are all semi-auto, therefore legal.
> 
> The AA-12, on the other hand, is not legal anywhere in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty sure if you have your class III license you can buy one. But good luck finding one.
Click to expand...


I believe you are correct, but I would say its still pretty unlikely that T2A has one.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## theDoctorisIn

HereWeGoAgain said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of legal M4s - it's only illegal if they're full-auto, burst, or select-fire. M4s sold to civilians are all semi-auto, therefore legal.
> 
> The AA-12, on the other hand, is not legal anywhere in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the OP list was taken from some video game.
> 
> If a neophyte like him did manage to come into possession of either of those full auto weapons, it wouldn't be long before they would be scavenged from his corpse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Full auto weapons aren't really all that effective except for keeping the enemies head down. Three round burst and single fire is way more accurate.
Click to expand...


That's pretty much the point I was trying to make before. In whatever Mad Max scenario the OP is imagining, a full-auto shotgun is almost worse than useless if the roving band of rapists wearing football pads is more than 50 feet away from him.

I'd take my off-brand AR-10 over any of the ridiculous choices in the OP, should I be thrown into his post-apocalyptic fantasy.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## WinterBorn

HereWeGoAgain said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of legal M4s - it's only illegal if they're full-auto, burst, or select-fire. M4s sold to civilians are all semi-auto, therefore legal.
> 
> The AA-12, on the other hand, is not legal anywhere in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the OP list was taken from some video game.
> 
> If a neophyte like him did manage to come into possession of either of those full auto weapons, it wouldn't be long before they would be scavenged from his corpse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Full auto weapons aren't really all that effective except for keeping the enemies head down. Three round burst and single fire is way more accurate.
Click to expand...


They are very effective at one thing.  Wasting ammunition.  When the ammo is gone you have an expensive club.


----------



## WinterBorn

If you want to plan for when the SHTF (or TEOTWAWKI), you want to select weapons you can readily find ammo for, that you shoot well, and that will hold up under adverse conditions.

It won't take military style hardware to turn scavengers away.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

WinterBorn said:


> If you want to plan for when the SHTF (or TEOTWAWKI), you want to select weapons you can readily find ammo for, that you shoot well, and that will hold up under adverse conditions.
> 
> It won't take military style hardware to turn scavengers away.



  It's not the scavengers you would have to worry about.
You think the gang problem is bad now? There are plenty of would be murderers,rapist and robbers out there right now who would like nothing more then to have free reign on society.
  And they would find each other over time,forming murderous groups who would rather kill you and take your shit then work for themselves.
  A SHTF situation will turn an outwardly nice guy into a killer out of necessity.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

theDoctorisIn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the OP list was taken from some video game.
> 
> If a neophyte like him did manage to come into possession of either of those full auto weapons, it wouldn't be long before they would be scavenged from his corpse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full auto weapons aren't really all that effective except for keeping the enemies head down. Three round burst and single fire is way more accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty much the point I was trying to make before. In whatever Mad Max scenario the OP is imagining, a full-auto shotgun is almost worse than useless if the roving band of rapists wearing football pads is more than 50 feet away from him.
> 
> I'd take my off-brand AR-10 over any of the ridiculous choices in the OP, should I be thrown into his post-apocalyptic fantasy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


  I'd have to stick to the 5.56 due to the shitloads of ammo to be found across the U.S.
In a pistol I'd take a 9mm for the same reason.


----------



## WinterBorn

HereWeGoAgain said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to plan for when the SHTF (or TEOTWAWKI), you want to select weapons you can readily find ammo for, that you shoot well, and that will hold up under adverse conditions.
> 
> It won't take military style hardware to turn scavengers away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the scavengers you would have to worry about.
> You think the gang problem is bad now? There are plenty of would be murderers,rapist and robbers out there right now who would like nothing more then to have free reign on society.
> And they would find each other over time,forming murderous groups who would rather kill you and take your shit then work for themselves.
> A SHTF situation will turn an outwardly nice guy into a killer out of necessity.
Click to expand...


I have no doubt there would be plenty of scavengers and worse waiting to take what they want.   But, unless they are starving, I doubt they would require a machinegun or a fully automatic shotgun to repel.  Well placed, accurate fire would send them away quicker and with fewer numbers.


----------



## shikaki

I would like to know with all the chatter, has anyone in this discussion actually taken another human beings life?


----------



## WinterBorn

shikaki said:


> I would like to know with all the chatter, has anyone in this discussion actually taken another human beings life?



I do not see how that would have any bearing on taking steps to be prepared for a collapse of our society.

The discussion is academic.  That could rapidly change due to a variety of reasons.


----------



## shikaki

WinterBorn said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know with all the chatter, has anyone in this discussion actually taken another human beings life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see how that would have any bearing on taking steps to be prepared for a collapse of our society.
> 
> The discussion is academic.  That could rapidly change due to a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...


Well actually it has every bearing.  The implicit message is, weapons would be used to "protect people and their stuff".  The only point of a weapon is to kill.  Thus the relevance.  Is it idle chatter or are people understanding the message they are implying?


----------



## WinterBorn

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know with all the chatter, has anyone in this discussion actually taken another human beings life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see how that would have any bearing on taking steps to be prepared for a collapse of our society.
> 
> The discussion is academic.  That could rapidly change due to a variety of reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually it has every bearing.  The implicit message is, weapons would be used to "protect people and their stuff".  The only point of a weapon is to kill.  Thus the relevance.  Is it idle chatter or are people understanding the message they are implying?
Click to expand...


Given that we are discussing what tools we will use in an eventuality that has not, thankfully, happened, I think it is largely irrelevant.

I can only speak for myself, but I do not take killing a person lightly.  That does not, however, mean I would not do so.

I think everyone in these discussions understands that the reason we want a firearm in the event of dire emergencies would be to take a human life.

I would wager that none of us in these discussions has found themselves in a situation that required deadly force to fend off groups of armed and desperate people seeking to kill them or take their means of survival.  I would also wager that no one in these discussions has had to hunt as a sole source of meat.  But that does not change the fact that, should we find ourselves in such situations, we would use our firearms to do so.


----------



## earlycuyler

MisterBeale said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pick one firearm, and one hand to hand weapon.
> 
> My choice is the AA-12 and sabre
> 
> AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fantasizing about violence"?
> 
> This thread is about as "fantasy" as it gets, and it's pretty clear you've spent a lot of time fantasizing about killing your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to that - Am I correct in saying that you don't actually own any of the guns you've added as choices?
> 
> How do you plan on getting an AA-12, when (as you say) the shit hits the fan?
> 
> What possible situation have you come up with in your fantasies that an AA-12 would actually be useful? It's a cool-looking weapon, but that's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I have enjoyed this thread, but I have to admit, I know next to nothing about guns, so I have for the most part, stayed on the sidelines.
> 
> I am in favor of the second Amendment however.
> 
> What I don't get, is that when I went to wikipedia to find out what an M4 is, it turned out it is illegal for civilians to own.  I haven't wanted to say anything, becausee, well, I guess I am just ignorant as a school boy.  I did see on another forum where a guy built one out of an antique shovel, but I suppose that isn't exactly the same.
> 
> So, someone please clarify, where do you acquire such military grade hardware, legally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. civilian ownership
> 
> Sales of select-fire or full automatic M4s by Colt are restricted to military and law enforcement agencies. Only under special circumstances can a private citizen own an M4 in a select-fire or fully automatic configuration. While many machine guns can be legally owned with a proper tax stamp from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 barred the transfer to private citizens of machine guns made or registered in the U.S. after May 19, 1986. The only exception was for Special Occupational Taxpayers (SOT): licensed machine gun dealers with demonstration letters, manufacturers, and those dealing in exports and imports. As such, only the earliest Colt M4 prototypes built prior to May 19, 1986 would be legal to own by civilians not in the categories mentioned.[citation needed] The modular nature of the AR15 design, however, makes it a relatively simple matter to fit M4-specific components to a "pre-'86" select-fire AR15 lower receiver, producing an "M4" in all but name.
> 
> Civilian replicas of the M4 typically have 16 inch barrels (or standard 14.5 inch M4 barrels with permanently attached flash suppressors to bring the effective length to 16 inches) and are semi-automatic only to meet the legal definition of a rifle under Title I (Gun Control Act). The M4 falls under restrictions of Title II (National Firearms Act: the 14.5 inch barrel makes the M4 a Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) and select fire capability (semi- or full automatic) makes the M4 a machinegun. Civilian-legal M4s are also popular with police as a patrol carbine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine#U.S._civilian_ownership
Click to expand...


First off, go do an NRA safety coarse at your local shooting range. Its lots of fun, and you will leave with more knowledge then you came with. As for the knowledge you DO have, there is more then you think. I would bet you could figure it out from only what you have seen on TV and your common sense. As for civilian ownership of M4's, only full auto is regulated, and even then, a class three FFL makes it ok depending on the state your in. Full auto is over rated. As is, the M4 is not but a handy sized rifle built on the most versatile platform ever devised.


----------



## earlycuyler

WinterBorn said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see how that would have any bearing on taking steps to be prepared for a collapse of our society.
> 
> The discussion is academic.  That could rapidly change due to a variety of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually it has every bearing.  The implicit message is, weapons would be used to "protect people and their stuff".  The only point of a weapon is to kill.  Thus the relevance.  Is it idle chatter or are people understanding the message they are implying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that we are discussing what tools we will use in an eventuality that has not, thankfully, happened, I think it is largely irrelevant.
> 
> I can only speak for myself, but I do not take killing a person lightly.  That does not, however, mean I would not do so.
> 
> I think everyone in these discussions understands that the reason we want a firearm in the event of dire emergencies would be to take a human life.
> 
> I would wager that none of us in these discussions has found themselves in a situation that required deadly force to fend off groups of armed and desperate people seeking to kill them or take their means of survival.  I would also wager that no one in these discussions has had to hunt as a sole source of meat.  But that does not change the fact that, should we find ourselves in such situations, we would use our firearms to do so.
Click to expand...


Hunted all my life. Do so with a bow. After Ike I would shoo the $75.00 vato's off by staring over the barrel of a very old 30/30. Had they persisted they would have been killed graveyard dead period.


----------



## westwall

theDoctorisIn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the OP list was taken from some video game.
> 
> If a neophyte like him did manage to come into possession of either of those full auto weapons, it wouldn't be long before they would be scavenged from his corpse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full auto weapons aren't really all that effective except for keeping the enemies head down. Three round burst and single fire is way more accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty much the point I was trying to make before. In whatever Mad Max scenario the OP is imagining, a full-auto shotgun is almost worse than useless if the roving band of rapists wearing football pads is more than 50 feet away from him.
> 
> I'd take my off-brand AR-10 over any of the ridiculous choices in the OP, should I be thrown into his post-apocalyptic fantasy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...







While I agree with you that the AA-12 is pretty pointless, never, ever think a shotgun is useless beyond 50 feet.  My Benelli M1 Super 90 is exceptionally accurate with slugs out to 200 yards.


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> I would like to know with all the chatter, has anyone in this discussion actually taken another human beings life?








