Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Paxtor (29.67)

Attention Survivalist Nutbags

Recs

39

April 20, 2009 – Comments (64) | RELATED TICKERS: NUT , BA , G

You all seem to reason that times will get tougher and tougher, then society will break down into some kind of Mad Maxian chaos.  And in this chaos you will stand at the gates to your fortified house like some kinda Mel Gibson super-stud gunning down hundreds of attacking, malnurtered guys who used to pick on you in high school.  Hot chicks will flood into your utopian bunker mansion to enjoy the 50 gallon tubs of honey you have stockpiled and take turns sleeping with you.

I really don't think you survivalists have studied history hard enough.  

Here's a more realistic scenario: You will be sitting in your super-sexy bunker, the Gestapo will walk up, knock politely on your door, read your arrest warrant, confiscate your 60 guns and 90,000 rounds of ammunition that you spent your life savings on, and do whatever they want to you.  It doesn't matter how many guns the local nut bag buys, when all of society is up against him.

In the harsh economic times you often describe a government typically INCREASES in size and power. You are far more likely to see a dominant facist gov't seize control than for everything to fall apart into chaos.  Any hardship you endure will be the result of whatever crazy platform this new government adheres to.  If you starve to death there will be nothing you could have done to prevent it (See Bolshevik Russia).  If you're persecuted and executed due to your race, religion etc... there is also nothing you will be able to do to stop it (see Nazi Germany). 

Anway, I think it's far mroe likely that all the paranoid nut bags that buy all the gunsand ammo are more likely to be the cause of the problem.

64 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 20, 2009 at 4:05 PM, bridgeboy0 (99.97) wrote:

Nice related tickers.  I really can't believe how many people on CAPS (read Abitare and his ilk) actually believe that we're going to fall into this chaos scenario.  I'm very glad to see I'm not the only one who doesn't believe the end is near.

Report this comment
#2) On April 20, 2009 at 4:26 PM, MikeBobulinski (< 20) wrote:

ROFLMAO...I couldn't have said it better.  Thank you.  BTW...I agree, the tickers are a great added touch to an already great post.

Report this comment
#3) On April 20, 2009 at 4:32 PM, TMFSinchiruna (53.43) wrote:

Not worthy of a response.

-1 rec

Offensive, insulting, and incredibly judgemental!

 

Report this comment
#4) On April 20, 2009 at 4:54 PM, ClandPhoenix (94.82) wrote:

Not worthy of a response.

-1 rec

Offensive, insulting, and incredibly judgemental!

 - TMFSinchiruna

But if its a spot on retelling of the extreemist bear position then is it not self incriminating on the part of the "nutbags"?

Report this comment
#5) On April 20, 2009 at 5:06 PM, TMFSinchiruna (53.43) wrote:

Oh... I forgot to add 'disingenuous'.

Here is a quote from a Paxtor blog post in January:

"Think about human nature, how long will a recession/depression last before it turns into a war?  Even the mildest of depressions have seen a rise in fascist groups (the 90's recession saw the rise of several neo-nazi groups here in Canada alone).  If the war is a global one, we will not see the sick economic benefits of WW2.  Weapons are a lot more devastating in 2009 vs 1939, single strategic weapons can wipe out a metropolis.  Of course, if it got that bad, only food would be of value!"

Sounds like Paxtor wants my 50 gallon vat of honey after all.

How can people be so flippant about matters so severe? Go ahead and bow down to the facist regime you sound resigned to. You have no right to cast aspersions upon those behaving more rationally than you.

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." - John Adams

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

 

Report this comment
#6) On April 20, 2009 at 5:16 PM, dudemonkey (69.17) wrote:

TMFSinchiruna,

 Maybe it could have been phrased a little more professionally, but his analysis stands up to reason.  Should a widespread social disorder scenario arise, it would be dealt with by a military that has been training for urban warefare for the last 5 years.  Such a scenario would be short, would be dealt with unpleasantly, and the most positive outcome would be martial law. We're actually only a short stone's throw away from fascism according to thinkers like Naomi Wolf and this might push the US government over that edge.

You have to at least concede that Paxtor MAY be correct in his assessment that these people are more likely to be part of the problem than the solution.

Report this comment
#7) On April 20, 2009 at 5:18 PM, RonChapmanJr (99.72) wrote:

-1 rec.

It is far better to have and not need than to need and not have. 

Some of us "survivalist" aren't nutbags, just people that see value in being prepared for anything. 

If you don't want to prepare, that's fine, but does it really bother you that I am storing up supplies?

Report this comment
#8) On April 20, 2009 at 5:32 PM, tonester2k (< 20) wrote:

"See Nazi Germany, Gestapo"

 Dead.

 "See Bolshevik Russia"

 Dead.

 Unprotected sheeple?

Also dead, unfortunately.

A few handy weapons and the bravery to use them in a situation like you describe, tyranny, tree of liberty, etc?

 Priceless. 

Report this comment
#9) On April 20, 2009 at 5:34 PM, bullnada (< 20) wrote:

Pax,

 What is wrong with being able to survive on your own ? Hunt, fish, farm, Find water?  I feel sorry for people who think it is not possible to have a hickup in the system which could cause panic..When your plastic cards dont work or your atm has no cash what are you going to do??? Learn to survive??No you will panic and hope to find someone like myself who will gladly help. Have a great day all its not that bad.

Report this comment
#10) On April 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM, TMFSinchiruna (53.43) wrote:

ClandPhoenix

I'm afraid you'll have to confirm the existence of something called an "extremist bear position" before that reply likewise deserves a gentlemanly reply.

In case you haven't followed the events of the last year, it requires nothing even remotely close to "extreme" to conclude that some measure of systemic risk has and continues to exist in the current financial system. These risks are observable through wholly rational analysis based upon empirical evidence.

