How much SHTF would it take?

[redranger1]

Ive read alot of posts on the forum about shtf situations and what to get to prepare for them and so on. I was thinking today, we have the 2nd amendment to protect our gun rights which are being slowly erroded away. So how much errosion would it take for the whole hillside to start comming down and cause a shtf situation? How much do we have to give up before putting our foot down and saying to uncle sam that enough is enough? If we keep giving in someday we will be to the point of no return and we will all be hailing some dictator with a funny mustache.

 

[hso]

More of a political question than a true SHTF.

 

[Overman]

How much do we have to give up before putting our foot down and saying to uncle sam that enough is enough?

I don't know. When (and if) the 'shtf', I'll know it and I'll deal with it at that point.

Personally, my breaking point would be if I was no longer able to own arms anywhere in the US. DC, Jersey, Massachusetts, parts of California, well, I choose not to live there, and they and their citizens choose the laws they want, and I still have a choice to live in an area where gun ownership is looked upon as a good thing. When 'they' make that choice impossible, and when they make it impossible for a law abiding citizen anywhere in the US to own, then I'll have reached my breaking point.

Until then, I'll continue to live in Colorado, which is 'shall issue' and which allows me to carry, buy and own long guns and handguns the same day I want them. When and if that changes, I'll be able to more fully answer your question.

 

[Dionysusigma]

If we keep giving in someday we will be to the point of no return and we will all be hailing some dictator with a funny mustache.

Sorry... I had to.

See sig.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Your question is strange to me. I think of SHTF as something that happens through either natural or human-made disaster, followed by a period of time in which we're "on our own" as far as police or military protection. A period of lawlessness. You're talking about revolution, and that's a very different thing.

 

[longeyes]

"On our own?"

If only.

 

[Doggieman]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I too always envisioned a SHTF as a sort of sudden thing, but maybe it would be a slow slide.

Interesting!!

Maybe a gradual period of less and less lawfulness. Of course that woulnd't necess. be SHingTF because you'd have plenty of time to prepare if you could properly predict where it was all going.

Probabaly a much more likely scenario than sudden widespread anarchy, though I pray for armageddon every day. I think there are only two ways a democracy/republic can utterly fall is 1) by electing a dictator (eg Germany, Rome) 2) by squandering all its money/resources and being overrun by another culture (eg Greece??)

 

[LAK]

If we keep giving in someday we will be to the point of no return and we will all be hailing some dictator with a funny mustache.

If every piece of gun legislation, taxation and other oppressions had been introduced by an Administration in a one year period in 1934 or say 1955 we would have had a revolution within a very short time.

This is the crux of the m.o. of controlled change. It avoids massive overt oppression in one stroke. Rather, it is incremental, so that troublemakers along the way can be devoured piecemeal in one way or another.

--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[afsnco]

Redranger1 makes an interesting point, at least I think this may be his point. If all 70 million of us gunowners have a different "last straw" we'll never present the united front that would be necessary to effect change. Instead it would be a piecemeal effort, where this group would balk when this line was crossed, and that group would balk when that line was crossed. Instead, as a group, we'd be like the frog in a pot of water, not realizing we're goners until the water comes to a boil.

Further, many of us swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Gun confiscation, etc., would be an illegal order made by an enemy of the Constitution, barring a properly voted upon constitutional amendment which nullifies the 2nd Amendment. Tyrants who run roughshod over the Constitution neither deserve our respect nor obedience, and that includes the Supreme Court when they "interpret" the Constitution to say things it clearly doesn't say. Contrary to what the black-robed wonders may think, we can read and we do have common sense in the interpretation of what we read. And wasn't it Jefferson who said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants?"

All hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

[Vitamin G]

Redranger1 makes an interesting point, at least I think this may be his point. If all 70 million of us gunowners have a different "last straw" we'll never present the united front that would be necessary to effect change. Instead it would be a piecemeal effort, where this group would balk when this line was crossed, and that group would balk when that line was crossed. Instead, as a group, we'd be like the frog in a pot of water, not realizing we're goners until the water comes to a boil.

You mean like 1934 NFA?
Or perhaps the Gun control act of 1968?
Or the creation of ATF in 1972?
Or the 1990 Crime Control act? (Gun free school zones)
Or the AWB of 1994?
Or the reinstitution of the AWB in 20??

Sure is getting warm in this pot...
Its kind of pleasant though, like a sauna
Are those bubbles?

 

[afsnco]

VitaminG

LMAO!

 

[Gordon Fink]

If the prohibitionists become emboldened and manage to enact some revolutionary change, there might be some resistance, perhaps even effective resistance. However, if they continue to follow their clever incremental strategy, they will achieve almost total victory within a couple more generations.

~G. Fink

 

[Phetro]

Many have nailed it. In the end, we will fail--because we all are holding on to different breaking points--different thresholds at which we would say "No more."

The military has a name for what the social engineers have successfully converted into civil use: Divide and Conquer.

We are divided, and many of us are shameless enough to embrace that, and urge that we tolerate indefinitely the encroaching abuse of law. They urge us to push our thresholds farther and farther into tyranny. They urge us to marginalize those who refuse to do so, calling them extreme, while calling themselves moderate.

We are divided. Soon we will indeed be conquered, unless someone with the knowledge, humility, and charisma will unite us--and unless the rest of us agree to stand with him.