Thankfully no, I have been in a shootout with bandits in Morocco, but we made sure not to hit any of them.  That way there was no need for a vendetta.  They left after it became obvious that we COULD hit them if we so chose to..


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to know with all the chatter, has anyone in this discussion actually taken another human beings life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see how that would have any bearing on taking steps to be prepared for a collapse of our society.
> 
> The discussion is academic.  That could rapidly change due to a variety of reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually it has every bearing.  The implicit message is, weapons would be used to "protect people and their stuff".  The only point of a weapon is to kill.  Thus the relevance.  Is it idle chatter or are people understanding the message they are implying?
Click to expand...








No, you're very wrong.  The point of a weapon (in a situation like this) is deterrence.  If the bad guy decides to not be deterred then, and only then, does the purpose change.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> I would like to know with all the chatter, has anyone in this discussion actually taken another human beings life?



 Came close during a botched home invasion/robbery. I was lucky I was paying attention or it wouldnt have turned out so nice.
  And they're lucky I'm a little squeamish about back shooting someone.


----------



## shikaki

westwall said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're very wrong.  The point of a weapon *(in a situation like this)* is deterrence.  If the bad guy decides to not be deterred then, and only then, does the purpose change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say I'm wrong, when you are changing the equation?  We should agree that you just defined your perception of the equation, not sure you are speaking for everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## WinterBorn

shikaki said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say I'm wrong, when you are changing the equation?  We should agree that you just defined your perception of the equation, not sure you are speaking for everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, let's say we all answer your question as to whether or not we have ever killed a human being.
> 
> And then what?  How does that change the discussion we are having?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## shikaki

I think to act like a tough guy, big gun, small p***, people need to put this in real perspective.  Is there a reason to not think about reality? Seems as valid a point as what weapon would I would use to do "
"something" should the SHTF!!


----------



## WinterBorn

shikaki said:


> I think to act like a tough guy, big gun, small p***, people need to put this in real perspective.  Is there a reason to not think about reality? Seems as valid a point as what weapon would I would use to do "
> "something" should the SHTF!!



Perhaps you see someone with a gun as a "tough guy".  I do not have guns to make me tough or cool, and it has nothing to do with the size of my genitalia.  The suggestion that is does shows you to be petty and uninterested in the facts of the discussion.  Unfortunately you will have to  find another thread to boost you ego.  On this one you failed miserably.

Do you think there is no chance that our society will fold up?  You are absolutely sure it will continue?  And that there is no chance of major collapse or disaster?  If so, you are either delusional or need to be on meds.

Surviving is reality.  Some people choose to rely on others to get them thru a crisis.  Some have seen the folly in that.

I have fire extinguishers, but I have never had a fire in my house.   The same rational applies to my preparedness for when the SHTF.


----------



## shikaki

WinterBorn said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think to act like a tough guy, big gun, small p***, people need to put this in real perspective.  Is there a reason to not think about reality? Seems as valid a point as what weapon would I would use to do "
> "something" should the SHTF!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you see someone with a gun as a "tough guy".  I do not have guns to make me tough or cool, and it has nothing to do with the size of my genitalia.  The suggestion that is does shows you to be petty and uninterested in the facts of the discussion.  Unfortunately you will have to  find another thread to boost you ego.  On this one you failed miserably.
> 
> Do you think there is no chance that our society will fold up?  You are absolutely sure it will continue?  And that there is no chance of major collapse or disaster?  If so, you are either delusional or need to be on meds.
> 
> Surviving is reality.  Some people choose to rely on others to get them thru a crisis.  Some have seen the folly in that.
> 
> I have fire extinguishers, but I have never had a fire in my house.   The same rational applies to my preparedness for when the SHTF.
Click to expand...


The discussion is based on delusions of fear and insanity and I need to be on meds?  WOW.  When is the last time you have had to survive?  This proves the point.  We all sit in our privileged gated communities discussing how we will tough up when the need arises.  Talk about delusional.   Give me one example that our entitled society is imploding?  Real examples, no nut house propaganda!!


----------



## MikeK

Presuming SHTF means a breakdown in law and order I believe close-range defensive weapons would be an individual's most logical choice.  And because I believe high-capacity automatic weapons have their place I would not choose the AA-12 shotgun as a primary weapon.  

While the AA-12 auto shotgun seems to be a good weapon to have on hand to repel a major frontal attack, the ordinary individual's concerns would be considerably less threatening.  So my personal choices would be a pump shotgun with extended magazine and a .357 magnum revolver (I don't like automatic pistols).


----------



## WinterBorn

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think to act like a tough guy, big gun, small p***, people need to put this in real perspective.  Is there a reason to not think about reality? Seems as valid a point as what weapon would I would use to do "
> "something" should the SHTF!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you see someone with a gun as a "tough guy".  I do not have guns to make me tough or cool, and it has nothing to do with the size of my genitalia.  The suggestion that is does shows you to be petty and uninterested in the facts of the discussion.  Unfortunately you will have to  find another thread to boost you ego.  On this one you failed miserably.
> 
> Do you think there is no chance that our society will fold up?  You are absolutely sure it will continue?  And that there is no chance of major collapse or disaster?  If so, you are either delusional or need to be on meds.
> 
> Surviving is reality.  Some people choose to rely on others to get them thru a crisis.  Some have seen the folly in that.
> 
> I have fire extinguishers, but I have never had a fire in my house.   The same rational applies to my preparedness for when the SHTF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion is based on delusions of fear and insanity and I need to be on meds?  WOW.  When is the last time you have had to survive?  This proves the point.  We all sit in our privileged gated communities discussing how we will tough up when the need arises.  Talk about delusional.   Give me one example that our entitled society is imploding?  Real examples, no nut house propaganda!!
Click to expand...


There are numerous examples of disasters seeing a portion of the population looting and running amok.  But that is not the actual point nor is it the reason why people, like myself, take a little bit of time & money to prepare for the worst case scenario.  The federal gov't apparently thinks there is sufficient reason to worry.  Look at the ammunition purchases made by our own gov't agencies.  THE idea that millions of rounds of hollowpoint ammunition is stockpiled by departments dedicated to domestic law enforcement speaks volumes to that worry.   The ammo cannot be used by our military, and the claim that it is "training ammo" is ridiculous given the volume.  (unless every member of Homeland Security will fire hundreds of rounds in "training".)

Oh, and not everyone lives in a gated community.  I live in a nice house in a suburb of Atlanta.  Our neighborhood is quiet, with mostly older homes, nice sidewalks and good people.  But just a few blocks away are areas with high crime rates.  The number of breakins and  home invasions is on the rise.  That many people here have a handgun is not a surprise, nor is it paranoia.

Also, the OP in this thread is ridiculously militaristic and probably started by fascination with a video game.  But numerous posters in this thread have pointed that out.

I myself have noted that.  I also stated that I have a pistol of a basic design from 100 years ago along with a slightly modified hunting firearm as my "go to" guns for when the SHTF.  

And, as a point of fact, I do not prepare based solely on what HAS happened.  If that were the case then I would not need smoke alarms or fire extinguishers in my home.  The fact that I own firearms may only indicate that I hunt or target shoot as a hobby.  Does that also mean I  have undersized genitals?  Or is it just BIG guns that mean that?  My most recent firearm purchase was a .17HMR caliber rifle.  This is a tiny caliber.  By your logic, does that mean I have a very large penis?    

What is going on here is an academic discussion about which firearms would offer the best service in the event the SHTF.   IF you believe that is impossible, why bother posting here at all?  If you believe it is indeed possible, why would you not prepare for it by setting aside a bit of water, food, and a means of protecting yourself?  

Perhaps you believe the government has your best interests in mind?


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say I'm wrong, when you are changing the equation?  We should agree that you just defined your perception of the equation, not sure you are speaking for everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I changed nothing.  The only people who go from zero to killing someone are sociopaths.
> I have over 100 firearms and not one of them has ever killed anything more than paper.  I would wager that the VAST majority of people who have posted in this thread are likewise.
> 
> No sane person _wants_ to kill someone.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Mr. H.

Above all else, I'd choose to keep my wits.


----------



## WinterBorn

MikeK said:


> Presuming SHTF means a breakdown in law and order I believe close-range defensive weapons would be an individual's most logical choice.  And because I believe high-capacity automatic weapons have their place I would not choose the AA-12 shotgun as a primary weapon.
> 
> While the AA-12 auto shotgun seems to be a good weapon to have on hand to repel a major frontal attack, the ordinary individual's concerns would be considerably less threatening.  So my personal choices would be a pump shotgun with extended magazine and a .357 magnum revolver (I don't like automatic pistols).



A good revolver gives you protection and reliability that an autoloader will never match.

I agree with the rest of your post.   But then, my choice is an 870 shotgun that is modified from an old hunting shotgun.  I can switch stocks, barrels, and magazine tubes and be back to that solid hunter at any time.


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> I think to act like a tough guy, big gun, small p***, people need to put this in real perspective.  Is there a reason to not think about reality? Seems as valid a point as what weapon would I would use to do "
> "something" should the SHTF!!








  Typical libtard response.  My penis is very average and I have no need to compensate for it.  You insult gun owners and yet you are so blissfully ignorant of what you speak that you automatically resort to insults because it is *YOU* who is insecure.


----------



## WinterBorn

Shikaki, let me ask you a question.  

Why would you care of people were setting aside some of what they have in preparation for when the SHTF?   You joined our discussion, so why does it bother you that we are having such a discussion?


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think to act like a tough guy, big gun, small p***, people need to put this in real perspective.  Is there a reason to not think about reality? Seems as valid a point as what weapon would I would use to do "
> "something" should the SHTF!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you see someone with a gun as a "tough guy".  I do not have guns to make me tough or cool, and it has nothing to do with the size of my genitalia.  The suggestion that is does shows you to be petty and uninterested in the facts of the discussion.  Unfortunately you will have to  find another thread to boost you ego.  On this one you failed miserably.
> 
> Do you think there is no chance that our society will fold up?  You are absolutely sure it will continue?  And that there is no chance of major collapse or disaster?  If so, you are either delusional or need to be on meds.
> 
> Surviving is reality.  Some people choose to rely on others to get them thru a crisis.  Some have seen the folly in that.
> 
> I have fire extinguishers, but I have never had a fire in my house.   The same rational applies to my preparedness for when the SHTF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion is based on delusions of fear and insanity and I need to be on meds?  WOW.  When is the last time you have had to survive?  This proves the point.  We all sit in our privileged gated communities discussing how we will tough up when the need arises.  Talk about delusional.   Give me one example that our entitled society is imploding?  Real examples, no nut house propaganda!!
Click to expand...








  Oh, you poor little puppy.  I hope you don't live in a metropolitan area when a natural disaster hits....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gCHS7CsjsE]L.A. Riots - 1992 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pltyHB1MoPQ]Los Angeles Riots and looting RAW Footage 1992 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRc_FlmW2Jc]La Riots store owners protect store with guns - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYCrMNEdweY]New Orleans Looting Katrina - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-VFNPPcOE]Black Police Women looting a Wal Mart in New Orleans after Katrina. - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPpUwy5NSMU]Reports of looting at Coast Guard House - YouTube[/ame]

You see dear child the caca hitting the fan can be anything...


