Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/31/2001 9:43:01 AM EDT
I'm rereading [b]Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse[/b] by James Wesley Rawles. I'm up to the part where the UN sponsored puppet government is trying to restore order (pacify) the United States. This got me thinking - did the other countries recover more quickly than us? Did they not fall as far? 1. with no privately owned guns, the government should be able to restore order more quickly 2. with less affluent societies, society is less dependant and won't fall as far. We have some modern examples of countries that have faced economic collapse. Argentina, I believe, for one. It would appear that they were able to maintain order, or at least restore it pretty easily. I believe private gunownership is absolutely necessary, but I wonder if we don't fall farther and harder when the collapse comes.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 9:47:57 AM EDT
All private gun ownership means for me, is that if TEOWAWKI ever happens, I will have all the TP I ever need. And, I'll have two-ply, quilted stuff, no cheesy one-ply for me. Good thing those anti-gun neighbors of mine buy TP by the case. Kharn
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 9:56:46 AM EDT
Kharn, If you are serious, I think you prove my point. Even the "good guys" will use their weapons to take what they want. This escalates the collapse.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 10:00:41 AM EDT
Why do we need the government to restore order? An armed society is quite able to maintain order, even if the government fails. The real issue is the reaction of people to "bad times". In LA during the last riots, most looting was done by hispanics who had come from Central America. However, established Chicano neiborhoods did not experience looting. The Chicanos didn't need the police to maintain order, but the Central Americans did. It is a cultural issue. Look at one of those electorial maps--the blue and the red (preferably the map at the county level). The red areas, and some blue areas, don't need the government to maintain order. Some of the blue areas are barely in a state of order even [i]with[/i] the government "in charge".
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 10:28:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2001 10:24:23 AM EDT by Kharn]
Fight4YourRights: No way, I've got a good friend with a C&R, and he is trying to fill his basement with Turk Mausers and bandoleers of 8mm. We'll trade for the TP, we know the antis dont have any guns so they might just give us their whole cases of TP for one Mauser and a few bandoleers if it gets that bad. Kharn
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 10:31:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2001 10:30:33 AM EDT by medicjim]
This one may take a while for you to work out. IN THE US, THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PEOPLE Think it through. You will have your answer. Note - If you live in the USA, you have a PERSONAL OBLIGATION to know what the heck I'm talking about here...we are a representative republic....we are the government. The minute we are not, I'll do as Thomas Jefferson suggested, and FIX IT.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 10:34:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fight4yourrights: This got me thinking - did the other countries recover more quickly than us? Did they not fall as far? 1. with no privately owned guns, the government should be able to restore order more quickly 2. with less affluent societies, society is less dependant and won't fall as far.
View Quote
The problem with this line of thought is the assumption that the central government has a right to restore order in the first place. Given the situation in the book, would you want the UN puppet state to be able to "restore order" over your neighborhood watch committee? Would you want Pakistani troops to be able to take over the food co-op you and your neighbors had set up after the fall, and have these foreigners start rationing food, taking a nominal amount for their own maintenance? Or would you want to be able to ambush them a la mujahedeen vs soviet invaders in Afghanistan? Rumania in the 70's was orderly. That doesn't mean it was a good place to live. If I've mistaken your intent here, please help me out. FMCDH Semper Fidelis Jarhead out.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 11:15:37 AM EDT
I think everyone one having a Ar or two is a good thing. Those that would panic, and turn into animals, would get capped off real quick. Calm would be kept. I lived by Chicago, and if anything is going to happen, it would be there. The burbs could keep it there, by being able to cap off those that would try and get crazy. C-rock
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 11:33:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2001 11:31:29 AM EDT by fight4yourrights]
[size=3]GUYS! YOU ARE READING ME WRONG![/size=3] This is a retorical question. [b][blue]Q. Does the widespread private ownership of weapons make a socioeconomic collapse worse or better? Q. Does the private ownership of weapons make the restoration of order and society easier or harder?[/b][/blue] Regardless of the answer, I strongly believe private ownership of weapons is worth the price. I do understand that we citizens are the government, but it doesn't really work that way, does it? I don't want the Pakistani troops restoring order. I'll shoot at them. Eventually we need a government in charge. We can't have little fiefdoms all over the place. Now I think we need to restore our constitutional government, but that's another issue. It would be nice to avoid a central government at all, but that doesn't work. They are a necessary evil.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 11:44:11 AM EDT
