SHTF: Avoiding Civilian Detention Camps

And I will continue with what may appear to some to be a racist rant.

My grandfather, a US Marine assigned to the Navy, died under bombardment by the Japanese at Corregidor in the Phillipines, WWII.

My father, US Army, was captured at the Battle of the Bulge in Belgium, and spent 1-1/2 years in a German POW camp. He came back a changed man, a man my mother and I did not recognize.

Where does somebody want to discuss fine sensibilities about war and racial profiling?
 
Points well taken, Dr G and Shecky...pardon me for my excursion into my family war history...there is much more I would like to say here but won't, because this is a public forum. Get it?
 
Bulgron, thanks, but it was a rhetorical question. I really don't want to go into that snake nest of the political forum. I'm dropping the whole conversation now, for my part.
 
In terms of detention camps and rounding up people.....lets step back a minute, some say it's plausible, some say not.

Those who say it's plausible use Waco, Randy Weaver and the Asians during WWII. I'm sorry i feel for all of them, however, for the sake of this discussion, we are talking about whether or not the general population would be herded into a "Camp" after a disaster.

The Asians during WWII were on the west coast, and there confirmations of "spies among us". Those rounded up were how many? Scarcily what you would call the "general" population. During those days, ethnic groups did not meld with the general population, they clsutered and spoke their home country language, bringing only more suspicion on to them.
It was a very specific group, at a very specific time, for very specific reasons. It wasn't even .01% of the population....that's 1/100th of a single perecent.

So for the sake of this post's original intent, no, it has never happened in North America, and is likely not to for the reason's provided. Citing Koresh at Waco and Randy Weaver has no bearing, there were Federal warrants for both of them, the warrants may not have been handled correctly, but, they were not innocent by a far stretch.

The general populace cannot be "rounded" up. There are no camps big enough. We cannot even build enough prisons to hold criminals.
If they haven't rounded up the illegal aliens, or all the gang bangers, why would they go for the general populace??
Makes little sense in the big scheme. Let's be realistic.
 
I'd like to be realistic, but there are these nuts in charge who seem to think they CAN fill these camps, since they ARE building them. SOME of them already exist (BEECH GROVE, IN.). COULD just be pork barrel politics (all those new internment camp jobs mentioned before), but the gov't should fear the people, so maybe WE should start building camps for the politicos to see their reaction. Then we might have a better idea as to how seriously to take these camps.
Oh, I have German relatives who escaped Nazism, and others who ARE NUMBERED. I WILL NOT GO INTO THAT DARK NIGHT.
 
First, I don't believe that it's possible to round up the entire American population and heard them into camps. Too many people and too few camps. So............ the obvious solution to that problem is to make the entire country a detention facility.:foot:

OK, here's my real take on how they will do it.

If this government were to activate some sort of camp system in this country, they would probably start with a group that the whole country wants to see disappear. We all know who that is, so I won't bring up any names. The entire country would say yes to removing these peoples Constitutional rights and placing them into camps to protect society. Eventually the PTB would come to the consensus that they can't afford to feed and house these people indefinitely and the likely solution is to do away with them. Again, there would be little outcry from the public, because like the German people before them, they would turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the situation. Then the PTB would start rounding up people, placing them in the same category as the first group. Again, because people here the *WORD* used to describe those being rounded up, they won't complain. And on it goes until total control is achieved and the people now live in complete fear and darkness.
 
SkunkWerX said:
In terms of detention camps and rounding up people.....lets step back a minute, some say it's plausible, some say not.

Those who say it's plausible use Waco, Randy Weaver and the Asians during WWII. I'm sorry i feel for all of them, however, for the sake of this discussion, we are talking about whether or not the general population would be herded into a "Camp" after a disaster.
Click to expand...

I brought up Waco, Weaver, and indirectly, the Japanese interment. However, you seem not to have gotten the point.

SkunkWerX said:
So for the sake of this post's original intent, no, it has never happened in North America, and is likely not to for the reason's provided. Citing Koresh at Waco and Randy Weaver has no bearing, there were Federal warrants for both of them, the warrants may not have been handled correctly, but, they were not innocent by a far stretch.
Click to expand...

Warrants are neither here nor there. My point was that an armed populace wouldn't keep government forces at bay, contrary to Coldwood's point. All the AR-15s in the world wouldn't keep the local cops from going after you, let alone the feds. Anyone who feels the 2nd Amendment allows us to rise up against our government, even if tyrannical, would be in for a rude awakening.

SkunkWerX said:
The general populace cannot be "rounded" up. There are no camps big enough. We cannot even build enough prisons to hold criminals.
If they haven't rounded up the illegal aliens, or all the gang bangers, why would they go for the general populace??
Makes little sense in the big scheme. Let's be realistic.
Click to expand...