----------



## shikaki

WinterBorn said:


> Shikaki, let me ask you a question.
> 
> Why would you care of people were setting aside some of what they have in preparation for when the SHTF?   You joined our discussion, so why does it bother you that we are having such a discussion?



Not everyone that has weapons is sane.  To assume that everyone has the ability to maintain rational common sense while the SHTF is a bit a scary.  I know, if I have my weapons then I can protect myself from the insane, but there are many factors in that conclusion.  Even though the US has the best military in the world, there are many US soldiers coming back in wooden coffins.  They all had weapons and they all knew how to use them.


----------



## shikaki

Got it... But in each case it was the government that maintained order, not the citizens..


----------



## jon_berzerk

shikaki said:


> Got it... But in each case it was the government that maintained order, not the citizens..



in  new orleans and koreatown 

the government did not maintain order 

eventually they restored it


----------



## JWBooth

I'm rather partial to the Saiga 12 ga. with the drum magazine


----------



## BlackSand

Esmeralda said:


> These people are so hilarious. When the shit hits the fan?  You're all sufferening from paranoid delusions.  You're as nutty as Charles Manson thinking the US was on the brink of civil war between blacks and whites.



Don't worry sweetheart ... There are still a few of us nutcases that have put away enough guns, ammo and supplies to take care of you for a while when it isn't funny anymore.
Not me of course ... But you wouldn't want help from me anyway ... And I am pretty sure I would probably shoot you myself after about three or four days of your probable incessant whining.

The chances of you getting wasted go down greatly if you can cook or clean half-way decent though.



GX-3 (7.62mm x 39)
Ruger P-85 (9mm)
Modern Kopis Sword 

.


----------



## WinterBorn

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shikaki, let me ask you a question.
> 
> Why would you care of people were setting aside some of what they have in preparation for when the SHTF?   You joined our discussion, so why does it bother you that we are having such a discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone that has weapons is sane.  To assume that everyone has the ability to maintain rational common sense while the SHTF is a bit a scary.  I know, if I have my weapons then I can protect myself from the insane, but there are many factors in that conclusion.  Even though the US has the best military in the world, there are many US soldiers coming back in wooden coffins.  They all had weapons and they all knew how to use them.
Click to expand...


No, not everyone will be sane and some of those insane people will have guns.  But that will be true whether the people on this thread discuss and prepare or not.  So, rather than make demeaning remarks, why not suggest allowances for lunatics?

There are many, many factors in surviving a major upheaval.  Many people will not survive due to violence, lack of food or other obvious hazards.  Many more will not survive because of their mindset and their inability to adapt.  It would seem to me that these people are the ones you are talking about.  And discussions like these would help avoid becoming one of them, or at the very least, dealing with them.


----------



## BlackSand

shikaki said:


> Not everyone that has weapons is sane.  To assume that everyone has the ability to maintain rational common sense while the SHTF is a bit a scary.  I know, if I have my weapons then I can protect myself from the insane, but there are many factors in that conclusion.  Even though the US has the best military in the world, there are many US soldiers coming back in wooden coffins.  They all had weapons and they all knew how to use them.



All posturing and joking aside ... Statistics about soldiers having weapons and knowing how to use them, but ending up dead anyway ... Should give you a pretty good idea of what happens when you don't have a weapon.
Most gun owners ... Are just people who rely on their own abilities for protection, food ... And when possible the assistance of others.

As a veteran ... All I can tell you is that having a weapon in a hostile situation greatly increases your ability to survive ... As well as gives you an advantage in negotiations with armed objectors that the unarmed do not have.


Edit: 
*All I can say is that in a SHTF crisis ... If local law enforcement, or federal officials come knocking on my door ... It will be because they need my assistance, and not to collect my firearms.*

.


----------



## shikaki

WinterBorn said:


> No, not everyone will be sane and some of those insane people will have guns.  But that will be true whether the people on this thread discuss and prepare or not.  So, rather than make demeaning remarks, why not suggest allowances for lunatics?



If allowances were possible then that would have prevented such things as Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, etc...  Score....Crazies 40+  to Sane 0.



WinterBorn said:


> There are many, many factors in surviving a major upheaval.  Many people will not survive due to violence, lack of food or other obvious hazards.  Many more will not survive because of their mindset and their inability to adapt.  It would seem to me that these people are the ones you are talking about.  And discussions like these would help avoid becoming one of them, or at the very least, dealing with them.



I understand that this is just a fantasy about favorite weapon, but to your point, there is a real component to this, which is what my initial question was trying to raise awareness too.

For weapon of choice, how do you accommodate someone having a "bigger" one?  You bring a desert eagle, they bring a m1, you bring a ak47, they bring a tank?


----------



## WinterBorn

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not everyone will be sane and some of those insane people will have guns.  But that will be true whether the people on this thread discuss and prepare or not.  So, rather than make demeaning remarks, why not suggest allowances for lunatics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If allowances were possible then that would have prevented such things as Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, etc...  Score....Crazies 40+  to Sane 0.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many, many factors in surviving a major upheaval.  Many people will not survive due to violence, lack of food or other obvious hazards.  Many more will not survive because of their mindset and their inability to adapt.  It would seem to me that these people are the ones you are talking about.  And discussions like these would help avoid becoming one of them, or at the very least, dealing with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that this is just a fantasy about favorite weapon, but to your point, there is a real component to this, which is what my initial question was trying to raise awareness too.
> 
> For weapon of choice, how do you accommodate someone having a "bigger" one?  You bring a desert eagle, they bring a m1, you bring a ak47, they bring a tank?
Click to expand...


Not all are interested in having the biggest or the newest.  Yes, the OP limited choices to some very modern, very big guns.  Subsequent posts listed very different firearms and the reason for them.  For every time I, and those like me, like our older less "glamorous" weapons in discussions, some neophyte reads it and gains knowledge from it.

I understand that there is a very real component to this.  I genuinely do have some items put aside for a variety of reasons.  And actually own an old Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun that I have customized with some aftermarket parts.  I really do own a Springfield M1911 .45ACP.    I really do believe these two firearms would serve me well when the SHTF.  I would not throw away the other guns I own.  But these two are the "go to" guns.


----------



## shikaki

Nice weapons...  I really hope the only time you need to use them is for practice.


----------



## BlackSand

WinterBorn said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not everyone will be sane and some of those insane people will have guns.  But that will be true whether the people on this thread discuss and prepare or not.  So, rather than make demeaning remarks, why not suggest allowances for lunatics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If allowances were possible then that would have prevented such things as Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, etc...  Score....Crazies 40+  to Sane 0.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many, many factors in surviving a major upheaval.  Many people will not survive due to violence, lack of food or other obvious hazards.  Many more will not survive because of their mindset and their inability to adapt.  It would seem to me that these people are the ones you are talking about.  And discussions like these would help avoid becoming one of them, or at the very least, dealing with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that this is just a fantasy about favorite weapon, but to your point, there is a real component to this, which is what my initial question was trying to raise awareness too.
> 
> For weapon of choice, how do you accommodate someone having a "bigger" one?  You bring a desert eagle, they bring a m1, you bring a ak47, they bring a tank?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all are interested in having the biggest or the newest.  Yes, the OP limited choices to some very modern, very big guns.  Subsequent posts listed very different firearms and the reason for them.  For every time I, and those like me, like our older less "glamorous" weapons in discussions, some neophyte reads it and gains knowledge from it.
> 
> I understand that there is a very real component to this.  I genuinely do have some items put aside for a variety of reasons.  And actually own an old Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun that I have customized with some aftermarket parts.  I really do own a Springfield M1911 .45ACP.    I really do believe these two firearms would serve me well when the SHTF.  I would not throw away the other guns I own.  But these two are the "go to" guns.
Click to expand...


As far as crazies in school shooting and whatnot ... Most of them shoot themselves when someone with a firearm shows up on the scene.
The discussion isn't for people who don't know about firearms, dislike firearms or cannot trust in their own ability to properly handle a situation that involves another person with a firearm that doesn't care about your objections.

Like Winterborn said ... Most of  the people in this thread that responded to the initial OP with their choices, have several firearms not listed ... And ones they have in different categories of use.

There are SHTF weapons for fast access, easy reliable use and serviceability or reload capabilities.
There are also the weapons they own that would be in a "jump kit" for long-term relocation ... And can range from the reliable Remington 870, Winchester 30/30, Colt Python .357, to the machete.

Some weapons are combat related, while others are better suited for sustenance and routine shooting obligations.
If you are still arguing about the necessity of owning a firearm ... Then you are miles behind people who already own firearms and have moved on to more appropriate concerns about how to handle situations including a firearm when necessary.

It isn't like your input is not welcome ... But more like "no" is not an answer when faced with limited opportunities and nothing to ensure your ability to negotiate other than expected compassion from people you have already labeled as crazy.
Now who is really crazy ... People who want to protect themselves and provide for that protection ... Or people who want to appeal to the sensibilities of the insane?

.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

MikeK said:


> Presuming SHTF means a breakdown in law and order I believe close-range defensive weapons would be an individual's most logical choice.  And because I believe high-capacity automatic weapons have their place I would not choose the AA-12 shotgun as a primary weapon.
> 
> While the AA-12 auto shotgun seems to be a good weapon to have on hand to repel a major frontal attack, the ordinary individual's concerns would be considerably less threatening.  So my personal choices would be a pump shotgun with extended magazine and a .357 magnum revolver (I don't like automatic pistols).



  An AR-15 is a much better choice for a multitude of reasons.
I can drop you at 300 yards..or 10. And while you're busy trying to reload that shotgun,I'm moving up on you so I can get within 150 yards for an easy shot that is still out of effective range of your shotgun.
  No way do you want your enemies to get close enough for shotgun use if you can avoid it.
Not to mention the availability of ammo. Which for defense is buckshot and slugs in a shotgun. Those would be hard to find in short order. 
  5.56 and .223 rounds are everywhere.

 The thing you have to remember is you're going to have to leave your house at some point. And with the variety of terrain you would expect to encounter a more versatile weapon would make more sense.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think to act like a tough guy, big gun, small p***, people need to put this in real perspective.  Is there a reason to not think about reality? Seems as valid a point as what weapon would I would use to do "
> "something" should the SHTF!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you see someone with a gun as a "tough guy".  I do not have guns to make me tough or cool, and it has nothing to do with the size of my genitalia.  The suggestion that is does shows you to be petty and uninterested in the facts of the discussion.  Unfortunately you will have to  find another thread to boost you ego.  On this one you failed miserably.
> 
> Do you think there is no chance that our society will fold up?  You are absolutely sure it will continue?  And that there is no chance of major collapse or disaster?  If so, you are either delusional or need to be on meds.
> 
> Surviving is reality.  Some people choose to rely on others to get them thru a crisis.  Some have seen the folly in that.
> 
> I have fire extinguishers, but I have never had a fire in my house.   The same rational applies to my preparedness for when the SHTF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion is based on delusions of fear and insanity and I need to be on meds?  WOW.  When is the last time you have had to survive?  This proves the point.  We all sit in our privileged gated communities discussing how we will tough up when the need arises.  Talk about delusional.   Give me one example that our entitled society is imploding?  Real examples, no nut house propaganda!!
Click to expand...


