People who prepare but eschew guns are deceiving themselves. (house, water, good)
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've always been perplexed by those on this forum who talk about storing food and water, having emergency heating and lighting equipment, and in general keep what it takes to continue a relatively normal life in the face of disaster, but they have no guns. Security and defense have always been paramount for humans. Archaeologists discovered a lock four thousand years old near the ancient city of Nineveh. So many weapons have been found dating back tens of thousands of years or longer that they would be impossible to enumerate. We have developed many of our practices genetically as some closely related species share our use of weaponry, e.g., chimpanzees. It has always been normal to have arms and to practice using them.
Yet there are surprising number of people who won't own weaponry. These people can observe that human society is competitive to the point of violence whenever it's evident that there are only enough supplies for some, not all to survive. Are these people so indoctrinated that their reasoning ability has been overwhelmed? That's certainly the best explanation, but it raises another question, to wit: why do they bother supplies that will either be stolen or destroyed in the event of social breakdown? They do this because their sense of needing to do something is still there, but it's emasculated.
This phenomenon is an indication that the irrational overcomes the rational given strong enough brainwashing.As a practical matter, it illustrates the need to isolate children so that government minions in their roles as teachers or preceptors are unable to corrupt them.
It's necessary to know that these people are not survivors, that they should not be emulated, and certainly not admired. We must continually challenge these people. They are the enemy as much as their spiritual cousins who openly oppose preparedness.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,956,572 times
Reputation: 16466
But, but, but... Guns are Bad. Only the police should have guns. The government will protect us, that's why there is FEMA. They won't let anything bad happen, you know like riots and stuff. Only paranoid people have guns. And what about the Children?
Luckily as my gun store owner friend told me, I don't have a gun collection.
Yet there are surprising number of people who won't own weaponry. These people can observe that human society is competitive to the point of violence whenever it's evident that there are only enough supplies for some, not all to survive. Are these people so indoctrinated that their reasoning ability has been overwhelmed?
Yes.
I own guns for one reason, the reason our Founders believed was the most important reason. It has nothing to do with the strong guys who would take the food out of the mouths of my grandchildren. I know who those strong guys are, who the bad guys are, and the Founders' most important reason:
There's a big difference between preparing responsibly with proper firearm planning versus going all gun nut and answering every post with "if you don't have 2,000 guns and 19,485, 871 round of ammunition, you are not really prepared". I believe you are not fully understanding that when a person says they don't need an arsenal the size of the North Korean's Army, that doesn't mean they have any weapons. I know many who have a nice amount of weapons, yet they just don't feel they need to make a big deal over it as if it;s some sign of their manhood.
Now, do we really want to go back to these types of discussions? Isn't this what you were complaining to the moderators about? It seems you're instigating the controversies you claim were ruining SS&P.
My reason for starting this thread wasn't to discuss what sort of guns and ammunition we should have or how many or how much. The latter should never be discussed with any outsider, not even in a hypothetical manner.
My question is, as I said, for those who eschew guns to the point of refusing to have any. There was a sometime poster who lived in NYC who had this opinion. As memory serves, she didn't much care for knives either. We recently had a man from Texas who proudly proclaimed that he had no guns. Based upon his previous posts, that surprised me.
People who have valuable possessions and who are themselves rational take care to provide security for those possessions. There's passive security which includes safes, vaults, alarms, etc. We can include private security guards as well since they act upon orders previously given. Sometimes, however, the bodyguards or facilities guards may not be loyal leading to what's known as an inside job or there may not be any guards. In that case the gun in the householder's pocket may be the only one on the side of the good guys.
It's convenient to delegate responsibilities but often madness to delegate authority. No one knows my security code or even what that security protects. Under no circumstances would I allow another person apart from family to be armed near me when I am not.
It's always enjoyable to comppare the merits of various arms although after at least fifty years I'm really worn out with the 9mm versus .45 wrangle. I'd really like to see an article arguing for or against the .44 Webley (known in Britain as the .442) versus the .41 Long Colt (outside lubed, heeled bullet variety). But I must return to the topic at hand which is understanding the mind of those who are not only opposed to guns but who believe that they may be prepared or self-sufficient in that state. Does anyone having any thoughts besides the obvious that they manage our outlying pantries.
Happy, no way can anyone defend w/out them,I agree.
It is contraindicated to prepping/or being patriotic -- & just let words stand alone or suffice (w/out 2nd amendment rights). How can you "out talk" an opponent, aka, those that'll be riotous (I know already happening but another story...) when SHTF -- & it will no doubt, as its matter of when not if -- anyway you can't sufficiently have any real prepping w/ out food, clothing, shelter -- & self D means.
So, I again agree that this is antithetical to the very doctrine of prepping & thus, those that eschew guns, aren't preppers but really -- wishful thinkers. And... that is not a desired state of being, as again, words will not win these struggles that are most likely lying ahead.
There's a big difference between preparing responsibly with proper firearm planning versus going all gun nut and answering every post with "if you don't have 2,000 guns and 19,485, 871 round of ammunition, you are not really prepared". I believe you are not fully understanding that when a person says they don't need an arsenal the size of the North Korean's Army, that doesn't mean they have any weapons. I know many who have a nice amount of weapons, yet they just don't feel they need to make a big deal over it as if it;s some sign of their manhood.
Now, do we really want to go back to these types of discussions? Isn't this what you were complaining to the moderators about? It seems you're instigating the controversies you claim were ruining SS&P.
Ok, just for the halibut I decided to review your posts and going back to the first of the month nothing gun related. Where did your conclusion come from?
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.
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.