I have made preparations for the possibility of interrupted services or availablility of food, etc., but will utilize the weapons of logic and reason to quash any attempts here to stereotype those taking precautions with unnecessary insults and un-CAPS-like ridiculing during a time in our history when understanding and compassion are particularly critical.

 

 

Report this comment
#11) On April 20, 2009 at 5:51 PM, TMFSinchiruna (53.43) wrote:

dudemonkey

I'll concede no such thing, my friend. Again, let's hope we never get to that point where martial law and tyranny are employed to quash widespread dissent, but if that occurs I believe the voice of the people will be the only voice worth listening to.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can excercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

 

Report this comment
#12) On April 20, 2009 at 5:56 PM, SARG0N (28.20) wrote:

RonChapmanJr

"If you don't want to prepare, that's fine, but does it really bother you that I am storing up supplies?"

In the same way it bothers some people when others save and invest for a rainy day, while they themselves are mired hopelessly in debt. What’s the worst thing that can happen to the saver?  They can retire early? The worst thing that can happen to the “nut bag” who keeps a larger supply of needed things is that they won’t have to go to the store as often. Growing up I remember the fire department came to our school and taught us to prepare and keep supplies of certain things in the even of an earthquake or other natural disaster. It seems like a very reasonable concept to me.

 

 

 

Report this comment
#13) On April 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM, eldemonio (99.14) wrote:

So, if I can't rely on luring the sexy ladies with honey, what would you all suggest?

Report this comment
#14) On April 20, 2009 at 6:05 PM, SARG0N (28.20) wrote:

However, it is extremely unlikely that America will deteriorate into chaos like in Argentina. I also agree that owning 60 guns is rather pointless unless you plan on selling them for a profit.

Report this comment
#15) On April 20, 2009 at 6:17 PM, whereaminow (90.94) wrote:

I feel like I just got shouted at by a New York deli owner:

"Hey yo, nut bag! You gonna order this pastrami fuckin sandwich or you gonna fuckin stare it all day?"

But maybe Paxtor's on to something here.  I can still knock a bad guy off his camel from 500 yards away with an M-16, but I prefer the shotgun.  It's much better for home defense.

That's what it's about for most of us.  In a time of civil unrest, I'm not going to stop a totalitarian government.  There is no plan for that.  Maybe I can try to get in shape real fast, put on my dress blues and pretend I'm a company man.  But political chaos breeds civil chaos.  You'll want a shotgun in a time of civil unrest. 

Hopefully, it'll never come to that.  Even so, crime is a part of American society. If you know how to use and safeguard a shotgun, you should own one.  Keeping your family safe should always be your number one priority. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#16) On April 20, 2009 at 6:24 PM, jszoke01 (28.30) wrote:

Something tells me that all of those guns being sold to the public may not be given up to a polite knock on the door.  If you think the educated, well written, cogent people on CAPS are nutbags, I urge you to go to your next local gun show to see who's actually doing the stockpiling.  Some people do take the Constitution (and personal protection) very seriously, and I have little doubt that any attempt to confiscate of the arms that we are rightfully entitled to have will result in something unpleasant. 

And as far as defending ourselves against soldiers trained in urban warfare, I think you need to realize that this is not an invading foreign army that will be given the assignment of suppressing the masses, it will be 19-25 year old American kids.  And I'd love to see the reaction of any elected official's face that sees Joe from Main Street get gunned down on CNN while protecting his personal property. 

Report this comment
#17) On April 20, 2009 at 6:34 PM, ClandPhoenix (94.82) wrote:

I personally do not care how many guns, pounds of food etc... anyone wants to store in their honey filled basement. Those people do need to realize though that when you take to the street screaming the sky is falling you get treated like everyone else who has ever done that. Also owning a gun as a means of self preservation is an untenable argument statistically.

Report this comment
#18) On April 20, 2009 at 6:50 PM, GeneralDemon (75.87) wrote:

I have never forgotten a photo image taken during WWII. A small village's worth of people forced into a barn. The Nazi scum then locked it up and set it on fire. People quickly tried to hand dig their way out under the exterior walls, only to get shot by the guards on the outside.

Fast forward to the LA Riots, the police actually retreat in fear - while people are pulled out of their cars and beaten to death on live TV.

And... we are nuts?

Report this comment
#19) On April 20, 2009 at 6:53 PM, ClandPhoenix (94.82) wrote:

Support for gun comment -

http://www.lcav.org/resources/gun_violence_statistics.asp

Yes you have the right to own a gun. No I am not an anti-gun nazi. The statistics do not back up the "gun for protection" argument though.

Also the "But I am not like those tards I know what I am doing." argument sounds very familiar to the "I can drive after three or four beers I have a higher tollerance."

Report this comment
#20) On April 20, 2009 at 6:59 PM, soycapital (62.67) wrote:

I don't have any vats of honey but I've got my honey (wife of 35 years), a shotgun, the goat, turnip patch, and some smarts. Am I prepared? Be careful where your thoughts rest!

Dave

Report this comment
#21) On April 20, 2009 at 7:16 PM, TMFSinchiruna (53.43) wrote:

ClandPhoenix

The site you linked to is hardly objective, being on a mission to ban gun ownership. Let's try an alternate discussion of the available statistics:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

Report this comment
#22) On April 20, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Donnernv (< 20) wrote:

I own guns.  I do so because I believe that there is a small chance of civilian unrest.  Not an organized revolt.  Just a few nut cases who feel they have been screwed somehow by the system, and decide to seek redress from me.

When (if) one or two appear at my door or window seeking to get "even" using force, I shall defend my family.  I'd hate to ever shoot a human.  But if push comes to shove, I shall defend my family.