  Toughen up?  I know how to survive in the woods if need be. Buts thats just because I enjoy the outdoors and spend a lot of time in them. 
  I can shoot straight if that becomes necessary. Because I enjoy a little hunting on occasion mixed with target shooting.

  Thats what gets me...you libs act like we're preparing for the apocalypse when in reality 
it just happens. One day you realize that if the SHTF you're good.

  And if you already have ninety percent of the shit you need to be self reliant? Why the hell not go for the other ten percent for some extra peace of mind?

   Just because you're into StarBucks and Green Peace doesn't mean everyone is.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

WinterBorn said:


> Shikaki, let me ask you a question.
> 
> Why would you care of people were setting aside some of what they have in preparation for when the SHTF?   You joined our discussion, so why does it bother you that we are having such a discussion?



  I think I can answer that more truthfully then he will.

 It's no different then the jealousy of the left and money. Someone else has more of it,so it cant possibly be fair.
  And of course if the SHTF they would become totally defenseless ...and that scares them.


----------



## shikaki

HereWeGoAgain said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shikaki, let me ask you a question.
> 
> Why would you care of people were setting aside some of what they have in preparation for when the SHTF?   You joined our discussion, so why does it bother you that we are having such a discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I can answer that more truthfully then he will.
> 
> It's no different then the jealousy of the left and money. Someone else has more of it,so it cant possibly be fair.
> And of course if the SHTF they would become totally defenseless ...and that scares them.
Click to expand...


Believe I already answered his question..  Hopefully you read...

For the record, I'm far from defenseless.  Never remembered stating my political affiliation.  And I thought this sort of board was about stimulating the noodle.  If by not agreeing with all comments means I'm a liberal, then not sure how to respond to that.  Sorry that drooling seems better than thinking!!  Didn't realize that if you are conservative, that meant you had to be conservative about all issues.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shikaki, let me ask you a question.
> 
> Why would you care of people were setting aside some of what they have in preparation for when the SHTF?   You joined our discussion, so why does it bother you that we are having such a discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I can answer that more truthfully then he will.
> 
> It's no different then the jealousy of the left and money. Someone else has more of it,so it cant possibly be fair.
> And of course if the SHTF they would become totally defenseless ...and that scares them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe I already answered his question..  Hopefully you read...
> 
> For the record, I'm far from defenseless.  Never remembered stating my political affiliation.  And I thought this sort of board was about stimulating the noodle.  If by not agreeing with all comments means I'm a liberal, then not sure how to respond to that.  Sorry that drooling seems better than thinking!!  Didn't realize that if you are conservative, that meant you had to be conservative about all issues.
Click to expand...


  You're the one who entered this thread like an a-hole.
Forgive me for jumping to an obvious conclusion.

  I find it odd you would go from defining people who owned fire arms for defense as nuts.
To owning an arsenal. Yeah OK....


----------



## shikaki

HereWeGoAgain said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I can answer that more truthfully then he will.
> 
> It's no different then the jealousy of the left and money. Someone else has more of it,so it cant possibly be fair.
> And of course if the SHTF they would become totally defenseless ...and that scares them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe I already answered his question..  Hopefully you read...
> 
> For the record, I'm far from defenseless.  Never remembered stating my political affiliation.  And I thought this sort of board was about stimulating the noodle.  If by not agreeing with all comments means I'm a liberal, then not sure how to respond to that.  Sorry that drooling seems better than thinking!!  Didn't realize that if you are conservative, that meant you had to be conservative about all issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who entered this thread like an a-hole.
> Forgive me for jumping to an obvious conclusion.
> 
> I find it odd you would go from defining people who owned fire arms for defense as nuts.
> To owning an arsenal. Yeah OK....
Click to expand...


Derogatory and assumptive.. You seem a highly evolved and well rounded chap!!

Not all nuts own weapons, but some nuts do.  The difficult part is determining which are nuts..


----------



## WinterBorn

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe I already answered his question..  Hopefully you read...
> 
> For the record, I'm far from defenseless.  Never remembered stating my political affiliation.  And I thought this sort of board was about stimulating the noodle.  If by not agreeing with all comments means I'm a liberal, then not sure how to respond to that.  Sorry that drooling seems better than thinking!!  Didn't realize that if you are conservative, that meant you had to be conservative about all issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who entered this thread like an a-hole.
> Forgive me for jumping to an obvious conclusion.
> 
> I find it odd you would go from defining people who owned fire arms for defense as nuts.
> To owning an arsenal. Yeah OK....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Derogatory and assumptive.. You seem a highly evolved and well rounded chap!!
> 
> Not all nuts own weapons, but some nuts do.  The difficult part is determining which are nuts..
Click to expand...


And the best course of action is to be prepared for either and able to take care of your own.


----------



## shikaki

Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained.  You have had good points and I hope you feel the same.  When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe I already answered his question..  Hopefully you read...
> 
> For the record, I'm far from defenseless.  Never remembered stating my political affiliation.  And I thought this sort of board was about stimulating the noodle.  If by not agreeing with all comments means I'm a liberal, then not sure how to respond to that.  Sorry that drooling seems better than thinking!!  Didn't realize that if you are conservative, that meant you had to be conservative about all issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who entered this thread like an a-hole.
> Forgive me for jumping to an obvious conclusion.
> 
> I find it odd you would go from defining people who owned fire arms for defense as nuts.
> To owning an arsenal. Yeah OK....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Derogatory and assumptive.. You seem a highly evolved and well rounded chap!!
> 
> Not all nuts own weapons, but some nuts do.  The difficult part is determining which are nuts..
Click to expand...


 Derogatory and assumptive? Funny you should mention that.........actually I'm stunned,but whatever.
And you can drop the ridiculous prose,it doesnt make you sound any smarter.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained.  You have had good points and I hope you feel the same.  When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!



  Now you get the concept?


----------



## WinterBorn

shikaki said:


> Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained.  You have had good points and I hope you feel the same.  When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!



I have enjoyed the discourse.  Now if I could offer you a small piece of advice for future postings?   The comparison between guns and penis size is a common insult from the anti-gun crowd.  That single post put you in a category, whether real or not, that gun buffs despise.  I am glad you didn't continue that, and glad we found common ground.  But just know the reaction you will likely get if you use that in the future.


----------



## shikaki

WinterBorn said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained.  You have had good points and I hope you feel the same.  When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have enjoyed the discourse.  Now if I could offer you a small piece of advice for future postings?   The comparison between guns and penis size is a common insult from the anti-gun crowd.  That single post put you in a category, whether real or not, that gun buffs despise.  I am glad you didn't continue that, and glad we found common ground.  But just know the reaction you will likely get if you use that in the future.
Click to expand...


Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.


----------



## shikaki

HereWeGoAgain said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained.  You have had good points and I hope you feel the same.  When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you get the concept?
Click to expand...


Hopefully now you get the concept since you referred to me as an a-hole for asking a relevant question.


----------



## WinterBorn

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained.  You have had good points and I hope you feel the same.  When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have enjoyed the discourse.  Now if I could offer you a small piece of advice for future postings?   The comparison between guns and penis size is a common insult from the anti-gun crowd.  That single post put you in a category, whether real or not, that gun buffs despise.  I am glad you didn't continue that, and glad we found common ground.  But just know the reaction you will likely get if you use that in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.
Click to expand...


Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common.  I guess its up to you.  If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison.  I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained.  You have had good points and I hope you feel the same.  When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you get the concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully now you get the concept since you referred to me as an a-hole for asking a relevant question.
Click to expand...


  Dude you're impossible. 
All you have to do is admit you came into this thread like as asshole and all will be forgotten.

   Dont think you can just post up any ol shit you want without getting called on it around here.


----------



## shikaki

WinterBorn said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have enjoyed the discourse.  Now if I could offer you a small piece of advice for future postings?   The comparison between guns and penis size is a common insult from the anti-gun crowd.  That single post put you in a category, whether real or not, that gun buffs despise.  I am glad you didn't continue that, and glad we found common ground.  But just know the reaction you will likely get if you use that in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common.  I guess its up to you.  If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison.  I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.
Click to expand...


I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of  name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on.  Why do you think that is?


----------



## MikeK

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common.  I guess its up to you.  If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison.  I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of  name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on.  Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

Because it's annoyingly repetitive.  The same song, over and over.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common.  I guess its up to you.  If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison.  I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of  name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on.  Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...


  Are you insane? Seriously.


----------



## MikeK

shikaki said:


> Got it... But in each case it was the government that maintained order, not the citizens..


Not so.

When the 1992 riot in Los Angeles was provoked by the first Rodney King verdict the violence was so menacing the police actually abandoned the affected areas, leaving the residents and business-owners to fend for themselves.  Thousands of people were assaulted, homes were invaded, and businesses were looted.  







The exception was KOREATOWN, because the Koreans were armed and they took to the streets with their guns.  As a result the rioters gave Koreatown a wide berth.  The Koreans weren't touched.  And I know of no better evidence of the need to own guns.  The simple fact is it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

When 'assault weapons' saved Koreatown | Human Events


----------



## shikaki

MikeK said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it... But in each case it was the government that maintained order, not the citizens..
> 
> 
> 
> Not so.
> 
> When the 1992 riot in Los Angeles was provoked by the first Rodney King verdict the violence was so menacing the police actually abandoned the affected areas, leaving the residents and business-owners to fend for themselves.  Thousands of people were assaulted, homes were invaded, and businesses were looted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exception was KOREATOWN, because the Koreans were armed and they took to the streets with their guns.  As a result the rioters gave Koreatown a wide berth.  The Koreans weren't touched.  And I know of no better evidence of the need to own guns.  The simple fact is it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.
> 
> When 'assault weapons' saved Koreatown | Human Events
Click to expand...


Thanks for your civil and informed responses!!  BTW: Like the avatar!!


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common.  I guess its up to you.  If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison.  I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of  name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on.  Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...


  Think about it from my point of view.
You are comparing my right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment,along with the right to protect my family..... to penis size.
  I'm starting to think troll............


----------



## shikaki

HereWeGoAgain said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common.  I guess its up to you.  If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison.  I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of  name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on.  Why do you think that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about it from my point of view.
> You are comparing my right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment,along with the right to protect my family..... to penis size.
> I'm starting to think troll............
Click to expand...


If you go back and re-read with an open mind what I wrote, you will see that it was an attempt to move the conversation to the reality of potentially shooting another human being.  It was not stating the sole reason anyone posses a weapon is because of inadequacies, it was to say let's stop pretending we are tough guys and really think about the potential implications.  

Now to your point I see why you reacted the way you did, but I think you will see my thought processes if you re-read what I wrote.  

And since we have drug it this far, I'm sure there are a few people around the world that do own weapons for the wrong reason, not saying you are one of them.  

