Questions for survivalists

[WinterBorn]

Do I?

Don't you?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Don't you?

Do I?

 

[apple0154]

I get the feeling that the only National Treasures that matter to Christian survivalists are their own skins.

That's more than likely correct seeing as they don't generally care for social programs even when there's no skin to lose.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

That's more than likely correct seeing as they don't generally care for social programs even when there's no skin to lose.

Think so?

 

[apple0154]

Think so?

Yes, I do.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Yes, I do.

Do you think Jesus would want them to shoot their starving neighbors?

 

[WinterBorn]

Do I?

Don't you?

 

[apple0154]

Do you think Jesus would want them to shoot their starving neighbors?

I don't know about Jesus but His Dad has been known to be one ornery dude!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Do you find it ironic that 'right to lifers' are willing to violently slaughter their own neighbors over some food?

 

[WinterBorn]

Do you find it ironic that 'right to lifers' are willing to violently slaughter their own neighbors over some food?

Can you show where anyone said that?

Do you see a difference between "violently slaughtering their own neighbors over some food" and defending your home from an violent, attacking mob?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Can you show where anyone said that??

Did I say they did?

Do you see a difference between "violently slaughtering their own neighbors over some food" and defending your home from an violent, attacking mob?

Do you?

 

[WinterBorn]

Did I say they did?



Do you?

Your statement does not seem to leave any wiggle room. I guess I find it ironic that you claim that "... 'right to lifers' are willing to violently slaughter their own neighbors over some food".

Yes I do. Do you?

 

[Dick Tater]

Here we see a JPP rightwing survivalist in his secret bunker:

Word is ur hot for him. Is it his big gun?

 

[Dick Tater]

Has anyone said that?

Looks like he is professor!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You just don't get it. Priority number one is holding the country together.

jeebus, you dont get it. the governments first priority EVER, in ANY emergency is to maintain a working government. Do you have any idea what that means?

The only solution would be to gather the people together and share what is available. If everyone knows they're getting their share, regardless of how little that may be, they will continue to protect their country. What do you think is going to happen when they come across a person who has barricaded themselves in their home and says "to hell with you and the country. It's me first."

did you ever read the histories of the so called 'communes', where everything was shared between everyone? how well did those work out?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Do you find it ironic that 'right to lifers' are willing to violently slaughter their own neighbors over some food?

can you sustain your body, or that of your children, on cardboard?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

can you sustain your body, or that of your children, on cardboard?

When is that going to be a necessity?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

how close do you think those neighbors will come if they know they are gonna be shot?

Do you think that in my suburban area, the people around me are just going to mob my home to steal my shit? and not get shot?

Who wants to get killed for a can of Hormel, even if desperate? It does you no good to get shot if your intent is to get food. The idea that a survivalist cannot "get them all" if the mob is big enough is plain silly. If a desperate mob goes up against an equally desperate, but armed man, and the mob has to storm him in the protection of his home, many of that mob WILL be killed. How are you going to guarantee you are not one of the casualties? Are you willing to die in that manner so that someone else may get that coveted can of Hormel chili? There aren't many - very close to if not at zero - who would say yes to that question.

lethal force is the first and only means of defense. the question is, how many of you are willing to risk certain death as compared to possibly dying.

they're hungry, my group is not. They're unarmed. My group is armed. We are in a known defensive position. The un armed hungry people are in an offensive with most likely no intelligence of the area they're trying to take. They'll be slaughtered.

I do believe a small group can hold off 50 or 100 people. Yes they have superior numbers. But the doorways are small, so that numerical superiority is only good if we are in the open. They will not stay long if their numbers are dropping from gunfire and they cannot fight back.

Far MORE accurate. In fact, I'd be willing to bet my daughter could hit the flying bottle 8 or 9 times out of 10. I assure you I could score a torso hit much farther than a man can throw a flaming bottle.

Outstanding.


Abortion is murder in God's eyes, but shooting your unarmed neighbors because you don't want to share your food is not?

 

[apple0154]

jeebus, you dont get it. the governments first priority EVER, in ANY emergency is to maintain a working government. Do you have any idea what that means?

What do you think it means? I already stated what I think.

did you ever read the histories of the so called 'communes', where everything was shared between everyone? how well did those work out?

A bunch of people living in a farm house trying to survive?

In times of crisis the best strategy for survival is to combine resources.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

When is that going to be a necessity?

IF there is ever a crisis, you'll end up losing all that you have (if you're smart enough to hide) to the gangs of looters that you don't worry or think about.