Advice for Rich: Insure yourself against war...

[Nobody's_Hero]

Too bad I'm not wealthy. I'm just gonna have to lock myself in a closet with my S&W.

 

[ScottD]

As long as I have my guns and ammo I'll never starve. Some rich person with no guns and no ammo will give me his/her food.

And you're exactly the same as the POS Katrina types we've been talking about. You may be talking about bartering and trading guns/ammo for food...but I don't think so. Try that on this rich person and you're not going to have a happy ending. Can you say class III?

 

[Gato Montés]

Stephpd, do NOT post about what you do NOT know about. MANY rich people, myself included, grew up poor and learned how to live off the land. And we also learned how to live off the economy which made us rich. And being rich, I get to shoot a LOT more than most people and am more than familiar and deadly accurate with a wide variety of firearms. In fact, I make it a point to take several professional courses a year...just got back from Gunsite in AZ.

I totally agree. You have some nerve pickin on us rich folk, and I find Stephpd's remarks ban worthy. You know, just because we're rollin in the dough doesn't make us any less human. Just because I'm so massively, hugely and intolerably rich doesn't mean I cant shoot! True story actually, I was raised by wolves! I was not trained in the art of shooting, I was trained in the art of KILLING. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!! But thanks to capitalism, I was able to successfully exploit any and all resources and now I am sitting on the top of the world!

Just remember this lesson boy, when the SHTF, don't mess with rich people like ScottD and myself, at least if you know what's good for ya...

 

[Lucky]

ScottD I understood the basic tenets of gun ownership to be threefold, #1)Protect you and yours from others who do you harm, #2)Protect your country from foreign state threats, #3)Protect you and your countrymen from state threats from within. Co-incidentally those are nearly the same basic premises for government to exist at all. #1)Protect citizens from infringements of other citizens, #2)Protect citizens from foreign infringements, #3)Perform services market does not offer.


So there's really no justification to use a firearm, ever, against another human any way but defensively.


P.S.

Ned Flanders had a bomb shelter.

 

[Justin]

As long as I have my guns and ammo I'll never starve. Some rich person with no guns and no ammo will give me his/her food.

From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs, eh, comrade?

 

[ScottD]

Just remember this lesson boy, when the SHTF, don't mess with rich people like ScottD and myself, at least if you know what's good for ya...

You said it brother! Rick folk can afford the really cool toys. I even have something class III mounted on a tripod.

 

[SuperNaut]

I've socked away as much Ramen as I can, I'll be okay.

 

[ScottD]

So there's really no justification to use a firearm, ever, against another human any way but defensively.

In theory, I would like to agree with you, but that is not always the case. Ever hear of a pre-emptive strike? Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. I understand what you're saying about defense, but if I had intel that someone(s) coming to get me, I'm sure not going to sit back and take fire before returning it.

 

[ScottD]

From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs, eh, comrade?

Oh, I'm sure he's just some Robin Hood type. Ya know...steal from the rich and give to the po folks.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

So, if the SHTF, we turn on each other and debilitate the country into a rapid state of decay through pillaging and pre-emptive strikes, simultaneously making ourselves even more vulnerable to outside influences which seek to destroy our country.

So, what is plan B?

 

[ScottD]

You tell us. As for pre-emptive strikes. If you had solid intel that someone(s) were coming for you and your family, wouldn't you want to get them first? What do you not understand about what's going on in the Middle East? If we don't strike them first OVER THERE, then we will be fighting their crap over here in our backyards. So where would you rather have the suicide bombers? Over there or over here? Those pre-emptive strikes are ensuring our security (as much as they can) over here.

 

[qwert65]

"In theory, I would like to agree with you, but that is not always the case. Ever hear of a pre-emptive strike? Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. I understand what you're saying about defense, but if I had intel that someone(s) coming to get me, I'm sure not going to sit back and take fire before returning it."

That would only be correct if you've been attacked, premptive strikes without provocation would make it murder

 

[ScottD]

Well, consider this. There are roving bands of gangs and some of your neighbors have been killed while you were away. After getting home (or wherever), you find out they are coming back. I consider firing upon them first a pre-emptive attack even though it really is sort of "pre-defense". Are you just going to sit back and not fire until fired upon when you KNOW what their intent is? Should the US sit back and only retaliate after every time we are attacked on our own soil? WWII would have been a lot different after that pesky Pearl Harbor attack, eh?

Sorry, but if someone(s) had demonstrated violent tendencies and I know about it and they are coming back? That's provocation enough for me and I wouldn't consider it murder at all. Maybe they haven't attacked me personally before, but I'm not going to wait for that to be the case, especially if they show up armed...

 

[SoonerSP101]

And you're exactly the same as the POS Katrina types

Oh, I'm sure he's just some Robin Hood type. Ya know...steal from the rich and give to the po folks.

Nice. Well at least you're not getting personal right?


I would not under normal circumstances steal anything. I like people and go out of my way to give people a hand up when I can.

I was thinking about if there was the real possibility of STARVING and I was thinking LAST RESORT for me and my children.

Would I chose to die when the option (ugly as it may seem) is available to take what I needed for my children and consume their left-overs?

No. I wouldn't and I wouldn't apologize for it either. Would I feel bad? Yes. But survival can make a person do many uncharacteristic things.

If you want to continue personal attacks then go ahead.

 

[mbt2001]

Justin, that was a perfect response...

I do wonder if the point of the post has been missed by most. It isn't a class warfare thing, more of a CYA thing. Extra liquidity HAS to come from somewhere. If the "rich" start stockpiling, it will not come from them. That of course being the Chicken or the Egg scenario outlined earlier in the thread.