As far as the 2nd amendment, I fully support it, I do have exception with the wording.  Weapons have changed dramatically since the amendment was created.  There needs to be some parameters to help clarify acceptable weapons:
"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."

Can I own a tank or a f18?  Those are extreme, but where is the line drawn?


----------



## MikeK

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of  name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on.  Why do you think that is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it from my point of view.
> You are comparing my right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment,along with the right to protect my family..... to penis size.
> I'm starting to think troll............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you go back and re-read with an open mind what I wrote, you will see that it was an attempt to move the conversation to the reality of potentially shooting another human being.  It was not stating the sole reason anyone posses a weapon is because of inadequacies, it was to say let's stop pretending we are tough guys and really think about the potential implications.
> 
> Now to your point I see why you reacted the way you did, but I think you will see my thought processes if you re-read what I wrote.
> 
> And since we have drug it this far, I'm sure there are a few people around the world that do own weapons for the wrong reason, not saying you are one of them.
> 
> As far as the 2nd amendment, I fully support it, I do have exception with the wording.  Weapons have changed dramatically since the amendment was created.  There needs to be some parameters to help clarify acceptable weapons:
> "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."
> 
> Can I own a tank or a f18?  Those are extreme, but where is the line drawn?
Click to expand...

It has occurred to me that rather tricky wording in the Second Amendment which you refer to, _". . . keep and bear arms. . . . ,"_ could be used by government to severely restrict citizen access to firearms by limiting our right to _"keep"_ one single-shot .22 rifle, chambered for short, which must be kept in a locked metal container, and which we may _"bear"_ only to and from a federally supervised range in that container.

Given the kind of Supreme Court we have now I don't believe that possibility is at all extreme.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of  name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on.  Why do you think that is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it from my point of view.
> You are comparing my right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment,along with the right to protect my family..... to penis size.
> I'm starting to think troll............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you go back and re-read with an open mind what I wrote, you will see that it was an attempt to move the conversation to the reality of potentially shooting another human being.  It was not stating the sole reason anyone posses a weapon is because of inadequacies, it was to say let's stop pretending we are tough guys and really think about the potential implications.
> 
> Now to your point I see why you reacted the way you did, but I think you will see my thought processes if you re-read what I wrote.
> 
> And since we have drug it this far, I'm sure there are a few people around the world that do own weapons for the wrong reason, not saying you are one of them.
> 
> As far as the 2nd amendment, I fully support it, I do have exception with the wording.  Weapons have changed dramatically since the amendment was created.  There needs to be some parameters to help clarify acceptable weapons:
> "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."
> 
> Can I own a tank or a f18?  Those are extreme, but where is the line drawn?
Click to expand...


  Now that I know where you're coming from,it pretty much fits with your initial posts.
You have an aversion to people protecting themselves from government.
  That is what the 2nd is all about. If you dont have at least small arms on par with the government you lose the ability to enforce the rest of the Constitution.

  You seem to think the government is your friend. I don't. And recent activities make me doubt their benevolence even more.
  World history is rife with seemingly benign government turning tyrannical.
This day and age,it wont be done with outright aggression,but slowly through gov mandate.
  I dont know how old you are,but I'm not exactly ancient at 48 and the difference I see in America since my twenties is disheartening to say the least.
   People want to make a living wage at McDs,more are on welfare then ever before,Government intrusion gone wild.
  Sorry dude,but I dont see rainbows and unicorns in our future if shit doesnt change.
Since these happenings are pretty much beyond my control,I feel it's best to be prepared then to be caught like some sucker.


----------



## shikaki

HereWeGoAgain said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it from my point of view.
> You are comparing my right to bear arms and the 2nd Amendment,along with the right to protect my family..... to penis size.
> I'm starting to think troll............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you go back and re-read with an open mind what I wrote, you will see that it was an attempt to move the conversation to the reality of potentially shooting another human being.  It was not stating the sole reason anyone posses a weapon is because of inadequacies, it was to say let's stop pretending we are tough guys and really think about the potential implications.
> 
> Now to your point I see why you reacted the way you did, but I think you will see my thought processes if you re-read what I wrote.
> 
> And since we have drug it this far, I'm sure there are a few people around the world that do own weapons for the wrong reason, not saying you are one of them.
> 
> As far as the 2nd amendment, I fully support it, I do have exception with the wording.  Weapons have changed dramatically since the amendment was created.  There needs to be some parameters to help clarify acceptable weapons:
> "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."
> 
> Can I own a tank or a f18?  Those are extreme, but where is the line drawn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that I know where you're coming from,it pretty much fits with your initial posts.
> You have an aversion to people protecting themselves from government.
> That is what the 2nd is all about. If you dont have at least small arms on par with the government you lose the ability to enforce the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> You seem to think the government is your friend. I don't. And recent activities make me doubt their benevolence even more.
> World history is rife with seemingly benign government turning tyrannical.
> This day and age,it wont be done with outright aggression,but slowly through gov mandate.
> I dont know how old you are,but I'm not exactly ancient at 48 and the difference I see in America since my twenties is disheartening to say the least.
> People want to make a living wage at McDs,more are on welfare then ever before,Government intrusion gone wild.
> Sorry dude,but I dont see rainbows and unicorns in our future if **** doesnt change.
> Since these happenings are pretty much beyond my control,I feel it's best to be prepared then to be caught like some sucker.
Click to expand...


I don't have an aversion to people protecting themselves. I think you may be more distrustful of the government than I am, but I'm open to the fact they may screw us over.  I just don't choose to live in that kind of fear.  
I'm determined to stay cautiously optimistic until a I feel a reason not to.  As far as being prepared, it really depends on what we are preparing against.  If it is truly the government, me having a AK-47 is like me having a paintball gun, completely out "gunned".  One aptly manned apache can destroy anything we can think of, not to mention the fighters or bombers.
I think if most were to really think about this sort of outcome to much, they would be to depressed to function.


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> Got it... But in each case it was the government that maintained order, not the citizens..








Not during the King riots in LA it didn't.  The PEOPLE were on their own for over 3 days.  The police ABANDONED them.


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not everyone will be sane and some of those insane people will have guns.  But that will be true whether the people on this thread discuss and prepare or not.  So, rather than make demeaning remarks, why not suggest allowances for lunatics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If allowances were possible then that would have prevented such things as Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, etc...  Score....Crazies 40+  to Sane 0.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many, many factors in surviving a major upheaval.  Many people will not survive due to violence, lack of food or other obvious hazards.  Many more will not survive because of their mindset and their inability to adapt.  It would seem to me that these people are the ones you are talking about.  And discussions like these would help avoid becoming one of them, or at the very least, dealing with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that this is just a fantasy about favorite weapon, but to your point, there is a real component to this, which is what my initial question was trying to raise awareness too.
> 
> For weapon of choice, how do you accommodate someone having a "bigger" one?  You bring a desert eagle, they bring a m1, you bring a ak47, they bring a tank?
Click to expand...







Size doesn't matter.  It's how it's used.  My primary weapon in a bad, bad situation is a Ruger 10/22 a self loading .22 long rifle.  One of the weakest cartridges on the planet.  However, when I shoot it I hit whatever I aim at.  And that's the point.


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shikaki, let me ask you a question.
> 
> Why would you care of people were setting aside some of what they have in preparation for when the SHTF?   You joined our discussion, so why does it bother you that we are having such a discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I can answer that more truthfully then he will.
> 
> It's no different then the jealousy of the left and money. Someone else has more of it,so it cant possibly be fair.
> And of course if the SHTF they would become totally defenseless ...and that scares them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe I already answered his question..  Hopefully you read...
> 
> For the record, I'm far from defenseless.  Never remembered stating my political affiliation.  And I thought this sort of board was about stimulating the noodle.  If by not agreeing with all comments means I'm a liberal, then not sure how to respond to that.  Sorry that drooling seems better than thinking!!  Didn't realize that if you are conservative, that meant you had to be conservative about all issues.
Click to expand...








One of your first posts was an insult and you wish us to believe that you're all about the "discussion"?  Get real.


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn.. I appreciate the civil discussion we have entertained.  You have had good points and I hope you feel the same.  When the world has become so mundane and predictable, it is nice to explore thoughts outside of ourselves!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have enjoyed the discourse.  Now if I could offer you a small piece of advice for future postings?   The comparison between guns and penis size is a common insult from the anti-gun crowd.  That single post put you in a category, whether real or not, that gun buffs despise.  I am glad you didn't continue that, and glad we found common ground.  But just know the reaction you will likely get if you use that in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.
Click to expand...







And that continuation of it, classifies you as a troll not to be taken seriously.  Thanks for making it clear.


----------



## BlackSand

shikaki said:


> I don't have an aversion to people protecting themselves. I think you may be more distrustful of the government than I am, but I'm open to the fact they may screw us over.  I just don't choose to live in that kind of fear.
> I'm determined to stay cautiously optimistic until a I feel a reason not to.  As far as being prepared, it really depends on what we are preparing against.  If it is truly the government, me having a AK-47 is like me having a paintball gun, completely out "gunned".  One aptly manned apache can destroy anything we can think of, not to mention the fighters or bombers.
> I think if most were to really think about this sort of outcome to much, they would be to depressed to function.



*Once the government has lost the faith of the People ... To an extent that open warfare on the People is required ... Then it is safe to say they are no longer a "Government of the People".*
With a thorough understanding of military capabilities ... And without discarding the obvious difficulties those operations incur during Guerilla Warfare ... some things remain evident.

Fighting well armed militia on their home ground is far more difficult than most people understand anyway.
If the military was so damned good at it ... Then as far as Vietnam and Afghanistan are concerned ... The Military should have been done in days.
For Christ's sake ... We bombed the crap out of Vietnam, drove tanks all over the place, Cobra AH-1 gunships armed to the teeth ... And still could not root out the hostiles.

It is a lot easier to fight a Military than a Guerilla force any day ... Militaries need things like logistics, support, intelligence and coordination.
All a Guerilla warrior needs a weapon and willpower, because they will pick up whatever else they need a long the way.

*To the average person a dead soldier is a sad and nearly unacceptable circumstance ... To a Guerilla warrior, a dead soldier is nothing more than "resupply".*
It is depressing when you examine the complications of outright warfare ... But worrying about it ... Talking about it, and hoping it never happens ... Will not prepare you more than the purchase of a decent rifle and a reasonable amount of ammunition.

.


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the weapon owners know if there is any truth to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common.  I guess its up to you.  If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison.  I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of  name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on.  Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...







Looked in the mirror lately?  You ascribe to us the EXACT same behavior that you yourself engage in, and then you demand we take you seriously.  Typical ignorant liberal.


----------



## shikaki

westwall said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether there is any truth to it or not, you will find a hostile reaction is common.  I guess its up to you.  If you want hostility instead of civil discourse, start a conversation with gun buffs with the penis comparison.  I pretty much guarantee that a civil discourse is the last thing that will happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of  name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on.  Why do you think that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looked in the mirror lately?  You ascribe to us the EXACT same behavior that you yourself engage in, and then you demand we take you seriously.  Typical ignorant liberal.
Click to expand...


