If it comes to a SHTF situation....

Discussion in 'Vintage Topic Archive (Sept - 2009)' started by Carbin8r, Mar 7, 2008.

  1. Carbin8r

    Carbin8r Member

    I must admit I was ignorant of this issue until i stumbled upon the documentary: "America: Freedom to Fascism" (which I thought was very well done, and made me angry as all hell). But I digress...

    My point is the aftermath of Katrina and the forceful disarming of citizens who were legally armed in order to defend their property and lifes:





    What the hell!? The National guard rounding up people and lawful citizens being disarmed at gunpoint to be released and left to fend for themselves?

    The National Guard taking up residence in a church without permission?

    Do none of those morons give a damn at about the Constitution they supposedly took an oath to uphold?

    It seriously makes me sick. Sure, there was a court case *after the fact*. Damn lot of good that did though, and not like it will prevent the same thing from happening again.

    It really seems to me that indivual survival planning may be insufficient and that we may need to have a well formed militia; a group plan with others in our regions who are like-minded and prepared - saftey in numbers.

    I am really interested in what others think of this. Are we already screwed?
  2. As long as this thread doesn't fixate on the political end of a potential situation, let's hear what you guys have to say... If it turns 50% political or more, I'm gonna shut it down... Fair warning to all.

    Post away.

  3. elguapo

    elguapo Guest

    SHTF: Bad guys are still bad guys.
    Taking away guns from people on the thought they "might" be bad: Bad
    Having Military to do that same job: Uber Bad
    Waffling on TV about rights: Bad to the uber Bad degree.
  4. I like the the idea about group survival. I don't know if a militia is neccessarily the right way to phrase it. My problem is getting my friends to buy into the importance of preparing for a shtf event.
  5. Carbin8r

    Carbin8r Member

    Just for clarification, I would assume it's fair game to comment on the Government/governments in-general but not denegrade into a Righty-Lefty We/They sort of thing. THAT would quickly devolve. There's plenty of blame to go around on ALL sides.

    From my standpoint, my question is almost introspective. That being, what might you expect in a SHTF situation; how might you have dealt with the situation as it unfolded in N.O. (being an actual recent example); and what might we all do to prevent being railroaded by the government in future situations (I think the last part could include actions such a pushing for political changes on local/regional levels without devolving into a political quagmire...)

    My well-regulated militia comment really was meant to mean a coordinated group effort and to tie the verbage to the Constitution.
  6. I like the Militia idea, but usually it's not feasible in this society. City folks just don't take the time to worry about disasters, much less prepare for them. Granted, a Neighborhood watch type deal geared toward survival looks good, but I would worry that in the long run, people around you KNOWING you're prepared is inherently dangerous to yourself. You can't get 100% participation in a Watch program, so your farfetched "Doomsday" scenario is going to be recieved loosely and your neighbors end up thinking you're a gun storing, food hoarding nut job.

    All my buddies at work say they're coming to my house if something happens. Well, guess what, I'm laughing with them on the outside, but sizing them up on the inside. They have already "told me" they have no intention of preparing anything in advance because I already have!!! :roll:
  7. dirtimdebbie

    dirtimdebbie Guest

    The militia idea?

    What is the militia idea? All for one and one for all and when no one is looking every man for himself? Shoot'em'an'loot'em? A constitutionally controlled group or a warlord?

    In times of crisis people look for stability and intelligence in their leadership. Dedication to the community and principles of democracy and compassion.

    How many threads on this board promote that ideal over "take care of #1"?

    People are not always uncooperative due to stupidity.
  8. Dirtimdebbie, the "militia idea" was in the first post in the next to last paragraph. He also mentioned a group plan with like minded individuals and safety in numbers.

    You will have people that adopt the shoot and loot aspect. We have that right now. Remember the L.A. riots? They were looting and destroying their own neighborhoods. How about New Orleans after Katrina?

    Their will also be groups led by "Warlords". Right now we call them gangs. You see them on TV every day. They are already armed, already organized, have access to a myriad of supplies and are willing and able to take whatever else they need by force.

    With the collapse of society, democracy will be a soon forgotten aspect of life. A long term situation means stability and intelligent leadership is gone as well. Dedication to the community?? Sorry about that, but the cold reality is that communities don't communicate any more. I don't know my neighbors. I don't talk to them. We all live in our own little "cable tv worlds" now.

    You obviously need to face another cold, hard, fact. People, especially desperate, hungry people are inherently dangerous. If you can't see that, then you are living in a fantasy world. If you look at the history of mankind and the history of all the wars, they have one thing in common. All were started over some type of resource or land or food.
  9. Strangerous

    Strangerous Member

    CG-49, good post, it was a good read, now let me let you know my ideal SHTF plans.