Would I chose to die when the option (ugly as it may seem) is available to take what I needed for my children and consume their left-overs?

No. I wouldn't and I wouldn't apologize for it either. Would I feel bad? Yes. But survival can make a person do many uncharacteristic things.

There is (as another poster pointed out) a middle ground between having food and not having food that doesn't involve the attitude that you outlined, it is called work.

 

[SoonerSP101]

I never said I would murder anyone.

 

[ScottD]

Nice. Well at least you're not getting personal right?


I would not under normal circumstances steal anything. I like people and go out of my way to give people a hand up when I can.

Settle down, Beavis. Didn't you not post that you would use your firearms to take food/stuff from rich people? Um, yes...you did and that would make you a murdering thief. No personal attack there, just fact from what you yourself posted.

I was thinking about if there was the real possibility of STARVING and I was thinking LAST RESORT for me and my children.

Again, you admit you'd do whatever it takes, which would include murdering innocent people to get what you want.

Would I chose to die when the option (ugly as it may seem) is available to take what I needed for my children and consume their left-overs?

And, as stated before, you'd be quite dead really quick should you try that on many unsuspecting and unprepared rich people that you think are unarmed and/or don't have the training to "live off the land" and defend themselves.

No. I wouldn't and I wouldn't apologize for it either. Would I feel bad? Yes. But survival can make a person do many uncharacteristic things.

And, again, that would make you no different than any other thieving types. What makes YOU and YOUR family so special that YOUR needs trump the rights of innocent people trying to survive and provide for their families? So much so that you're willing to murder?

 

[ScottD]

I never said I would murder anyone.

You said you'd use your guns/ammo to get what you wanted from seemingly "unprepared" rich people. What ya gonna do, scare them to death? You also said survival would cause a person (i.e. yourself) to do many uncharacteristic things, which would include murdering innocent folks for your own selfish needs.

As long as I have my guns and ammo I'll never starve. Some rich person with no guns and no ammo will give me his/her food.

Truth's a bitch ain't it?

 

[SoonerSP101]

I never said I would murder anyone.

Again...I never said I would murder anyone. Please quote me where I said that. You can't!

 

[SoonerSP101]

You said you'd use your guns/ammo to get what you wanted from seemingly "unprepared" rich people. What ya gonna do, scare them to death? You also said you'd be willing to do ANYTHING, which would include murdering innocent folds for your own selfish needs.

Pure conjecture to say I said I would murder anyone from that.

 

[ScottD]

I don't need to quote you. It was implied in your post about using your guns/ammo to acquire food/stuff from other people, which makes you a thieving POS, should you do that. You never said you were going to barter, now did you? People saying they're going to use guns/ammo against others pretty much implies they will kill them if they have to. *** else are we supposed to think from your post? Betting you want to take that little bit back now.

Rest assured, you and any of your ilk try to use firearms in ANY sense against me or my family under ANY circumstances...you're dead. And that's not murder in the slightest sense. All you'd have to do is ask, but at the first aggressive sign of firearm use (doesn't even have to be shooting) especially in a SHTF situation...you're a goner.

You FLAT out stated that you would use your guns/ammo against rich people with no guns/ammo to get what you needed, right? Already quoted you on that so no need to do it again. So, what happens if they forcibly resist with other weapons and/or refuse to give you what you want even at the sight of your arms pointing at them? You stated your propensity to doing whatever it takes in a survival situation. You kill those unarmed people and you're committing murder.

 

[Lucky]

If you are starving and others are not, then you must assess fault with yourself. If you did not prepare adequately how is that anyone else's fault? It in no way justifies you to take anything. You can ask, for sure. But you cannot demand.

In a well-to-do society you may be able to distinguish different levels of harm. But in a state of chaos something as small as taking someone's noodles or siphoning their gas could be the difference between life and death for them. And it would be insane to offer trust to someone doing you harm, they might take all your noodles or none, they could take your children or your life. They're a thief, it must be assumed they are untrustworthy. In a state of chaos any attack would be assumed to necessitate a response of lethal force.

Those helpless rich with estates and gardens may appear easy targets at first, but soon enough some hungry people with guns would take jobs with them and it would be a risky proposition to attack them.


ScottD in international relations there are different rules than interpersonal. Between states might makes right, between people rights make right. With people Freedom of thought is guaranteed. Freedom of action is restricted. You can think all you want about robbing a bank, everyone thinks weird things sometimes. It's actions that matter.

At the very least imagine how the precedent could be used against you - someone who hates you could accuse you of plotting to kill them, and claim they simply killed you pre-emptively in self defence. Always imagine everything being used against you before signing off on it.



P.S.

Robin Hood didn't steal from the Rich. He stole BACK from the PRINCE, who was unjustly TAXING the PEOPLE.

 

[SoonerSP101]

You do undertand the definition of conjecture? Since intelligent debate is futile...I'm done.

 

[ScottD]

You're right Lucky about the Robin Hood thing. It was just an example and I didn't think too far into it. Just the "take from others because ME, MYSELF and I need it because ME, MYSELF and I are more needy and thus more deserving of it" aspect.

Good post, too! I like the way you think.

 

[ScottD]

Since intelligent debate is futile...I'm done.

Ah, truly the ways of a man who cannot escape what he said and cannot defend it/himself adequately, either. Cop out...dude takes ball out of sandbox and says [Cartman] Screw you guys, I'm goin' home! [/Cartman]