As stated often, I'd rather have and not need than to need and not have.  No help against a malicious state, but a damned good defense against one or two nut jobs.

 

Report this comment
#23) On April 20, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Harold71 (57.69) wrote:

Just a few nut cases who feel they have been screwed somehow by the system

You'd have to be a nut case if you don't realize that you are being screwed by this system.

It doesn't matter how many guns the local nut bag buys, when all of society is up against him.

And what happens when it is "all of society" buying the guns and ammo?  Who is "normal" and who is the "nutbag" in this scenario?  If someone buys a gun and has a stored food supply, I call them smart.  There is literally a nation-wide shortage of ammo and several types of guns.  I do refuse to buy ammo at these gouging prices.  A $200 case of ammo last year is now $340??   I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Online dealers can't keep ammo in stock for more than a day or two.  Must be just a few nutbags...a few million and growing it appears.

Report this comment
#24) On April 20, 2009 at 8:34 PM, whereaminow (90.94) wrote:

Australian Gun Ban.

Here is the most pro-government analysis of the Australian Gun Ban.  After 94% of gun owning Australians were disarmed, the best the government can say is that statistics at least indicate a plateau in the amount of crime.

That's one way to look at it.  Another way is to say that you spent millions of dollars, invaded the property rights of 94% of your population, and you accomplished nothing.

An even worse way to say it is to admit that crime has continued to rise dramatically since the ban, and that gun ownership has absolutely nothing to do with the overall level of crime in a society.

As they usually do if you examine them critically, the government statistics make the case for liberty.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#25) On April 20, 2009 at 8:52 PM, OtherOracleOfOMA (98.51) wrote:

While I share your contempt for the proto-fascist right-libertarian fringe, I do think they have some valid points about the current state of the economy - or what's left of it. The problem is that very few people have any realistic conception as to the nature of the current crisis, stuck as the modern pseudo-economics profession is in its post-modern fantasy world of monetary aggregates and the like.

Now, getting back to the free-market utopians, they're about 75% wrong in their diagnosis of the causes of current breakdown crisis of the physical economy, and 99% wrong in their proposed "solutions" - which, invariably, amount to nothing more than insistence upon further subsidization of the fictitious paper asset values of the parasitic oligarchy vis-à-vis radical Schachtian austerity measures.

So, yeah... in my view, it's basically a toss-up as to which will cause more problems and suffering: the physical breakdown of the economy, or the rise of the deluded yet heavily armed Reich Wing anti-government fringe groups.

Report this comment
#26) On April 20, 2009 at 9:03 PM, whereaminow (90.94) wrote:

And 94% of the time you pull 32% of statistics out of your backside to augment your weak position.  That aside from the 76.8% of the time you confuse the definition of fascism.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#27) On April 20, 2009 at 9:09 PM, whereaminow (90.94) wrote:

I don't mean to be so hard on you, but you basically sprayed diarrhea on the keyboad, threw in a couple of deragotory terms, confused the definition of two political theories in one conjunction and then patted yourself on the back for job well done.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#28) On April 20, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Paxtor (29.67) wrote:

"TMFSinchiruna

Not worthy of a response.

-1 rec

Offensive, insulting, and incredibly judgemental!"

 

Then he proceeds to respond at length with research...lol

Report this comment
#29) On April 20, 2009 at 10:28 PM, TMFSinchiruna (53.43) wrote:

Paxtor

That's your response... really?

 

Report this comment
#30) On April 20, 2009 at 10:32 PM, bullnada (< 20) wrote:

Paxtor,

In your relistic scenario when the gestapo comes knockin. Are you going to call the police? Maybe give them your wife and kids?

Report this comment
#31) On April 20, 2009 at 10:54 PM, whereaminow (90.94) wrote:

This has to be one of my favorite threads of all time. 

Paxtor's supporters appear to think that Libertarians, whose core philosophy is the Non-Aggression Principle, are going to kill us all by morphing into a Fourth Reich-esque form of Fascism, even though Hitler was the head of a Socialist Party (and all Three Reichs were Socialist governments), ushering in an era of free markets that will destroy the environment led by William Wallace, even though the U.S. government is the world's #1 polluter (or China's depending on whom you believe), and bring about the end of humanity. Furthermore, even though most Information Technology employees are Libertarians, we will shun our computers and programs and networking since we wish to turn back the clock to the glory days, choosing instead to live like the cast of Braveheart, running into the hills to avoid the invading army of the evil King Barack the Longshanks and his policy of premier nocte.

And we're the paranoid nutjobs. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#32) On April 20, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Paxtor (29.67) wrote:

TMFSinchiruna

"lol, Paxtor, nice comeback! "

Seriously though man, you got me.  

I'm going to go out and buy 100 grand worth of gold, 60 guns and then wait to gun down the emaciated hordes.  Then you, me and alstry can all post I told you sos on CAPS until the hordes storm the building where they make the internet.

Man, you won't be able to wipe the smirk of smug self satisfaction off my face when I'm right and everyone dies except me and my case of 60,000 ramen noodle dinners.

 

Report this comment
#33) On April 20, 2009 at 11:09 PM, russiangambit (29.90) wrote:

Such a lively discussion here -)). Paxtor, the only reason you don't beleive in a possible meltdown is because you never experienced one. The same could be said about the majority of the US population in general. But even if you go back to 60s, 70s and 80s, they weren't all that nice. People's memory is short. The last 20 gilded years of unrivaled prosperity wiped out the memories of hardship. However, once you experience it , you'll never forget. If this recession last just a year longer, americans will not be the same.