No I didn't ascribe anything to you, I simply made an observation.  I didn't name call.  I demanded nothing from you and after reading your "thoughts" expect very little from you.

Do you need attention or is it time for a timeout?


----------



## MikeK

shikaki said:


> I don't have an aversion to people protecting themselves. I think you may be more distrustful of the government than I am, but I'm open to the fact they may screw us over.  I just don't choose to live in that kind of fear.
> I'm determined to stay cautiously optimistic until a I feel a reason not to.  As far as being prepared, it really depends on what we are preparing against.  If it is truly the government, me having a AK-47 is like me having a paintball gun, completely out "gunned".  One aptly manned apache can destroy anything we can think of, not to mention the fighters or bombers.
> 
> I think if most were to really think about this sort of outcome to much, they would be to depressed to function.


When I think about the prospect of armed conflict between the U.S.' civilian population and our government the first things that come to mind are my strong opposition to suspending the draft and how effectively the federal government has managed to incrementally prepare to suppress an armed rebellion.  

Concerning Government's ability to quickly and efficiently crush any rebellious civilian effort, regardless of how well armed and organized a civilian militia might be, I think you've said it all.  The uprising wouldn't stand a chance against the kind of destructive power our government has managed to amass.  

This immediately brings to mind my opposition to our all-volunteer military, which, considering the broad range of recruitment inducements, the fact is being a soldier today has become more of a job than a patriotic obligation.  The U.S. Army has become a de-facto mercenary army rather than a Peoples' army -- and a People's army is what an army of conscripts is and should be.  

The only hope a civilian rebellion might have to resist or prevail over the U.S. Government would rest entirely on the contingency of sympathy on the part of the military.  And the odds of that happening on the part of an army consisting mainly of _career soldiers,_ many of whom are married and living in military housing, are not very good.

That is one reason why *I strongly advocate restoring the draft.* There are others.


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it almost funny that statement generates so much hostility, when I read the sorts of  name calling, derogatory, disrespectful dialogue that goes on.  Why do you think that is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looked in the mirror lately?  You ascribe to us the EXACT same behavior that you yourself engage in, and then you demand we take you seriously.  Typical ignorant liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't ascribe anything to you, I simply made an observation.  I didn't name call.  I demanded nothing from you and after reading your "thoughts" expect very little from you.
> 
> Do you need attention or is it time for a timeout?
Click to expand...






What do you call it when you say people collect guns because they have small penises?  I think the rest of the world would call that an insult.  Don't you?  Would you not come to the conclusion quite rapidly that that was an insult?

Your unethical behavior is duly noted.


----------



## MikeK

BlackSand said:


> With a thorough understanding of military capabilities ... And without discarding the obvious difficulties those operations incur during Guerilla Warfare ... some things remain evident.
> 
> Fighting well armed militia on their home ground is far more difficult than most people understand anyway.
> 
> If the military was so damned good at it ... Then as far as Vietnam and Afghanistan are concerned ... The Military should have been done in days.
> 
> For Christ's sake ... We bombed the crap out of Vietnam, drove tanks all over the place, Cobra AH-1 gunships armed to the teeth ... And still could not root out the hostiles.
> 
> It is a lot easier to fight a Military than a Guerilla force any day ... Militaries need things like logistics, support, intelligence and coordination.
> 
> All a Guerilla warrior needs a weapon and willpower, because they will pick up whatever else they need a long the way.
> 
> *To the average person a dead soldier is a sad and nearly unacceptable circumstance ... To a Guerilla warrior, a dead soldier is nothing more than "resupply".*
> 
> It is depressing when you examine the complications of outright warfare ... But worrying about it ... Talking about it, and hoping it never happens ... Will not prepare you more than the purchase of a decent rifle and a reasonable amount of ammunition.


I have no argument against anything you've said.  But I hasten to remind you that the kind of efficient guerilla activity you've described depends entirely on the critical factor of _solidarity,_ which is virtually non-existent in contemporary American society and would take quite a long time to develop.


----------



## shikaki

westwall said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looked in the mirror lately?  You ascribe to us the EXACT same behavior that you yourself engage in, and then you demand we take you seriously.  Typical ignorant liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't ascribe anything to you, I simply made an observation.  I didn't name call.  I demanded nothing from you and after reading your "thoughts" expect very little from you.
> 
> Do you need attention or is it time for a timeout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call it when you say people collect guns because they have small penises?  I think the rest of the world would call that an insult.  Don't you?  Would you not come to the conclusion quite rapidly that that was an insult?
> 
> Your unethical behavior is duly noted.
Click to expand...


While you are duly noting things and bullying, since as you described me I am a "ignorant liberal"...  Please try to duly note you are unable to read plain English.  I have taken the time to help your laziness by pasting the exact quote.  

_I think to act like a tough guy, big gun, small p***, people need to put this in real perspective. Is there a reason to not think about reality? Seems as valid a point as what weapon would I would use to do "something" with if the SHTF._

I see nothing here that says "people collect guns because they have small penises?" It seems to be referring to some person who is trying to act tough, used metaphorically to make the point however, if the gun fits wear it!!

Let me help -  Metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

Please duly note reality, not your perception of it.


----------



## WinterBorn

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go back and re-read with an open mind what I wrote, you will see that it was an attempt to move the conversation to the reality of potentially shooting another human being.  It was not stating the sole reason anyone posses a weapon is because of inadequacies, it was to say let's stop pretending we are tough guys and really think about the potential implications.
> 
> Now to your point I see why you reacted the way you did, but I think you will see my thought processes if you re-read what I wrote.
> 
> And since we have drug it this far, I'm sure there are a few people around the world that do own weapons for the wrong reason, not saying you are one of them.
> 
> As far as the 2nd amendment, I fully support it, I do have exception with the wording.  Weapons have changed dramatically since the amendment was created.  There needs to be some parameters to help clarify acceptable weapons:
> "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."
> 
> Can I own a tank or a f18?  Those are extreme, but where is the line drawn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I know where you're coming from,it pretty much fits with your initial posts.
> You have an aversion to people protecting themselves from government.
> That is what the 2nd is all about. If you dont have at least small arms on par with the government you lose the ability to enforce the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> You seem to think the government is your friend. I don't. And recent activities make me doubt their benevolence even more.
> World history is rife with seemingly benign government turning tyrannical.
> This day and age,it wont be done with outright aggression,but slowly through gov mandate.
> I dont know how old you are,but I'm not exactly ancient at 48 and the difference I see in America since my twenties is disheartening to say the least.
> People want to make a living wage at McDs,more are on welfare then ever before,Government intrusion gone wild.
> Sorry dude,but I dont see rainbows and unicorns in our future if **** doesnt change.
> Since these happenings are pretty much beyond my control,I feel it's best to be prepared then to be caught like some sucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have an aversion to people protecting themselves. I think you may be more distrustful of the government than I am, but I'm open to the fact they may screw us over.  I just don't choose to live in that kind of fear.
> I'm determined to stay cautiously optimistic until a I feel a reason not to.  As far as being prepared, it really depends on what we are preparing against.  If it is truly the government, me having a AK-47 is like me having a paintball gun, completely out "gunned".  One aptly manned apache can destroy anything we can think of, not to mention the fighters or bombers.
> I think if most were to really think about this sort of outcome to much, they would be to depressed to function.
Click to expand...


I think you underestimate the abilities of an armed population.   Yes, the US military could wipe out an entire area.   But would they?  The amount of bad press they received for civilian casualties in Iraq was serious.  Make those civilian casualties americans and the backlash will be exponentially greater.

Also, those who would rebel against a tyrannical gov't would not be in separate areas,but  mixed into the general population.  One Apache can do great damage, but would it be able to pick out the rebel amongst the civilians?

And if you look at the last 100+ years of military history, you will find that one of the most effective weapons has been the sniper.  Most hunters would make excellent snipers.  And we have thousands of those.  Make the regular troops afraid to step into the open and you have accomplished quite a task.


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't ascribe anything to you, I simply made an observation.  I didn't name call.  I demanded nothing from you and after reading your "thoughts" expect very little from you.
> 
> Do you need attention or is it time for a timeout?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call it when you say people collect guns because they have small penises?  I think the rest of the world would call that an insult.  Don't you?  Would you not come to the conclusion quite rapidly that that was an insult?
> 
> Your unethical behavior is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you are duly noting things and bullying, since as you described me I am a "ignorant liberal"...  Please try to duly note you are unable to read plain English.  I have taken the time to help your laziness by pasting the exact quote.
> 
> _I think to act like a tough guy, big gun, small p***, people need to put this in real perspective. Is there a reason to not think about reality? Seems as valid a point as what weapon would I would use to do "something" with if the SHTF._
> 
> I see nothing here that says "people collect guns because they have small penises?" If the gun fits wear it!!
> 
> Please duly note reality, not your perception of it.
Click to expand...






Me a bully?  Sure thing noodle person!


----------



## shikaki

westwall said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you call it when you say people collect guns because they have small penises?  I think the rest of the world would call that an insult.  Don't you?  Would you not come to the conclusion quite rapidly that that was an insult?
> 
> Your unethical behavior is duly noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you are duly noting things and bullying, since as you described me I am a "ignorant liberal"...  Please try to duly note you are unable to read plain English.  I have taken the time to help your laziness by pasting the exact quote.
> 
> _I think to act like a tough guy, big gun, small p***, people need to put this in real perspective. Is there a reason to not think about reality? Seems as valid a point as what weapon would I would use to do "something" with if the SHTF._
> 
> I see nothing here that says "people collect guns because they have small penises?" If the gun fits wear it!!
> 
> Please duly note reality, not your perception of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me a bully?  Sure thing noodle person!
Click to expand...


So now you are making fun of my Chinese heritage?  WOW


----------



## WinterBorn

MikeK said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> With a thorough understanding of military capabilities ... And without discarding the obvious difficulties those operations incur during Guerilla Warfare ... some things remain evident.
> 
> Fighting well armed militia on their home ground is far more difficult than most people understand anyway.
> 
> If the military was so damned good at it ... Then as far as Vietnam and Afghanistan are concerned ... The Military should have been done in days.
> 
> For Christ's sake ... We bombed the crap out of Vietnam, drove tanks all over the place, Cobra AH-1 gunships armed to the teeth ... And still could not root out the hostiles.
> 
> It is a lot easier to fight a Military than a Guerilla force any day ... Militaries need things like logistics, support, intelligence and coordination.
> 
> All a Guerilla warrior needs a weapon and willpower, because they will pick up whatever else they need a long the way.
> 
> *To the average person a dead soldier is a sad and nearly unacceptable circumstance ... To a Guerilla warrior, a dead soldier is nothing more than "resupply".*
> 
> It is depressing when you examine the complications of outright warfare ... But worrying about it ... Talking about it, and hoping it never happens ... Will not prepare you more than the purchase of a decent rifle and a reasonable amount of ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no argument against anything you've said.  But I hasten to remind you that the kind of efficient guerilla activity you've described depends entirely on the critical factor of _solidarity,_ which is virtually non-existent in contemporary American society and would take quite a long time to develop.
Click to expand...