    When the SHTF, Family comes first. This is why my 3rd and 5th grade SISTERS know how to shoot firearms, light candles, and put on a band-aid. These are small in comparison to our adult knowledge, but heck, they can harvest a squirrel to eat if need be. Depending on what kind of "S" hits the fan depends on how deep (many people) our BOG (bug out group) will be. Can we use vehicles? Can we get other family members? Do they remember where to meet us? When the SHTF, I will personally hand a firearm to my LIBERAL Aunt (by marriage), and tell her "This is why we have weapons, aren't you glad we have them, so we may live?"
    Sure, you don't know your neighbors, but you do know your family. Families live in tribes all over other countries... when we collapse, we will be a 3rf world country, just like them, and we better take notice now on how to survive. There's my .02, and if you don't think i'd be in the right to give the liberal a firearm, then you just need to listen to Stairway to Heaven By Led Zeppelin.
  10. AndrewST

    AndrewST Guest

    I am one stubborn jackass and in all honestly I believe that had I been in the N.O situation, I would be dead. When SHTF I would have been armed and prepared, and when the government came to my home to take my only protection I would have fought back.

    I would give them fair warning, but in the end the only way they would have taken my firearms is from my dead grasp. In that situation the government and those taking away the peoples protection became the enemy, and I would have treated them as such. Long story short, I would have ended up dead and shot, but I would have damn sure made a point and taken a couple with me.

    I am sure I sound like a ranting raving moron, and some people might be thinking "I would have given them up before dieing". But the problem in accepting that thought is the fact if you lay down like that, you throw away everything this country has been built on and throw away freedoms.

    I would rather die free than live in slavery or oppression.
  11. SharpsShtr

    SharpsShtr Member


    Active armed resistance against Federal authorities in time of emergency? Yep, you'd probably end up dead. Surrendering a few weapons hardly classifies as slavery or oppression.

    If one is going to sell the rest of his life, he damn well needs to make sure it is for a worthy cause. Hanging on to a few pieces of metal & plastic probably wouldn't qualify as one.

    Let's say you need to protect your family in a Katrina style event and the Feds are trying to take your guns. Only a couple of choices. 1) Give up your guns and then protect your family as best you can. 2) Decide the guns are worth getting killed for, fight it out with superior armed & superior numbered Feds, get killed, the family suffers on it's own without you and possibly doesn't make it. Doesn't seem like it'd be a hard choice to make. Even if your single, you can sue and replace the guns later.

    Just think it through carefully. If you want to fight stupidity, oppression, slavery, etc. there are a lot better ways to do it than shoot it out with some poor, tired, wet, and grouchy grunts that are just doing their job. Get involved in the political end and make a real difference. The NRA can point you in the proper direction to put your passions to good use. Be proactive as opposed to reactive.

  12. Sniper 995

    Sniper 995 Guest

    I am sure that the jews thought of this during the nazi regime
    no but it is a start to it. next the argument will be, "surrendering a few constitution rights like freedom of speech, assembly, religion hardly constitutes slavery or opression. The real point is where does it start and where does it end????
  13. SharpsShtr

    SharpsShtr Member


    Hey, the choice is up to you. Make a wise choice and do what you think is right. There are those who say on the battle field that they'll never be taken prisoner and fight to the death when it's futile and without point. People do return from prisoner of war camps to lead full and happy lives. On a similar note those people from Katrina are now free to restock their gun cabinets. However, had they fought back and been killed by the troops they by definition no longer have any rights, goals, family, aspirations, etc.

    We're not talking about the commies coming across the border scenario here. We're talking about the government trying to stabilize a local situation. As a result many states have, my state of Missouri for example, has enacted legislation to stop such things from occurring. Yeah it stunk for those people down there. But I just checked and I couldn't find where it said life is fair. You do the best you can, pick up the pieces, and move on. Generally speaking, shooting government personnel doesn't protect your rights, it removes them in any of a number of ways.

    Maybe if more people were actively engaged in protecting our rights ahead of time these things might not happen. Don't like what happened, where our government is going - then do something to fix it. BTW, you need to explain your first comment above as it's not clear what you mean.

  14. Bandit320

    Bandit320 Member

    I bet they had training somewhere in their lives that told them what was limits of their jurisdiction and constitutional authority. Of course, they could just do anything they want and then just claim they were doing their jobs / following orders. Sound familiar? Not to fan the flames to much, but somewhere everyone has to draw a line to defend themselves and their ideals.

  15. Sniper 995

    Sniper 995 Guest

    SharpsShtr, my first comment was to note that the first thing the nazi's did was disarm the jews, who gave in because they did not choose armed resistance to their federal government in a time of emergency.

    But who knows if the next time this will still be possible.

    Ya thats what the brits were all about during their march on lexington and concord, and by the way their mission was to seize arms also.http://www.americanrevolution.com/LexingtonandConcord.htm

    Again Thank god the minutemen and militias of the day did not share this dim and cowardly view. The minutemen at the first lexington engagement were 70 in number and had no hope of prevailing against the 2000 strong british column, but when the time came they had sand and their muskets fired nontheless. Are you saying they acted stupidly and should have instead petitioned their local torry representatives?