I personally don't beleive in civil unrest. But I know that we are not going to return to the prosperity any time soon. I picture abandoned strip malls, abandoned neighbourhoods buldozed over, smaller cars, smaller houses, expensive electricty, expensive water. Those 60000 ramen noodles might come handy in such environment. Actually, that is what I ate for a couple of years while I was a student.

Report this comment
#34) On April 20, 2009 at 11:25 PM, GeneralDemon (75.87) wrote:

I found the photo - ****warning Nazi atrocity - do not click if you don't want to see what the worst in human endeavor.

Slave laborers burned alive (or shot trying to flee).

And this happened less than one lifetime ago.

I think it would be better to die defending your home than have some local punk in charge decide how you'll suffer.

 

Report this comment
#35) On April 21, 2009 at 2:13 AM, ralphmachio (27.99) wrote:

So, you're losing at chess, but instead of taking your opponents men until you are in check-mate, or your opponent makes an error, you just quit? Huh Sally? Those Jews that were emaciated and pathetic awaiting their death could have been armed, and brave, and free if they had foresight. they could have died defending themselves in their own homes, rather than systematically by their government, in ovens. It is a shame that people want to lever this thing left or right. Libertarian=liberty=freedom=right to bear arms. Anyone concerned at all about their freedom should be ready to defend it, therefore a liberal should be armed to the tits right now. The ability of some people to turn black into white is insane. Patriot act? It's the antithesis of patriotic. Republicans are for states rights? Limited government? Not lately. But you keep eating up this drivel. There is no right or left, silly. Just like there is no easter bunny, and the WWF is fake. It's meant to fool a few, but really, you guys are supposed to be smart!

Report this comment
#36) On April 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM, abitare (99.70) wrote:

Paxtor,

Normally, I do not talk to Nov 08 rebirths, about complex issues they are to young or niave and/or to dumb to understand. But you have some good responses, so I figured I would address the masses here on your "cry for help" / post.

ALCON,

The real issue for me is wealth and income protection. How do you protect your wealth and livelyhood it this new era going forward where all the nation states are destroying their currencies and a greater war appears looming.

In my view there are going to be opportuniities here. The gun and ammo market is just the most recent, we/I have found. So I am with alstry, "do not fear prepare mantra". I think/know Americans will be arming up, it is in repsonse to politics now and economics later. Plus, ammo made of brass cassings has an intrisic value is storable for decades, and it can be sold or bartered. Most Americans will be buying guns and ammo in the next couple years, reguardless of what names a Nov 08 rebirths reserve for them, IMHO. 

The velocity of the "change" has overwhelmed many. I understand it is hard to keep up what is going on, when there is such misinformation pumped into the media.

I am aligned with Marc Faber, here:

 

Remember: Marc Faber "in theory it can be reversed, but I doubt it will be" Report this comment
#37) On April 21, 2009 at 8:21 AM, abitare (99.70) wrote:

Also, I might add, people that are reading/following us so called "Survivalist Nutbags" may recognize that. I did not get taken out in the Nov 08 collapse, like you?. I did not get taken out when the commodity bubble popped. I survived the "B.R.I.C. story". I survived the housing, retail, commercial real estate implosion. I said I loved SKF and it went up 100%. I was "Long SWHC" it has gone up a 100% too.

I was #1 in points until Fool locked my account for 3 weeks. abitarePERFECT has the #1 patch and he did not get it off pink sheets. 

So if I am the "nutbag" I recommend you get nutty too, so that you don't have to recreate another account at the next sell off. I am glad you/the masses may not buy into the gun/ammo story. 

I have seen Fools like you come and go over the last two years who did not "get it" at the time, but "got it" after the facts had played out.

Again quote me "you will not be able to get ammo in 6 months". I am guessing the mass/you will "get it" after the facts have played out. I maybe wrong, I have been wrong before.

 

Report this comment
#38) On April 21, 2009 at 8:47 AM, TMFSinchiruna (53.43) wrote:

whereaminow

You win for best response to this thread with comment #31, by a huge margin! :) Nicely stated!!

Paxtor

Glad to hear this thread woke you up. :)

In all seriousness, though, quote like this one indicate that you're really nowhere close to understanding where I'm coming from:

"you won't be able to wipe the smirk of smug self satisfaction off my face when I'm right and everyone dies except me and my case of 60,000 ramen noodle dinners"

If you think I am looking forward or in any way excited about the events transpiring or the potential roads ahead, you are 100% mistaken. I have expressed my feelings on this topic many times before here, about my deep sense of despair over what the bankers and the politicians have done to our great nation. I am a compassionate human being with grave concern for my fellow Americans. I wish you'd stop making light of it with an air of ridicule... it's quite unbecoming.

Report this comment
#39) On April 21, 2009 at 9:41 AM, madcowmonkey (< 20) wrote:

eld - So, if I can't rely on luring the sexy ladies with honey, what would you all suggest?

About 200 cases of Reddi Whip should wear you out and draw their attention. Plus, you could always reenact the seen from Goonies when Chunk says he is so depressed. That always seems to work for me at parties. It lets the ladies know exactly what is on your mind. In fact it might be better than honey......sometimes you are done before the honey comes off......if you do it correctly.

as to the post.

I still agree that food is the most important thing in this hypothetical situation. I couldn't imagine my fat ass lasting 3 days without some type of red meat or tasty pasta dish. I guess the guns would be useful for hunting, but I don't eat people, so I wouldn't really get off imagining shooting people in the future.

Report this comment
#40) On April 21, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Paxtor (29.67) wrote:

I don't know where some of you guys get the idea that I don't think that this recession will get much worse.  My point was simply this: bad ECONOMIC times don't lead to Mad Max scenarios, they lead to dictatorships.