I do not think it would take long at all to develop.  I recall most bickering and in-fighting stopping completely on 9/12/01.  In fact, I recall a huge feeling of solidarity in the months after.  That sort of sentiment could be tapped rather easily.


----------



## shikaki

WinterBorn said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> With a thorough understanding of military capabilities ... And without discarding the obvious difficulties those operations incur during Guerilla Warfare ... some things remain evident.
> 
> Fighting well armed militia on their home ground is far more difficult than most people understand anyway.
> 
> If the military was so ****ed good at it ... Then as far as Vietnam and Afghanistan are concerned ... The Military should have been done in days.
> 
> For Christ's sake ... We bombed the crap out of Vietnam, drove tanks all over the place, Cobra AH-1 gunships armed to the teeth ... And still could not root out the hostiles.
> 
> It is a lot easier to fight a Military than a Guerilla force any day ... Militaries need things like logistics, support, intelligence and coordination.
> 
> All a Guerilla warrior needs a weapon and willpower, because they will pick up whatever else they need a long the way.
> 
> *To the average person a dead soldier is a sad and nearly unacceptable circumstance ... To a Guerilla warrior, a dead soldier is nothing more than "resupply".*
> 
> It is depressing when you examine the complications of outright warfare ... But worrying about it ... Talking about it, and hoping it never happens ... Will not prepare you more than the purchase of a decent rifle and a reasonable amount of ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no argument against anything you've said.  But I hasten to remind you that the kind of efficient guerilla activity you've described depends entirely on the critical factor of _solidarity,_ which is virtually non-existent in contemporary American society and would take quite a long time to develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think it would take long at all to develop.  I recall most bickering and in-fighting stopping completely on 9/12/01.  In fact, I recall a huge feeling of solidarity in the months after.  That sort of sentiment could be tapped rather easily.
Click to expand...


I agree to some extent with what you are saying, however I think we would see more confusion and hysteria if our own government was against us. Not sure solidarity would kick in until later after the dust settled, but that may be too late.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go back and re-read with an open mind what I wrote, you will see that it was an attempt to move the conversation to the reality of potentially shooting another human being.  It was not stating the sole reason anyone posses a weapon is because of inadequacies, it was to say let's stop pretending we are tough guys and really think about the potential implications.
> 
> Now to your point I see why you reacted the way you did, but I think you will see my thought processes if you re-read what I wrote.
> 
> And since we have drug it this far, I'm sure there are a few people around the world that do own weapons for the wrong reason, not saying you are one of them.
> 
> As far as the 2nd amendment, I fully support it, I do have exception with the wording.  Weapons have changed dramatically since the amendment was created.  There needs to be some parameters to help clarify acceptable weapons:
> "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."
> 
> Can I own a tank or a f18?  Those are extreme, but where is the line drawn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I know where you're coming from,it pretty much fits with your initial posts.
> You have an aversion to people protecting themselves from government.
> That is what the 2nd is all about. If you dont have at least small arms on par with the government you lose the ability to enforce the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> You seem to think the government is your friend. I don't. And recent activities make me doubt their benevolence even more.
> World history is rife with seemingly benign government turning tyrannical.
> This day and age,it wont be done with outright aggression,but slowly through gov mandate.
> I dont know how old you are,but I'm not exactly ancient at 48 and the difference I see in America since my twenties is disheartening to say the least.
> People want to make a living wage at McDs,more are on welfare then ever before,Government intrusion gone wild.
> Sorry dude,but I dont see rainbows and unicorns in our future if **** doesnt change.
> Since these happenings are pretty much beyond my control,I feel it's best to be prepared then to be caught like some sucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have an aversion to people protecting themselves. I think you may be more distrustful of the government than I am, but I'm open to the fact they may screw us over.  I just don't choose to live in that kind of fear.
> I'm determined to stay cautiously optimistic until a I feel a reason not to.  As far as being prepared, it really depends on what we are preparing against.  If it is truly the government, me having a AK-47 is like me having a paintball gun, completely out "gunned".  One aptly manned apache can destroy anything we can think of, not to mention the fighters or bombers.
> I think if most were to really think about this sort of outcome to much, they would be to depressed to function.
Click to expand...


 I have to assume you didnt read my posts a few pages back.
I'm a prepper by happenstance,not by fear or intent.  My hobbies make it easy to become self sufficient. 
I hunt,I fish,I backpack and I enjoy the outdoors in general. If the  SHTF  I have a head start on those who dont have those interest.
 I dont stock pile ammo,unless you think two or three thousand rounds for a multitude of weapons is stockpiling.
  In my opinion,if you dont at least make rudimentary plan to keep yourself and family safe you're a moron.
 No different then being prepared for a hurricane....which I'm familiar with as well.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

BlackSand said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have an aversion to people protecting themselves. I think you may be more distrustful of the government than I am, but I'm open to the fact they may screw us over.  I just don't choose to live in that kind of fear.
> I'm determined to stay cautiously optimistic until a I feel a reason not to.  As far as being prepared, it really depends on what we are preparing against.  If it is truly the government, me having a AK-47 is like me having a paintball gun, completely out "gunned".  One aptly manned apache can destroy anything we can think of, not to mention the fighters or bombers.
> I think if most were to really think about this sort of outcome to much, they would be to depressed to function.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Once the government has lost the faith of the People ... To an extent that open warfare on the People is required ... Then it is safe to say they are no longer a "Government of the People".*
> With a thorough understanding of military capabilities ... And without discarding the obvious difficulties those operations incur during Guerilla Warfare ... some things remain evident.
> 
> Fighting well armed militia on their home ground is far more difficult than most people understand anyway.
> If the military was so damned good at it ... Then as far as Vietnam and Afghanistan are concerned ... The Military should have been done in days.
> For Christ's sake ... We bombed the crap out of Vietnam, drove tanks all over the place, Cobra AH-1 gunships armed to the teeth ... And still could not root out the hostiles.
> 
> It is a lot easier to fight a Military than a Guerilla force any day ... Militaries need things like logistics, support, intelligence and coordination.
> All a Guerilla warrior needs a weapon and willpower, because they will pick up whatever else they need a long the way.
> 
> *To the average person a dead soldier is a sad and nearly unacceptable circumstance ... To a Guerilla warrior, a dead soldier is nothing more than "resupply".*
> It is depressing when you examine the complications of outright warfare ... But worrying about it ... Talking about it, and hoping it never happens ... Will not prepare you more than the purchase of a decent rifle and a reasonable amount of ammunition.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


 Aaaaahhhh...someone who understands the implications of guerrilla  warfare.
You cant win unless you kill the entire population,unless of course you can win their hearts and minds. 
Which wont happen in America.


----------



## shikaki

HereWeGoAgain said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I know where you're coming from,it pretty much fits with your initial posts.
> You have an aversion to people protecting themselves from government.
> That is what the 2nd is all about. If you dont have at least small arms on par with the government you lose the ability to enforce the rest of the Constitution.
> 
> You seem to think the government is your friend. I don't. And recent activities make me doubt their benevolence even more.
> World history is rife with seemingly benign government turning tyrannical.
> This day and age,it wont be done with outright aggression,but slowly through gov mandate.
> I dont know how old you are,but I'm not exactly ancient at 48 and the difference I see in America since my twenties is disheartening to say the least.
> People want to make a living wage at McDs,more are on welfare then ever before,Government intrusion gone wild.
> Sorry dude,but I dont see rainbows and unicorns in our future if **** doesnt change.
> Since these happenings are pretty much beyond my control,I feel it's best to be prepared then to be caught like some sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have an aversion to people protecting themselves. I think you may be more distrustful of the government than I am, but I'm open to the fact they may screw us over.  I just don't choose to live in that kind of fear.
> I'm determined to stay cautiously optimistic until a I feel a reason not to.  As far as being prepared, it really depends on what we are preparing against.  If it is truly the government, me having a AK-47 is like me having a paintball gun, completely out "gunned".  One aptly manned apache can destroy anything we can think of, not to mention the fighters or bombers.
> I think if most were to really think about this sort of outcome to much, they would be to depressed to function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to assume you didnt read my posts a few pages back.
> I'm a prepper by happenstance,not by fear or intent.  My hobbies make it easy to become self sufficient.
> I hunt,I fish,I backpack and I enjoy the outdoors in general. If the  SHTF  I have a head start on those who dont have those interest.
> I dont stock pile ammo,unless you think two or three thousand rounds for a multitude of weapons is stockpiling.
> In my opinion,if you dont at least make rudimentary plan to keep yourself and family safe you're a moron.
> No different then being prepared for a hurricane....which I'm familiar with as well.
Click to expand...


I like watching Doomsday Preppers..  Hey we found common ground


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have an aversion to people protecting themselves. I think you may be more distrustful of the government than I am, but I'm open to the fact they may screw us over.  I just don't choose to live in that kind of fear.
> I'm determined to stay cautiously optimistic until a I feel a reason not to.  As far as being prepared, it really depends on what we are preparing against.  If it is truly the government, me having a AK-47 is like me having a paintball gun, completely out "gunned".  One aptly manned apache can destroy anything we can think of, not to mention the fighters or bombers.
> I think if most were to really think about this sort of outcome to much, they would be to depressed to function.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to assume you didnt read my posts a few pages back.
> I'm a prepper by happenstance,not by fear or intent.  My hobbies make it easy to become self sufficient.
> I hunt,I fish,I backpack and I enjoy the outdoors in general. If the  SHTF  I have a head start on those who dont have those interest.
> I dont stock pile ammo,unless you think two or three thousand rounds for a multitude of weapons is stockpiling.
> In my opinion,if you dont at least make rudimentary plan to keep yourself and family safe you're a moron.
> No different then being prepared for a hurricane....which I'm familiar with as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like watching Doomsday Preppers..  Hey we found common ground
Click to expand...


   Cant say I've ever watched it. 
This makes me want to ask...how old and where do you live?
  Or should I ask where were you raised?
The life I describe is common place in the south.
 I've had my own shotgun and rifle since I was eleven. (37 years ago)

   I have to think you're much younger then me and live in the NE or the NW.
I remember driving to school with a couple of shotguns in the window rack of my truck and no one thought anything about it.
I carried a pocket knife with a six inch blade in school and no one cared.

 The things you see as odd,I see as normal. Thats what you have to watch out for.
Before you know it your way of life comes into question.


----------



## shikaki

HereWeGoAgain said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to assume you didnt read my posts a few pages back.
> I'm a prepper by happenstance,not by fear or intent.  My hobbies make it easy to become self sufficient.
> I hunt,I fish,I backpack and I enjoy the outdoors in general. If the  SHTF  I have a head start on those who dont have those interest.
> I dont stock pile ammo,unless you think two or three thousand rounds for a multitude of weapons is stockpiling.
> In my opinion,if you dont at least make rudimentary plan to keep yourself and family safe you're a moron.
> No different then being prepared for a hurricane....which I'm familiar with as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like watching Doomsday Preppers..  Hey we found common ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cant say I've ever watched it.
> This makes me want to ask...how old and where do you live?
> Or should I ask where were you raised?
> The life I describe is common place in the south.
> I've had my own shotgun and rifle since I was eleven. (37 years ago)
> 
> I have to think you're much younger then me and live in the NE or the NW.
> I remember driving to school with a couple of shotguns in the window rack of my truck and no one thought anything about it.
> I carried a pocket knife with a six inch blade in school and no one cared.
> 
> The things you see as odd,I see as normal. Thats what you have to watch out for.
> Before you know it your way of life comes into question.
Click to expand...


