Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i just spend about 45 minutes with a guy who was towing my car. he has a piece of land in upstate new york that he has a bunch of rice, ammunition and guns stores for the end of the world. he gave me a scenario of the railroad (i think he said burlington) not being able to get financing, not paying employees and that stops the delivery of a lot of fuel and other products. that would stop the movement of trucks and deliveries of food, products, fuel, etc. what would have happened in the northeast if they couldnt get gas to stations for weeks?
i just spend about 45 minutes with a guy who was towing my car. he has a piece of land in upstate new york that he has a bunch of rice, ammunition and guns stores for the end of the world. he gave me a scenario of the railroad (i think he said burlington) not being able to get financing, not paying employees and that stops the delivery of a lot of fuel and other products. that would stop the movement of trucks and deliveries of food, products, fuel, etc. what would have happened in the northeast if they couldnt get gas to stations for weeks?
Well since railroads are among the most regulated businesses in the US what actually happens is that the railroad declares they are in trouble. They enter bankruptcy and then end up in receivership and continue operations on Federal money while a merger is worked out. The component pieces of the railroad are split among the healthy operators like BNSF or Union Pacific who absorbs all the tracking, engines, cars and employees of the now defunct railroad. The "railroad going bankrupt" scenario played out many times over the course of the 1970's and 1980's, none of them ended in the collapse of society.
Well since railroads are among the most regulated businesses in the US what actually happens is that the railroad declares they are in trouble. They enter bankruptcy and then end up in receivership and continue operations on Federal money while a merger is worked out. The component pieces of the railroad are split among the healthy operators like BNSF or Union Pacific who absorbs all the tracking, engines, cars and employees of the now defunct railroad. The "railroad going bankrupt" scenario played out many times over the course of the 1970's and 1980's, none of them ended in the collapse of society.
oh its good to know that every possible scenario is fully accounted for and no scenario could ever lead to a situation where anybody would find themselves in trouble and be able to benefit from being able to protect themselves. well, since we know its not the police's job to protect people, i guess that concept is kind of a joke.
i wouldnt really expect someone to be able to come up with the exact scenario, because if they could it is likely to have at least some kind of backup plan to prevent extreme damage. but there are lots of potential things were arent prepared for. some of them we dont know about, some of them may be something we consider but it happens much more extreme than we can handle and maybe some are a combination of things. oh and i dont expect for this scenario to happen in my lifetime or the next. it may take hundreds of years, it may take less. i dont want to make it sound like i expect it any day now. but i do believe its inevitable.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 01-28-2013 at 03:29 PM..
oh its good to know that every possible scenario is fully accounted for and no scenario could ever lead to a situation where anybody would find themselves in trouble and be able to benefit from being able to protect themselves. well, since we know its not the police's job to protect people, i guess that concept is kind of a joke.
i wouldnt really expect someone to be able to come up with the exact scenario, because if they could it is likely to have at least some kind of backup plan to prevent extreme damage. but there are lots of potential things were arent prepared for. some of them we dont know about, some of them may be something we consider but it happens much more extreme than we can handle and maybe some are a combination of things. oh and i dont expect for this scenario to happen in my lifetime or the next. it may take hundreds of years, it may take less. i dont want to make it sound like i expect it any day now. but i do believe its inevitable.
This will just gravitate back into our conversation about possibility and probability. You want to worry about every possibility, have at it, but given the low probability of your concerns I can't accept them as justification for the necessity of owning an arsenal and food supplies as you seem to suggest by even entering these "scenarios" into the conversation. Oh, I NEED to own a gun because society is going to collapse for XYZ reason.
The conversation you had with that gentleman is the kind of stuff survivalists and people rattle off all the time without even thinking about it. Honestly, did you really think that the bankruptcy or shutdown of one rail road would be enough to freeze fuel supplies for the entire northeast for weeks at a time? You are treading into grounds that are basically reserved for the paranoid. Head over to the survivalist forum and you will find dozens of people "prepping" for total societal breakdown. Some of them even go so far as to carry "survival bags" around with them so they can get out of the cities as chaos reigns.
The entertaining thing is asking them exactly what scenario they are "prepping" for. Many of them have a very particular paranoia over a certain perceived problem and it's often fun to watch them argue over whose doomsday scenario is the real one and drive trucks through the holes in each others predictions. The real issue I have with those people isn't that they want to be prepared, but that they actually want it all to come crashing down so they can justify all the effort.
This will just gravitate back into our conversation about possibility and probability. You want to worry about every possibility, have at it, but given the low probability of your concerns I can't accept them as justification for the necessity of owning an arsenal and food supplies as you seem to suggest by even entering these "scenarios" into the conversation. Oh, I NEED to own a gun because society is going to collapse for XYZ reason.
im not asking you to own an "arsenal" (love the use of an exaggeration word), just let others own an "arsenal" if they choose.
its not really about why. the government needs to have proper reason to limit our rights, we dont have to beg our government for rights. so ultimately, i dont think its a bad thing for good people to have guns. whether it be for fun, hunting, self defense or the end of civilization; i am not bothered by them owning an arsenal so i dont see the need for government preventing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.