 

[engineer151515]

we have the 2nd amendment to protect our gun rights which are being slowly erroded away

No you don't.

Katrina.

Now go bury a brick of ammo in your backyard.

 

[cmidkiff]

Looks like a good place to recommend John Ross's book 'Unintended Consequences'.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/18...f=pd_bbs_1/104-1924311-7451108?_encoding=UTF8

'Plan B'

 

[Leanwolf]

There is an old, very true saying in the South where I was born and raised. It goes like this.

"Life is hard by the yard, but it's a cinch by the inch."

As stated above, the incrementalism of the destruction of our Rights, proceeds directly along that path.

"Achieving Tyranny is hard by the yard, but it's a cinch by the inch."

L.W.

 

[Sewerman]

Lets all just go ahead and vote for Hilary and Get it started.
speaking metaphorically or hypothetically or whatever, of course.

 

[longeyes]

It's not just us against the antis. Let's not forget the rest of the world. Iran, Al-Qaeda, Mexico, Latin America reds, Katrina's daughters, crazy men with hot backpacks, assorted mini-asteroids, and that landslide on La Palma will no doubt life interesting and alter the political drama.

Inch by inch...until your yardstick gets snapped in half by the unexpected.

 

[Quo Vadis]

Buy lots and lots of VOTE'S

The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.Theodore Roosevelt, Labor Day speech at Syracuse, NY, Sept 7, 1903

A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Mr.V.]

We are divided, and many of us are shameless enough to embrace that, and urge that we tolerate indefinitely the encroaching abuse of law. They urge us to push our thresholds farther and farther into tyranny. They urge us to marginalize those who refuse to do so, calling them extreme, while calling themselves moderate.

Shameless enough to embrace that? Who are you talking about?...who's "they"?

You're doing that conspiratorial thing that weirds people out. Like there's a master plan to conquer America and enslave the masses if only "they" could get rid of the guns.

Gun control advocates aren't part of a master conspiratorial plot. It's very simple. They don't like guns. They don't like violence. They are misguided in thinking that if you ban guns you'll stop these things from happening (something I and many don't believe).

If a person goes shooting up his or her state's elected officials because they pass a 10 round magazine capacity law...then that person is extreme and deserves to be marginalized or, better yet, executed. If you want to lose your gun rights...that's the fastest road. Many of us have families, wives, husbands, children etc and can't go on elected-official killing sprees if our gun rights are infringed a bit.

The best we can do is vote and vote some more, and most importantly get people around us to take up the hobby. If most people don't have guns...most people won't care if "they" take yours.

 

[Quo Vadis]

Nuff already

How much do we have to give up before putting our foot down and saying to uncle sam that enough is enough?.

ALL!!!
By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

http://www.kennedytwins.com/publications.htm

RECLAIMING LIBERTY- We can no longer afford to depend upon incumbent politicians, party hacks, and business-as-usual conservative leaders to defend our personal freedoms. The past one hundred years have been disastrous for constitutional rights in America. Direct and indirect taxation now consume more than 60 percent of our income--we are no longer the land of the free but have become a land of tax serfs. Government interference in our social life has grown from almost nothing in 1900 to almost overwhelming today. Over the past century America’s politicians transformed the U.S.A. from the land of individual liberty and personal accountability to a land of socialist feudalism.
Recognizing that special interests--both liberal and conservative--participating in the spoils of our current government have failed to defend Americans’ personal freedoms, James Ronald Kennedy has issued this call to action. By following these steps, modern Americans can establish a “Liberty-Based Society” and recapture a Jacksonian democracy in which everyone enjoys the rights and prosperity envisioned by our forefathers. Mr. Kennedy presents workable solutions, supported by our original Constitution, to combat runaway taxation, federal interference, welfare abuse, and other current societal ills. He offers historical evidence to support his conviction that all Americans will benefit, grow, and prosper in an audacious new society that encourages personal accountability, self-determinism, and individual ambition.
Any American interested in change can use this grass-roots political method to peacefully and legally overthrow the current liberal/socialist system and replace it with a liberty-based society.

 

[Quo Vadis]

Master Planer

Like there's a master plan to conquer America

Mexico Has a Plan for the U.S. Guess What It Is …
This analysis of the Fox Plan reveals the details and tactics of Mexico's attack on American sovereignty.

The Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska asserted today that Mexico is at this moment recovering territories it lost in the past to the United States thanks to emigration. Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska Caracas, 3 July 2001

The common people - the poor, the dirty, the lice ridden, the cockroaches are advancing on the United States, a country that needs to speak Spanish because it has 33.5 million Hispanics who are imposing their culture. Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska Caracas, 3 July 2001

 

[armedandsafe]

See the signature herein.

Pops

 

[XMP]

A Clarification

Gun confiscation, etc., would be an illegal order made by an enemy of the Constitution, barring a properly voted upon constitutional amendment which nullifies the 2nd Amendment

Gun confiscation would ALWAYS be an illegal order. An inalienable right bestowed by the creator can't be nullified by a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment would, by its very nature, be unconstitutional.

 

[Mr.V.]

By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

Yeah since the freedom of states to enslave people because of the amount of melanin their melanocytes produce is the kind of liberty I'm sad is missing today. Damned Lincoln always creating despotic governments to free black people from the bonds of slavery.

Just in case you didn't catch the irony...until you show me how SLAVERY OF HUMAN BEINGS was better than you having to pay Social Security your argument is beyond failed.