I spent first 23 years in Central Virginia and 26 years in West Florida.  We aren't as different as you suspected. Your turn..


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like watching Doomsday Preppers..  Hey we found common ground
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant say I've ever watched it.
> This makes me want to ask...how old and where do you live?
> Or should I ask where were you raised?
> The life I describe is common place in the south.
> I've had my own shotgun and rifle since I was eleven. (37 years ago)
> 
> I have to think you're much younger then me and live in the NE or the NW.
> I remember driving to school with a couple of shotguns in the window rack of my truck and no one thought anything about it.
> I carried a pocket knife with a six inch blade in school and no one cared.
> 
> The things you see as odd,I see as normal. Thats what you have to watch out for.
> Before you know it your way of life comes into question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spent first 23 years in Central Virginia and 26 years in West Florida.  We aren't as different as you suspected. Your turn..
Click to expand...


  Well I missed on the age and area. How about your parents?
Were guns not a part of your upbringing? Did your location have something to do with it?
  I grew up hunting pretty much when I wanted to.


----------



## shikaki

HereWeGoAgain said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cant say I've ever watched it.
> This makes me want to ask...how old and where do you live?
> Or should I ask where were you raised?
> The life I describe is common place in the south.
> I've had my own shotgun and rifle since I was eleven. (37 years ago)
> 
> I have to think you're much younger then me and live in the NE or the NW.
> I remember driving to school with a couple of shotguns in the window rack of my truck and no one thought anything about it.
> I carried a pocket knife with a six inch blade in school and no one cared.
> 
> The things you see as odd,I see as normal. Thats what you have to watch out for.
> Before you know it your way of life comes into question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent first 23 years in Central Virginia and 26 years in West Florida.  We aren't as different as you suspected. Your turn..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I missed on the age and area. How about your parents?
> Were guns not a part of your upbringing? Did your location have something to do with it?
> I grew up hunting pretty much when I wanted to.
Click to expand...


Never got into hunting, but enjoyed shooting.  Extended family are all hunters, so I get it.  Grandfather, Father and myself served in the military. So have had my share of gun experiences...

But you never said where u r from?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spent first 23 years in Central Virginia and 26 years in West Florida.  We aren't as different as you suspected. Your turn..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I missed on the age and area. How about your parents?
> Were guns not a part of your upbringing? Did your location have something to do with it?
> I grew up hunting pretty much when I wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never got into hunting, but enjoyed shooting.  Extended family are all hunters, so I get it.  Grandfather, Father and myself served in the military. So have had my share of gun experiences...
> 
> But you never said where u r from?
Click to expand...


  Texas by God...!!!


----------



## westwall

shikaki said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you are duly noting things and bullying, since as you described me I am a "ignorant liberal"...  Please try to duly note you are unable to read plain English.  I have taken the time to help your laziness by pasting the exact quote.
> 
> _I think to act like a tough guy, big gun, small p***, people need to put this in real perspective. Is there a reason to not think about reality? Seems as valid a point as what weapon would I would use to do "something" with if the SHTF._
> 
> I see nothing here that says "people collect guns because they have small penises?" If the gun fits wear it!!
> 
> Please duly note reality, not your perception of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me a bully?  Sure thing noodle person!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you are making fun of my Chinese heritage?  WOW
Click to expand...








Your handle is that of a noodle.  How on earth would I know you were Chinese?  Typical call of racist!  Yep, you're a typical libtard!


----------



## shikaki

HereWeGoAgain said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I missed on the age and area. How about your parents?
> Were guns not a part of your upbringing? Did your location have something to do with it?
> I grew up hunting pretty much when I wanted to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never got into hunting, but enjoyed shooting.  Extended family are all hunters, so I get it.  Grandfather, Father and myself served in the military. So have had my share of gun experiences...
> 
> But you never said where u r from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Texas by God...!!!
Click to expand...


lol.  I spent some time in Lackland...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

shikaki said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never got into hunting, but enjoyed shooting.  Extended family are all hunters, so I get it.  Grandfather, Father and myself served in the military. So have had my share of gun experiences...
> 
> But you never said where u r from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas by God...!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.  I spent some time in Lackland...
Click to expand...



 Not sure if you were here long enough to soak up what it means to be a Texan or not.
It usually takes a lifetime. But some pick it up faster then others.


----------



## earlycuyler

I'm in Texas again Friday. I'm there untilnafter christmas. I'll be in Houston, but will go to Blanco to stick hogs.


----------



## MikeK

WinterBorn said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> With a thorough understanding of military capabilities ... And without discarding the obvious difficulties those operations incur during Guerilla Warfare ... some things remain evident.
> 
> Fighting well armed militia on their home ground is far more difficult than most people understand anyway.
> 
> If the military was so damned good at it ... Then as far as Vietnam and Afghanistan are concerned ... The Military should have been done in days.
> 
> For Christ's sake ... We bombed the crap out of Vietnam, drove tanks all over the place, Cobra AH-1 gunships armed to the teeth ... And still could not root out the hostiles.
> 
> It is a lot easier to fight a Military than a Guerilla force any day ... Militaries need things like logistics, support, intelligence and coordination.
> 
> All a Guerilla warrior needs a weapon and willpower, because they will pick up whatever else they need a long the way.
> 
> *To the average person a dead soldier is a sad and nearly unacceptable circumstance ... To a Guerilla warrior, a dead soldier is nothing more than "resupply".*
> 
> It is depressing when you examine the complications of outright warfare ... But worrying about it ... Talking about it, and hoping it never happens ... Will not prepare you more than the purchase of a decent rifle and a reasonable amount of ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no argument against anything you've said.  But I hasten to remind you that the kind of efficient guerilla activity you've described depends entirely on the critical factor of _solidarity,_ which is virtually non-existent in contemporary American society and would take quite a long time to develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think it would take long at all to develop.  I recall most bickering and in-fighting stopping completely on 9/12/01.  In fact, I recall a huge feeling of solidarity in the months after.  That sort of sentiment could be tapped rather easily.
Click to expand...

I've given some thought to what you've said here and what comes readily to mind is public reaction to the 9/11 attack is best described as a temporary state of _defensive cohesion,_ whereas an effective citizen rebellion cannot happen without total and inflexible _solidarity of purpose._  And unless the government did something so monumentally offensive to each and every separate category of Americans; Caucasian, Negro, Hispanic, and Asian, Christian, Jew, and Muslim, poor, middle class, and well-off, Liberal, Conservative, and Moderate, educated, and abjectly stupid, and toss in a few million illegal immigrants, I can't imagine this vast conglomeration reaching a common accord without a period of painful oppression sufficient to politically and philosophically equalize them.   

I'm afraid America has evolved as a starkly divided nation.  And its government is far too shrewd to allow such solidarity to come about.


----------



## jon_berzerk

WinterBorn said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> With a thorough understanding of military capabilities ... And without discarding the obvious difficulties those operations incur during Guerilla Warfare ... some things remain evident.
> 
> Fighting well armed militia on their home ground is far more difficult than most people understand anyway.
> 
> If the military was so damned good at it ... Then as far as Vietnam and Afghanistan are concerned ... The Military should have been done in days.
> 
> For Christ's sake ... We bombed the crap out of Vietnam, drove tanks all over the place, Cobra AH-1 gunships armed to the teeth ... And still could not root out the hostiles.
> 
> It is a lot easier to fight a Military than a Guerilla force any day ... Militaries need things like logistics, support, intelligence and coordination.
> 
> All a Guerilla warrior needs a weapon and willpower, because they will pick up whatever else they need a long the way.
> 
> *To the average person a dead soldier is a sad and nearly unacceptable circumstance ... To a Guerilla warrior, a dead soldier is nothing more than "resupply".*
> 
> It is depressing when you examine the complications of outright warfare ... But worrying about it ... Talking about it, and hoping it never happens ... Will not prepare you more than the purchase of a decent rifle and a reasonable amount of ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no argument against anything you've said.  But I hasten to remind you that the kind of efficient guerilla activity you've described depends entirely on the critical factor of _solidarity,_ which is virtually non-existent in contemporary American society and would take quite a long time to develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think it would take long at all to develop.  I recall most bickering and in-fighting stopping completely on 9/12/01.  In fact, I recall a huge feeling of solidarity in the months after.  That sort of sentiment could be tapped rather easily.
Click to expand...


during the revolutionary war 

active forces amounted to only 3% of the colonists  

10% actively supported the effort 

20% or so had been ok with the effort but did little or nothing in support 

a 1/3 supported the tyrant king 

by the end of the war more colonists 

fought for the king then for freedom

so you see even during the revolution 

100 percent solidarity for freedom was a myth


----------



## MikeK

jon_berzerk said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no argument against anything you've said.  But I hasten to remind you that the kind of efficient guerilla activity you've described depends entirely on the critical factor of _solidarity,_ which is virtually non-existent in contemporary American society and would take quite a long time to develop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think it would take long at all to develop.  I recall most bickering and in-fighting stopping completely on 9/12/01.  In fact, I recall a huge feeling of solidarity in the months after.  That sort of sentiment could be tapped rather easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> during the revolutionary war active forces amounted to only 3% of the colonists
> 
> 10% actively supported the effort
> 
> 20% or so had been ok with the effort but did little or nothing in support
> 
> a 1/3 supported the tyrant king
> 
> by the end of the war more colonists fought for the king then for freedom
> 
> so you see even during the revolution 100 percent solidarity for freedom was a myth
Click to expand...

But I think you'll agree existing circumstances have changed considerably since the 1700s.  For one thing the adversary of a second American revolution would not be a foreign king who sends and supplies a small army via a small fleet of wooden ships.  

The present reality is _Red Dawn_ fantasies are exactly that -- fantasic.  Impossible dreams.  The only hope for a successful revolution in modern America would be near 100% solidarity, including substantial sympathy on the part of the military.  And the entire event would necessarily need to take place quickly because a long period of gradually imposed attrition, which is how King George was defeated, would serve only to weaken resistance to foreign incursion, which would be a predictable certainty.


----------



## Wildman

PredFan said:


> Why can't i just use the ones I have:
> 
> M-1 Garand
> Remington 12ga pump shotgun.
> 44 magnum Virginian Dragoon
> 40 cal auto
> 380 Kel-Tek auto
> 9mm Astro auto
> 25 ca Raven auto



yaaaa ! same here, my armory is a tad bit different but will do the job required to fend off a small Army of idiots, plus i have a cannon. 






1 Inch Bore !!


----------



## XPostFacto

Best means of self defense: running away


----------



## WinterBorn

XPostFacto said:


> Best means of self defense: running away



Unless you have a family and are in your home.


----------