    This is not just my viewpoint, this is historical fact. One thing you can count on is that history repeats itself. The rich only want to get richer and the strong only want to get stronger. The rest of us just want to live our lives and find happiness. And by the way I am proactive, I am a member of many 2A groups and do write my representatives, but I retain the right to also be reactive (you know, the whole Thomas Jefferson viewpoint thingy).
  16. SharpsShtr

    SharpsShtr Member


    I've been having a similar side discussion with Bandit320 (the low rent that he is). Good points you have on the historical notes above. Let me ask the same question I asked el Bandito Breath: Tell me how many times in the recent history (I'll give you a time span of one hundred years) in the United States where when a person, or small group of people, shot government people and it has actually helped their cause. The Revolutionary War is interesting, as is Texas' war of liberation, but they are hardly applicable to Katrina. Some might want to include the Civil War, but as the South lost much of it's power for many years (and it's way of life permenantly) maybe that's not a good idea. Just to be clear, seeing as your examples are from the Revolutionary War are you saying the people of New Orleans should have entered into an armed revolt against the authorities? If not those examples, though good, aren't terribly applicable.

    Like it or not, we live in a society in this country. Maybe it's a multi-faceted one, but a society with rules none the less. As a member of a society you only have a limited number of broad ways of dealing with it:

    1) You choose to live within the society and pretty much conform with it's rules. If your happy things are great. If your not you can either work to fix them or you can just moan about it like a child (guess which one works better). This path could be called a citizen.

    2) You choose to live within the society and choose not to follow it's rules. This path makes you a Bad Guy (BG), which is why most of us have a weapon or two.

    3) You can decide that the system is so unfixable that it must be changed, this generally happens violently. This makes you a Revolutionary. Be sure to bring lots of help.

    In the Katrina situation, shooting Police Officers or National Guardians would bring reinforcements quite quickly with a bad ending for the perpetrator. Guaranteed he (they) would be classified as a BG from group two above. It would do nothing to help any gun owners rights and in today's society probably hurt us all. Katrina was bad for the gun owners there, but as a result things are better now. Within this society, other than stopping BGs, words and legislation make more useful changes than shooting people. You need to be very weary above applying category 3) tactics to a local situation of distress (as Katrina was). It just doesn't help and makes all of us look like gun kooks.

    So, lets have the examples of when in the last hundred years it has helped a person(s) when they shot the authorities. I bet it'll be a really short list.

  17. SharpsShtr

    SharpsShtr Member

    Absolutely not. But as Katrina wasn't an opening act of a Revolutionary War this isn't applicable to the situation. You need to be careful about mixing acts from one type of situation with those of a total different kind.

  18. Sniper 995

    Sniper 995 Guest

    I can think of none. But also in the past 100 years I can think of many rights/freedoms that are gone now. Direct corolation or just coincedence? You are right we are in a society, and our society seems to take losing rights much easier than it used to, is that a good thing? where do you think it will end? do you think that by being more passive with the erosion of rights/freedoms that one day we will have them all back? I answered your question honestly, now here is one for you. in the past 100 years what rights/freedoms that were taken have we got back?

    I think if things would have went #3 in katrina, the political fallout would have been more severe for the agencies involved in the unquestionably unconstituitional acts. I believe every state would now have a law preventing such happenings in the future.

    Just to be clear I am not an anarchist or a extremist. I do not want armed action against our government. We live in the best nation in the world. We have the best of everything (well maybe not economy or political leaders right now). We have allot to be thankfull for. In the same breath we have this because of who we are and who we came from. We as a people should not lose the "spirit of resistance" that Thomas Jefferson spoke of. and on that note, I will not be disarmed for any reason, my choice, my consequence, my stand.

    I am not mixing acts at all. The first revolutionary war started because of taxes and representation. Whos to say what will start the next one. How many americans are happy with the current tax system? Who many americans think the average american is being represented properly by our current government? Katrina was NOT the beginning of a revolutionary war, but then again it could have been. The funny thing about cause and effect is that you can only truly understand the effect after the cause has happened.
  19. SharpsShtr

    SharpsShtr Member

    As with you, I can think of none (rights that we've gotten back). We just need to be very, very careful when we speak of taking up arms against people. It's an easy thing to type out on a computer. But other people read these words as well. People who do not think as far ahead as they should.

    The erosion of rights really bother me and don't misconstrue my world to say we should passively watch them go away. People like the man in Kirkwood, MO who used a gun at a Council Meeting to redress his woes helps none of us though. Do what you think is appropriate but as the man once said "Choose wisely".

  20. Sniper 995

    Sniper 995 Guest