You have made my point for me. Any roundup would have to be broadly supported by the majority, such as the Japanese interment. Even then, there are so many institutional and logistical barriers, it's pretty unlikely for such thing to happen.
 
Shecky, your not looking at this as broadly as we are, what you are speaking of is NOT the general populace but a small group. You are saying that the general populace would have to agree to it, well if thats the case, then the populace isn't being rounded up.

We are talking about the General populace being rounded up, which isn't going to happen. Where would you put all the inhabitants of SanFrancisco?
Take em to the NAPA valley and put em in tents? There aren't enough tents.
They wouldn't waste the farmland.

we don't even have the ability to incarcerate criminals ie; not enough prison space. AND that is for people who have nee convicted!!

An armed populace WOULD most definitely keep law enforcement at bay, if they were going after the "populace" itself. In the USA, we the people, ARE the gov't. So will we interr ourselves?

The point some of us are making is that it's an impossiblity in the USA for the general populace to rounded up. period. I'll add to Coldwood's points, it would be like trying to catch greased pigs, and one that aren't corralled!!

**As far as camps go, More likely would be a case of a major disaster, and the populace, without homes or food voluntarily going to Camps and Gov't sponsored shelters. [Those aren't DETENTION camps].
This is ENTIRELY different. It is voluntary, and would be a necessity because as sure as we are sitting here, a lot of Americans cannot survive on their own. I'll speak for Coldwood, Longbow, others and myself, we aren't voluntarily or involuntarily going to any Camp or Shelter, period!!
We firmly believe we would be better off on our own, because we have the knowledge and ability to take care of ourselves.
If we were herded at gunpoint into a camp, we would be overwhelming the autorities and escaping, it would be mayhem. We are free people and are not gongi to be taken against or will, nor held against our will when we have not committed a crime.
Don't give me a Guantanamo scenario, there is NOT one US citizen sitting in Guantanamo.

It is simply ludicrous to argue that becasue the feds burned down Waco or killed Weaver's family, that automatically supprots that the gov't can round up everyone in a city, or the entire country, it's not happening. There are no logisitics even remotely possible by which to accomplish that feat.

We are saying it's not only farfetched that our gov't would physically round up people, we are saying it's not physically possible to do so.

If you are supporting the fact that the BATF or Feds can surround a religious compound, or even a single isolated town and arrest everyone, sure nuff, I'm in full agrement with you, a town of 1,000 people could be taken down, but that isn't happening in the USA. Our elected officials do not have that kind of absolute power.

It is obvious that we are talking past each other.

again, I agree with you, they have the power to take on small niches, religious compounds, and such. But they are powerless on broader spectrum to try to control the masses.

I'll start a different thread for Gov't Sponsored Relief Camps.
 
An armed populace WOULD most definitely keep law enforcement at bay, if they were going after the "populace" itself. In the USA, we the people, ARE the gov't. So will we interr ourselves?
Click to expand...

Don't you make this same mistake? How does an armed populace keep itself at bay?

It is simply ludicrous to argue that becasue the feds burned down Waco or killed Weaver's family, that automatically supprots that the gov't can round up everyone in a city, or the entire country, it's not happening. There are no logisitics even remotely possible by which to accomplish that feat.
Click to expand...

You seem to be talking to someone else. I never said the govt could round up everyone in a city, or the entire country. I said relying on Coldwood's 2nd Amendment terrycloth monkey would be of little consequence. In addition, I said any roundup would have to be supported by the majority. Be popular, in other words. Which would by necessity mean not everyone would be rounded up. Interestingly, this fits into your own admission of the ineffectualness of the 2nd Amendment for the poor souls in such a group.
 
Shecky, the discussion had turned to the fact that the average American couldn't be rounded up. We pointed out that it is logistcally impossible to round up Americans on any kind of meaningful scale.
Then we are told don't forget about the Asians during WWII, or Waco or Weaver. And that is how we got to where we are right now, talking past each other.

I'm not interested in debating the 2nd amendment, nor gun ownership.
But I will say it's not Coldwood's 2nd amendment, it doesn't belong to him. The entire Constitution belongs to all of us, every word, not just some of the amnedmendments, all of them.

I have not admitted as to any ineffectualness of any part of our Constitution and I would appreciate you not putting words into any of our mouths, I think the place you want make this arguement is over the political forums.

This discussion has veered from Survival and Dentention Camps to your own personal crusade against the 2nd amendment and your belief that our system of gov't is some how inherantly flawwed. That is not germaine to the discussion we having, nor the points we were making. Good day sir.