Fortifying your house will do nothing to protect you or your family.  All I could see it doing, potentially, is making you a target.  I'm just mocking all the internet tough guys who think they will fight off the masses and become some kind of feudal lord.  You seem to forget how easy it would be for anyone who is determined to flush you from your house.  One person with a pack of matches and some gasoline could do it.

I had no idea this post would draw out all the people who "dont usually respond to this kind of idiocy", but then always respond to it.

albitare

You're so far off base as to my opinions.  I've never argued against ammunition being a good investment.  I made 200% on SWHC (I wish i had held on for more).  I even did a post about it.  However, the only reason it IS a good investment, is all the nutbags who buy it thinking their lives are finally going to have some meaning in the apocalypse

Report this comment
#41) On April 21, 2009 at 10:21 AM, SharpSEO (76.88) wrote:

-1 rec. Sinchura summed up why this post is nonsense.

David in Qatar, Abitaire, and Ronchapman's points are also good ones.

Report this comment
#42) On April 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM, ClandPhoenix (94.82) wrote:

Gun issue

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS), WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2005 (2008)

The site itself maybe biased but the source of the information is pretty solid. The harmful issue to the gun for defense argument is not incidents of guns used for defense vs guns used to commit crimes it is guns used for defense vs accidental death and homicide of a known person.

Once again... own all the guns you want I dont care its your right. Just don't spew nonsense about guns having an empirical positive net effect in the risk/reward tradeoff of personal saftey.

Report this comment
#43) On April 21, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Hoglum (92.09) wrote:

"You seem to forget how easy it would be for anyone who is determined to flush you from your house.  One person with a pack of matches and some gasoline could do it. "

This is slightly more difficult when you have a couple bullets firmly lodged in you heart.

Report this comment
#44) On April 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

Paxtor - great post, 1 rec!

I think that the responses by several gun totting, "survivalists" prove that your nutbag theory has merit.

For the record, Marc Faber is a moron!

I have also learnt that it is useless using FACTS in an attempt to prove to gun slinging yip-yars that societies where its citizens are allowed to arm themselves with firearms and very little control, are more dangerous to live in. The opposite situation proves this - ie societies where gun ownership is low among its citizens due to strict gun laws, are far safer. They lack the ability to see FACTS, because they want to own a gun and will go to great lengths to try to convince themselves that this is ok. And therfore, it must be ok for the rest of society. Nutjobs, nutjobs, unintelligent nut jobs!!

Report this comment
#45) On April 21, 2009 at 1:27 PM, whereaminow (90.94) wrote:

ROFL @ drummnutt.  Was that supposed to be satire?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#46) On April 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM, vtBrunson (48.78) wrote:

Pax,

Enjoy your posts and comments (often they are laugh out loud funny)...and I'm assuming you achieved your goal of "getting a rise out of people".  Didn't realize you were in the business of getting people to take this seriously... (rebuttals are negative funny)... But I guess there is no middle ground here... you are either:

A) a gun owner and has some sense of how to survive in the event of a disaster...and therefore a neo-facist-anti-government-nutbag

B) a highily enlighted pragmatist (better smarter faster than the other "nutjobs)

The thing about disasters is, they come in all shapes and sizes, so, lets assume that all is well and the government continues to operate and everything runs smoothly.... But anything can happen:

Another Katrina type natural disaster could strike your area...or... you could live in an area that have mass rioting (a la Rodney King)...or...Something new and completely unexpected happens (i.e. a viral outbreak/Zombie Apocalypse etc.)

...Probably wouldn't hurt to have some supplies handy and some protection (I'm not saying minigun with 10,000 rounds here)... You have insurance? right, same concept...If owning a gun and some MRE's gives you peace of mind, isn't that worth something? 

 

Report this comment
#47) On April 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM, farmnut1985 (38.65) wrote:

drummnutt, show me the facts that proves your point, and I want good facts, not some anti-gun website.  I am personally not a big fan of the sale of the assault rifles, but I don't have a problem with it for the fact that all the people I know who have purchased them are good law abiding people who would not do anything to violate laws to get them taken away.  The problem is if you take away everyones guns, and you will only get the registered ones, and the people who shouldn't have them, aka criminals, will still find a way to get them.  Our current system is flawed, but it is better than stripping the rights of the public to bear arms because all the wrong people will still possess firearms. 

 

Report this comment
#48) On April 21, 2009 at 1:48 PM, vtBrunson (48.78) wrote:

...And don't forget Robot Insurance...Only $4/month, how can you go wrong?

Report this comment
#49) On April 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM, jstegma (30.12) wrote:

Might not be worthy of a response, but maybe 7 or 8 responses, eh Sinchy?

I guess I'd say if the shoe fits, wear it.

I agree that the Mad Max types are missing something in their silly fantasies - like reality.  But if that's what does it for you, take your guns and your spam and your gold and your tube of lube in the bathroom and have at it.

Report this comment
#50) On April 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM, bridgeboy0 (99.97) wrote:

ClandPhoenix

"The harmful issue to the gun for defense argument is not incidents of guns used for defense vs guns used to commit crimes it is guns used for defense vs accidental death and homicide of a known person.

Once again... own all the guns you want I dont care its your right. Just don't spew nonsense about guns having an empirical positive net effect in the risk/reward tradeoff of personal saftey."

Well said!  I haven't seen anyone mentioning the idea that keeping a huge stockpile of guns/ammo in your home besides being fraught with danger from accident also makes it more likely that real criminals will break into your house (I'm not talking about during an apocalypse scenario but just everyday living) and you've now equipped criminals with all kinds of goodies with which they can do real harm on society. 

Of course, I'm sure the 'survivalists' have much better security than gun stores, so the rest of us have nothing to worry about.

