Cool, I'm a "Survivalist".....so what's that?

S

Stressfire

New member
So, I was watching "Morning Joe" with my morning joe (don't give me too hard of a time, I have basic cable and the only other things on were "Home Improvement" or infomercials) and the statement was made that the only people who own or want "assault weapons" are survivalists who believe that the gubmint is going to come get them and want to defend against it.

Now, I can only really watch news talk shows when the wife is not around - she says I yell at the TV too much, but personally, I could totally get on board with those 2-way TVs from 1984 where the other side could actually hear and see you. Hey, if I'm listening to whatever a particular talking head is spewing, shouldn't they have to listen to and watch me yell at them in my skivvies?

I don't even know what a "survivalist" does, but apparently I am one. Is that because I carry a firearm in order to survive a violent attack? Or because others (I'm not a hunter) hunt wild game in order to survive a winter when the nearest stores are miles away and there's a blizzard?

I guess I am then if the above is the criteria. But, rather, I'm guessing that these statements are being made because the first image that pops into the mind of the average person when the term "survivalist" comes up is some nutjob who lives out in the woods living off MREs, running drills with his "militia," plotting sedition and anarchy, and stockpiling illegal weaponry for doomsday while constructing fertilizer bombs on the side.

Am I really the next Timothy McVeigh because my preferred weapons hold "too much" ammo. I realize that I'm preaching to the choir here, but as an American adult of sound mind, good moral character, and clean criminal history, is it not my right to own whatever manner of weaponry I want? I don't own "assault weapons." I own modern firearms.

Sigh, well if nothing else I feel better having ranted a bit, but seriously, how the heck is the ownership of 1 or more firearms normal and wholly-American one day and demonized the next.

I fail to understand. So what is it? Urban vs. Rural? Haves vs Have Nots? Willing victims vs. those who choose not to be?

I guess I just don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Labels. We define who we are, not so much by our words, but by how we act. This is crucial at this time when emotions run rampant on all sides. Your post had the right word from the getgo...."cool". Let's all be so.
 
Could not agree more stressfire.

I break it down this simply, survivalist is the antithesis of lemming.

And no matter where you put a fence, there will be nutjobs on both sides of it :D
 
Watching TV was your first mistake. Giving credence to one of TV's opinion makers was your second. :p

I'd rather be a person that took reasonable precautions, than one who did not. In the event of any sort of emergency, I'd rather have food, water, a weapon and other supplies than not. Its only wise. Many times each year one can witness the folly of people being unprepared in the face of disaster. I wonder how many victims of the recent super storm Sandy wish they'd had a better 'stock pile' of supplies?

On a side note, its alarming at the concerted effort the elites are using their media, to press the gun issue. I think one would have to be awfully dense not to see that the elite are trying to disarm us.
 
I am in central Texas and I am amazed at how little many of the people around me know about firearms, so I can not imagine how ignorant people in other areas might be such as in large cities such as NYC or LA where many(millions?) have no positive exposure to firearms. Add to that the misinformation and outright lies that the news media spews out for ratings and there is no telling how gun owners may be viewed. Survivalist might not be such a bad term if it wasn't associated with nut cases.
 
Stressfire,
You (and I) are all members of the militia - unorganized. Thus, it behooves one to own and train using suitable tools.

I doubt anyone in the beautiful talking head media land would understand the concept, or if they did, would try to change that particular section of the USC (10 USC chap 311).
I fail to understand. So what is it? Urban vs. Rural? Haves vs Have Nots? Willing victims vs. those who choose not to be?
Click to expand...
Simply the beautiful smugly wise intelligentsia dependant on others to deal with troubles v. the ugly ignorant masses who tend to fend for themselves (poor things)... perhaps. If one must categorize things.

The Boy Scouts have it right... Be Prepared.
 
Giving credence to one of TV's opinion makers was your second.
Click to expand...

Well, lets put it this way: I give less credence to what the talking heads have to say than probably 75% of the rest of the people watching. But their opinion tends to form the opinion of their viewers, if not just regurgitate what their viewers want to hear.

The "discussion" focused only on the weapons - not stockpiling, not paramilitary training, not and "fringe" thinking.
 
That wasn't meant for you, or any certain TV personality per se. It was just a general, rhetorical critique of the media and its talking heads in general.
 
Nate, I didn't take it that way - but when a lot of the general public is basing their opinions on what some guy in a tie with a camera pointing at him is saying (with no qualifications other than that), I tend to go a bit cross-eyed in confusion.
 
Hey man Im all about making it to the next day and I carry a .45 everywhere I go and I have 18 other guns so I guess Im a survivalist too.
 
If you have ANY kind of firearm, a box of ammo and more than three cans of soup in the cupboard you are a survivalist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top