To get this thing back on track (if it's possible) , based on the original question:

I don't feel that Surviving a Detention Camp in the USofA is on the radar screen. I don't believe that the gov't has the logistical ability to round up innocent Americans on that kind of scale , nor would it accomplish any purposes (legitimate or otherwise) for them.
I'd be more worried about a major storm or major earthquake, I think both are much more likely and within the realm of plausibility.

That's all I have say on the topic.
It's been fun. :rolleyes:
 
Okay, I'm going to have to open my mouth again, even though I said I wouldn't, just because I like to. When did I get a 2nd Ammendment terrycloth monkey ?!?! That's a cute idea, but I hate monkeys, and that critter's gonna get dead soon. Reconsidering the topic of this conversation, Avoiding Civilian Detention Camps: Who's going to camp? Presbyterians, Jews, Catholics, Mexicans, gays, female Wiccans? Let's don't leave out Libertarians and Unitarians. I will still maintain that this country is too vast, too populated, too culturally diverse, too mobile, too animated...to get us into detention camps; every other person would have to be a jailer. And then we'll start pounding the shit out of each other. It's got nothing to do with great American courage, or the 2nd Ammendment, or the US Constitution, it's just human nature. Some groups may get picked for camp first, but I don't think the second and third groups are going to go willingly. This society is too loose and fluid. I do think it's entirely possible that feelings will get hurt and blood will get spilled. We've had a revolution and a civil war in the last 200 years...in both instances, people got shoved around, displaced and killed. There were prison camps and ship hulks for yankees and rebels. And the rest of society continued on its merry way.

I wouldn't get overly exercised about detention camps, but getting one's head cracked open might be a concern.
 
Terrycloth monkey? You been hanging around the bars in Saranac too much. :eek:

Those college kids will drink you under the table. :barf:

Don't worry, your monkey will pick you up. :rolleyes:
 
One thing that needs to be thrown into the mix, is if marshall law is declared. The 2nd Amendment is null and void at that point. As is the rest of the Constitution and government for that matter. At that point, with FEMA weakened, Homeland Security would take over and with all of the power given to that organization, that just doesn't seem like a good thing to me.
 
Longbow, at that point society has pretty much broken down. Everything will be up for grabs. Law is only as good as the ability to enforce it, by whatever agency.

(Wow, we are really getting far afield here...I hope our freedom of speech rights under the First Ammendment still apply here for our discussion of law. Do I sound paranoid?...why would you ask?...stop looking at me!)
 
OK, since Coldwood chimed in again, so will I!

I must ask a very serious question:

Now don't take this the wrong way...or anything...but,
can we touch your TerryCloth Monkey? :)

:D :D :D :D :D


Ahhh, You gotta love forums. Grab a beer or beverage of your choice.
It's FRIDAY! TGIF


HALP HALP! I'm being detained!!!!!!!!!! ;)
 
If i may add my half a cent worth. If you realy look at it we dont need no camps. As long bow said all we need is Marshall Law. Then they would close all the roads in and out of the city. Yes im sure everyone would say they cant stop people from moving..... They dont have to all the need to do is stop 95% of the people from moving. If some mountain pass would get more travel then a few people they would find it and shut it down. You got black market in China and Russia and Cuba do you think it even slowed down the Gov????????? they just need to control MOST of the people not ALL people.
How many man would it take to stop the army from searching your house and take everything they want?????? Do you think you could take the army with your friends???? Would your friends want to fight with you????
What im getting to is that none of us realy knows what would happen. If the Gov wants to clamp down on us they could do that very easy. If you get away and dont stir too much trouble they wont care for you unless your all family and friends showed up and now you have 200 people in your valley.
Do any of you think just cause we live in this country we are smarter or love freedom more then the British or the French???? Come on the only thing that works for us is the size of the country. So it would take them longer to get 98% control of it all. Think of Iran, how they clamp down on the people. Lots of people there have AK's and im sure not every one loves there Gov. My rant can go on and on. But there are LOFTY ideas and then there is REALTY of life. How many people on here have family how many of you would let your family die just cause you have your ideas and you wont go back????? Most of it is grey there is very little black and white. When you say you rather fight and die then more likely you would just die maybe you would kill a few from the army. More then likely his friends would take it out on your family cause they can. Its easier to say what we would do then doing it. As for me i dont know what i would do, i just hope i would do the right thing for me. I wont sleep good if i knew my sisters and my nieces didnt have enough to eat or they were not safe.


Sasha
 
You can touch my sock, but leave the monkey alone...I'll choke him to death in my own good time :D

Sasha, I understand, there aren't any easy answers. Do I think I love freedom more than the British or the French? Yes. Do I think I can take on an army? No. But in this country all an army would do is scatter people like wildfire. My priorities start with my feet, then my family and home, then my community, then my country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top