I don't think anyone needs 60 guns and 20k rounds and I do think it MAY cause problems for society as a whole.  But I have no problem with people having guns for protection and preparing themselves.  But, just because people have a right to do so, does not mean that SOME people go too far with things.

Btw, when did the original poster claim that any of YOU were nutbags?  Yet, several people here seem to take personal offense.  Is the problem with the poster or is the problem with you?  Why do you identify yourselves as survivalist nutbags and not just survivalists?

Report this comment
#51) On April 21, 2009 at 3:12 PM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

...and don't forget the alarm clock set for the year 2058. Might be worth poking your head out by then for a peak! lol!

Report this comment
#52) On April 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, TMFSinchiruna (53.43) wrote:

Except for one regrettable post, I respect and tolerate the disparate views of fellow CAPS members, and do not seek to insult nor ridicule fellow members on the basis of those opinions.  I don't post tirades against those who eschew gold or consider survival preparations misguided. Rather, I post research and analysis that often explains why I consider such preparations important, in the hopes of promoting dialogue and helping fellow community members to protect themselves from harm... financial or otherwise. 

For some reason, though, the same cannot be said for the few posters who continue to find entertainment in ridiculing and insulting those who do consider preparations a rational response to the present predicament. Although I am not a "nutbag", nor do I claim to know what is intended by the term "survivalist" [don't we all want to survive?], I am well aware of the judgements made by many towards one like me who is preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. jstegma, I find it wholly consistent that you should respond in the way you did, given your last foray into casting aspersions upon your fellow Fools. Why the need to attack and ridicule?

It's true, the post was not worthy of a response, though I chose to respond anyway. Those two facts are not mutually exclusive. I am endeavoring to provide a voice of reason in response to an irrational set of assumptions and false characterizations about Fools like me who find value in preparing. Is it not obvious that just because I do not own 60 guns nor live in a bunker, that this post nonetheless is offensive to all who are concerned about potential future scenarios and act accordingly?

Speaking for myself here, as I've said before, perceiving even the risk of events that would make the ability to defend oneself or fend for oneself necessary is burden enough for a Fool to bear without having to constantly fend off warrantless aspersions from those who make other sorts of choices. The reason I consider it so important to respond is because someone needs to point out what is being done here... posts like this are like adding insult to injury. Instead of showing compassion for those who already feel the weight of concern for the future by trying to understand what they're going through, this post uses ridicule in an attempt to further marginalize that portion of this community. The intention is inherently negative toward a large swath of community members.

By contrast, I show you compassion. I seek to engage in dialogue with you about these topics in hopes that you will protect yourself, for example, with some exposure to precious metals in the case of the ongoing currency crisis. If you should choose not to do so, I will not attack nor ridicule you, but instead will hope that you will be well in the event of a catastrophe of some sort. In any event, I respect your decisions, and ask only in return that you respect mine. I harbor no ill will nor aggression toward those who come to other conclusions than myself, but when posts like this perpetuate both a tenor of maliciousness and a profound misunderstanding toward a large and growing demographic, it is my duty as an educated and rational individual to try to raise the debate to a higher level. I encourage all those who find this post and others like it hilarious or otherwise satisfying to look inward with a question: "why do I derive pleasure from the ridiculing of this group of fellow human beings?". If we are all to survive and thrive as a society, compassion and mutual respect will have to be part of the solution.

I'll close, once again, with an excerpt from my blog post of December 2007, entitled "Gilded Christmas Wishes for my Fellow Americans":

And so, I urge you to take a fresh look at gold and silver, because though it may seem counter-intuitive to purchase more at these historically high levels, the circumstances at play here are purely unprecedented and collectively create a very compelling case for the prices of gold and silver.  I am concerned for my fellow Americans as we head into this Christmas season.  I think we stand on the verge of a horrible economic collapse, and I worry for those who are not prepared... for those who are mired in debt, or perhaps purchasing homes because they think the housing market couldn't possibly get worse from here, or spending more than they can afford for Christmas just as the rug is about to be swept out from beneath them. 

My Christmas wish?:  that Americans will spend their Christmas budgets on food, water, and other emergency supplies to care for their families when distribution networks are disrupted by the economic tsunami ahead; that they will shift to much greater proportions of energy and precious metals equities within their investment portfolios, and that they will each purchase a small amount of physical gold to hold for all time.  And my New Years' wish?:  that we will all remember to be kind to each other when the chips are down.  I think we will all encounter challenges like we've never before faced (as individuals and as a nation), and I sincerely hope that we can all find that deepest well of humanity within us, and work together as brethren and countrymen through the crisis.  May peace and prosperity abound, but failing that, may humanity and liberty endure forever!

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#53) On April 22, 2009 at 12:50 AM, tonester2k (< 20) wrote:

Let me add one final note.

 I own 1 assault rifle, 1 shotgun and 3 semiautomic pistols. with several very large boxes of ammo per weapon. I am still below the price i paid for GM stocks @ 4 bucks or so at a 1,000 shares on spec. (ooops).

Just for fun, I get to go out and play at the shooting range (kinda like the midway carny booths but cheaper) and that's a pretty fun time for me and the family.

I also own 400 acres of land in the middle of some nice, fertile area (NOT desert!) for less than a lot of people would pay for an initial offering on the latest "hot thing" and sitting in the middle of it, with my "toys" and some pretty savvy investments, and a few good friends, I feel pretty damn good after reading these replies!

Good luck kiddies! If ya get real scared, I'll share my Slim-Jim with ya for a price....

[smile!!!!]

 Cheers, T 

Report this comment
#54) On April 22, 2009 at 8:04 AM, drummnutt (< 20) wrote:

The main point on the gun issue is this:

Even IF the worst case scenario happens (worse than Great Depression), why are there so many Americans who feel that they have to resort to violence (use of guns)?