The USSR basically lived in a state of socioeconomic collapse for years w/out falling into chaos, probably due to the lack of private firearms ownership. Same with Cuba. Government control of all weapons might prevent socioeconomic collapse. Maybe that's the UN's current thinking for trying to ban private arms. The problem with a socioeconomic class is that we fall into a "survival of the strongest" society. Those better armed, better equipped, more aggressive thrive, the weak and ill equipped die. This works okay for quite a few of us, since we have arms and supplies, but it doesn't make it nice for most folks. I do believe that the overriding problem of government monopoly of weapons is the fact that they become the biggest gang around. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Sure, they can restore order quickly, but living under that regime is no picnic.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 11:57:40 AM EDT
Look at it this way: No firearms. state of disorder. You have to wait for someone else to restore order. With firearms. State of disorder. You can set about restoring order yourself. ------------------------------ [url]http://www.anotherpundit.com[/url]
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 12:00:15 PM EDT
the people of the former USSR are used to collapse, starvation, depression, abuse, tyranny and any other bad thing govts. can dish out - they are now a breed apart, they can calmly wait for social repair. americans are soft and weak in comparison. (about 50% anyway...) also, i believe that this society will be fractured beyond resonable repair, because the "extremists", who are just waiting for an opportunity will take it, and try to impose their minority views upon us all... think about it, the racists will try to do their thing, the religious will band together, the black panthers will be roaming the countryside - their will be no clear or universal goal - every small group will want their side represented as the "new" govt. only the UN will prevent this...sad.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 1:02:56 PM EDT
>>Now I think we need to restore our constitutional government, but that's another issue<< Woopie!!!!! You get it!!!! So... let's say that social disorder exists... first we create little fiefdoms...let's call them "STATES"....armed "minute men" will form a "militia" to throw off potential oppressors... now that we are free, we need to appoint a representative to speak for us... Ultimately, we will need to organize like minded states into a loose confederation of these fiefdoms so that things like common defense and foreign policy can be centralized, but we'll keep it a loose confederation, leaving all the powers not absolutely necessary to the operation of our little union to the member states.. We could then adopt the old US Constitution EXACTLY as it is written RIGHT NOW as our constitution.... WE could call ourselves the United Fiefdoms of America, oh, that's right, we agreed to call them states... so we'll be the United States of America.. Hey? de-ja-vu
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 1:07:46 PM EDT
If I store guns and ammo and my anti neighbor stores food and water, who survives? That is why private ownership is good.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 1:25:00 PM EDT
medicjim wrote:
We could then adopt the old US Constitution EXACTLY as it is written RIGHT NOW as our constitution....
View Quote
[size=6]NO WAY! Let's fix the 2nd Amendment, the 10th, etc... Let's make sure the Beast doesn't get so out of control again.[/size=6]
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 4:09:45 PM EDT
Thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 4:31:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2001 4:27:24 PM EDT by Slave1]
NO WAY! Let's fix the 2nd Amendment, the 10th, etc... Let's make sure the Beast doesn't get so out of control again.[/size=6]
View Quote
There is nothing wrong with those amendments to fix. The anti's have just been misquoting and misrepresenting it. Everyone knows exactly what they mean, even the anti's, that's why they want to get rid of them. So we can live in their restored government utopia.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 4:51:49 PM EDT
The way I see it is that those that own guns can take what they want. This is true. But also those that own guns can also form comunities that can be protected by those guns. Again it inheritantly all hinges on the person. I would not steal or take food from my neighbor unless it was given. I shouldn't have to I got food storage and guns.:) As for if it would make it easier yes it would but you also got to see that if the end of the government comes you never know what kind of government can arise. And the reason we have the second ammendment is so that we can oppose tyranical rule. [sniper]
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 5:21:30 PM EDT
Those of us with firearms should ONLY rob and plunder from LIBERAL anti-gunners.
Link Posted: 7/31/2001 5:59:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/1/2001 8:25:44 AM EDT
>>Thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis<< Gunny... compliment or shot? ... or both?
Top Top