Answer: Americans have always spoken of loving their neighbour, but all the time, have been afraid of their neighbour!

Report this comment
#55) On April 22, 2009 at 8:50 AM, jstegma (30.12) wrote:

Sinchy,

You have a tendency to say "not worthy of a response" and the proceed to write many long and involved responses to something you've deemed "not worthy".  That's hypocritical nonsense.  My suggestion would be to skip the "not worthy" comments and just move on to attacking the actual ideas in the post that you don't like. 

When someone bashes an idea you like, that's not some personal attack.  Like I say, if the shoe fits, wear it.  If it doesn't, then quit whining about the post or comment.

It's pathetic that you pop up on people's posts claiming to be offended when "survivalist nutbags" get bashed.  You know, you really are an interesting character though.  I guess when I think of survivalist nutbags I think of white supremacists and other right-wing weirdos, but now we have one with a "politically correct thought police" side.  

Saying someone can't bash survivalist nutbags with Mad Max fantasies is pure political correctness.  After all, they're people too. 

Report this comment
#56) On April 22, 2009 at 9:15 AM, BullMktAg (< 20) wrote:

David in Qatar -

Why do you advertise that you're in Qatar?

Report this comment
#57) On April 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, TMFSinchiruna (53.43) wrote:

jstegma

I clearly explained my reasons for responding, despite the base nature of the post, in my prior comment. There is nothing hypocritical about it.

This blog post was not about "bashing an idea I like", it was about insulting a demographic of this community through intentional inference. Rather than sit there and tell me I shouldn't be offended if i don't consider myself a survivalist nutbag, why don't you address the more relevant question I posed above about finding entertainment in insulting and ridiculing others for their opinions or beliefs. 

My defense of those making preparations had nothing to do with political correctness nor thought police, since we are all free to express our opinions here ad infinitum. The purpose was to promote a level of decency and mutual respect that was lacking in the post and in your post referenced earlier. If you think I seek to censor opinions then you continue to misunderstand me in very fundamental ways. CAPS is a phenomenal community precisely because of the respect and cordial behavior which prevails here. As I've said to you before, If you believe that insults and ridicule are key elements of valuable financial dialogue, then I suggest you take it to the Yahoo boards, because the vast majority here prefers the prevailing sense of decorum that makes this such a great site to be a part of.

Report this comment
#58) On April 22, 2009 at 1:49 PM, bridgeboy0 (99.97) wrote:

 TMFSinchiruna

"The purpose was to promote a level of decency and mutual respect that was lacking in the post and in your post referenced earlier."

What if I don't respect the people who are preparing for the Mad Max scenario?  I know this isn't politically correct.  I am not talking about people who take practical steps in preparing themselves for emergency situations.  I'm talking about NUTJOBS who think that he who owns the most guns/ammo is going to come out of the apocalypse that is about to happen scathed/unscathed or otherwise.

Also, can ANYONE explain to me why people who think society is about to cave in upon itself is worried about investing for the future?  I'm at a loss to explain this.  I think there has to be some kind of a disconnect in such a person's thought processes.  They seem drawn to CAPS for some reason and I don't have the foggiest notion why.

Report this comment
#59) On April 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM, TMFSinchiruna (53.43) wrote:

bridgeboy0

Then take it off CAPS and voice your disrespect elsewhere. Since it was posted on CAPS, the post clearly targeted some CAPS members. Since I doubt that we have any members who match the description provided, the obvious inference is toward more moderate members of a similar mindset.

As the one who made it personal with a reference to Abit in comment #1, I would invite you also to reconsider the difference between expressing an opinion about an acitivity or mindset and slinging insults and aspersions upon fellow community members.

Your last paragraph above is inane. Simply because you don't understand nor agree there must be something wrong with their thought processes? That's scary logic, and not indicative of open-mindedness nor intellectual curiosity. 

Why not ask someone that question with a more respectful tone, and you may just get an answer that enlightens you a bit. We're here to learn from each other, are we not?

Geez!

Report this comment
#60) On April 22, 2009 at 2:40 PM, bridgeboy0 (99.97) wrote:

TMFSinchiruna

Did you read my last paragraph?  You're presuming that I haven't thought about it from the nutbag's perspective and you're wrong.

Premise 1: The world is going to hell in a handbag and I need to prepare myself and my family for an apocalyptic scenario before it is too late (ie I won't be able to buy my 50th gun next week because of x, y and z).

Fact: I'm still interested in investing and hang out on CAPS to get ideas to improve my net worth or , even though there will be no way for me to claim or use my money that I gain from investing.

That looks like it flows logically to you?  You don't see a disconnect there??

Report this comment
#61) On April 22, 2009 at 2:48 PM, catoismymotor (78.19) wrote:

I have never agreed more, laughed more or become more irritated with a blog and following entries than with this one. Well done, everybody!

Report this comment
#62) On April 22, 2009 at 5:43 PM, TMFSinchiruna (53.43) wrote:

bridgeboy0

Since you ask, I see no disconnect there whatsoever, and I will try to explain what I mean from a non-'nutbag' point of view. :)

The future is never set in stone, nor can it be reliably predicted with regularity nor specificity by anyone. When I prepare for potential scenarios by purchasing emergency supplies, food, or means of self-defence and self-preservation like the example you mention, I am not necessarily doing so because I am 'convinced' that a "Mad Max" scenario is inevitable. I can envision dozens of potential scenarios where my future safety could be placed at risk by a confluence of events touched off in part by this financial crisis and related consequences. In the same breath, I should concede that many potential scenarios might include no events that would place my safety at risk. In that event, as I've stated elsewhere, the worst that could happen would be I have some nice canned goods to deliver to a local shelter. :)

An all-out Mad Max scenario, as everyone seems so fond of referencing here, lies on the other extreme end of the spectrum. It is just one possibility among many... and we'd better all hope that that one never plays out. Because we live in a nuclear age, I do not see a superpower reaching Mad Max status without a fight, and so full-scale global warfare could be a likely precursor. I hope with every fiber of my being that it never comes to that. Ever since I can remember learning about nukes as a kid and what they were capable of, and especially later in life after working in a professional capacity going through documents relating to the human health impacts of nuclear exposure, I remain concerned that their very existence makes their eventual return to use increasingly likely with every passing generation. That is a matter of human nature and statistical probabilities at a basic level. Over the course of my life, my perception of the degree of risk that such events could befall my generation has been fluid, and in the context of this economic collapse that concern is heightened at least somewhat. Do I think Mad Max is in our future... no. I operate under the assumption that it is not, but I simultaneously perceive at least some risk that it could, and when that perceived risk increases as in a time of shifting balances of power, etc., then my instinct to make some basic preparations for that scenario also is activated. I'm a pragmatist to the core.

Because I believe that remains an unlikely potential outcome of the present crisis, I continue to invest in equities. :)

Now, with that extreme scenario out of the way, let's move to some far more likely possibilities. How about a stagflationary scenario where the purchasing power of the USD becomes so eroded over time that people can ill-afford to feed or otherwise care for themselves adequately and turn to crime as a result? While similarly depressing to envision as the "Mad Max" case, I believe something along these lines is entirely plausible. This is much more like what I envision while purchasing supplies. Anyone who reads my articles knows I have presented a mountain of evidence that the USD is structurally impaired to a degree that makes sustained value erosion a foregone conclusion. Recent signals by major powers like China and Russia that their period of acceptance of the USD as reserve currency has come to an end highlights the very real risk of such a scenario. The debt we have accrued as a nation over the years, and especially in the misguided attempts to thwart the present deleveraging process, makes a currency crisis and the associated potential for extreme poverty and a protracted depression very real possibilities that any pragmatic person knowledgeable of these risks might seek to defend against. Here, as with the previous example, I certainly hope this never comes to pass, but in this case I view such a scenario as quite likely and am preparing (and investing) accordingly.

I wish I had time to enumerate more scenarios that have crossed my mind over the course of my analysis of the macreconomic developments we presently face. There are many, ranging from minor nuisances to scary potentialities. Most are not pleasant to think about, but as a pragmatic response to plausible scenarios based upon objective empirical anaylsis of the facts before me, I do not shy away from thinking about the future just because the forecast appears cloudy.

I'll admit, on a personal note, that my awareness of potential risks and insight into this financial crisis represent a burden that's heavy to bear at times. When I appeal to fellow Fools for compassion on that basis, that's what I'm getting at. It's hard enough being conscious of these risks without being marginalized on top of it. :) Incidentally, it appears that the way I've found to channel my concerns into a more positive force is by trying to share my views with this community in hopes that some will seek even a modicum of preparation with respect to financial security.

I hope the above ramblings provide some interesting insight into my particular way of viewing the circumstances we face. I hope it serves to promote a sense of understanding and compassion between community members of various mindsets, and I hope we can move past the notion that people seeking to sound the alarm about troubling times on the financial horizon somehow thrive on such negativity. I can assure you from my personal experiences that there is no pleasure derived from a focus on such topics except for the belief that I can help people in the process. I am not out to depress or frighten anyone, but rather to share my interpretation of the events I see unfolding and to invite you to draw your own conclusions from the evidence I provide.

I hope that my careful distinction between preparing for potential scenarios and presuming that they will occur makes it entirely reasonable to continue investing in equities while also making some preparations [just as investing in gold does not mean I want the economy to tank!]. In the stagflationary scenario I mention above, I expect my equity investments to perform quite well. In that way, my survival preparations and my investments conincide. If somehow I'm wrong and a protracted depression is avoided, then increased money velocity leading to another brand of inflation alongside resumption of commodity demand would likewise send my equities positions higher. I am prepared, in my opinion, for both potentialities.

This gets to the heart of why I believe precious metals are a win-win in this environment... set to rise in value whether we have a prompt recovery or a prolonged depression with the consequent currency impacts of quantitative easing. But that's a topic for another day.

Fool on!

 

Report this comment
#63) On April 22, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Paxtor (29.67) wrote:

This is still going on?

 - 3 imagination recs

 

Report this comment
#64) On April 27, 2009 at 4:41 PM, maxnik0215 (71.53) wrote:

Why is it nuts to be pepared for extreme situations? We had a rather bad ice storm last December in New Hampshire. My town ended up having no electric power for 11 days - thank god for wood  stove, keeing us warm and water pipes not freezing. No power - means no heat(without a wood stove), water(well pump not running) or light(candles and flashlights work rather well), no phone. For couple of day we could not get out of the house while towns were cutting through fallen trees all over the roads. Once we were able to get out - a lot of stores in my area still were closed for few extra days with no electricity(transformers at substations blew up and had to be replaced). So is it SO NUTS to have a back up generator, some supply of food and water in the cellar? 

My town is only 1500 people and shares police depatment with the next town over. I'm not even sure home many policemen they have... But anyway, school, where my wife works, was closed for couple of week and my wife was home alone during the day. She did not, and neither did I, feel very comfortable when she heard on the radio that they were breaking and luting houses in town next to our. So is it SO NUT to have a shotgun that clicks really loudly, when loaded, at home, when bad guys come and you or your wife is in their way?  Mind you, being responsible and carfull with firearms, proper government control , necessaty of owning automatic assault weapons are different issues... 

 

 

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement