posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:42 PM
The NATO rounds would probably be the safest to rely on. The 5.56, and 7.62 in particular are widly used and widly produced. It will be near
impossible for any government to stop the spread of for example 7.62 ammo. Not hard to imagine that those rounds would be the first they would try to
make unavaliable, but there are numerous ways to make sure you will have avaliable ammo in such a scenario.
The best advice, as mentioned earlier, is to learn how to reload yourself. Lead is easy to work with, and both lead and gunpowder should be easy to
come by. In extreme need you can even make gunpowder yourself, but trying that without the necessary experience or at least knowledge is usually
stupid. I have a big problem with the whole notion of stocking ammo in preperation for combat though. Self defence in extreme situations is one thing,
but prolonged combat (or any situation where weapons may be used in hostility) should be avoided for civilians. Especially those who are trying to
survive a crisis.
It's one thing to ensure your right to defend yourself and ensure ammo for your rifle for hunting (example), but if the government seeks to avoid the
spread of ammunition and weapons during a crisis, it is probably with good reason. In my opinion the civilian population should strive to work WITH
the government and any law enforcement/military presence, unless of course the government or the military are being hostile against their own civilian
population. It doesnt matter much that you are prepeared and able to take care of yourself if you contribute to destabilizing society during a crisis.
Depending on the situation I would bring my long range/hunting rifle with me to most bugout/fortification situations during sitx, and I would ensure I
was stocked on ammo, probably even in spite of an attempt at stopping the spread of sharp ammo amongst civilians, but the concept of stocking ammo
illegaly for combat during a crisis is not something I can endorse in any but the most extreme circumstances.
I would characterize a situation where your own government becomes hostile and a potential enemy as very extreme, and allthough possible and something
you should prepeare for, not highly probable (depending on where you live naturally) in most scenarios. Most intelligent people would soon enough
realize when to stop trusting their government and stop following it's rules. But the minute you oppose the representatives of the collective and
those who defend your nation, you are setting society up on the road to highly chaotic states.
There are of course degrees of defiance against state and government, hence why I differantiate between ensuring you have ammo for hunting and small
scale self defence and stockpiling ammo for all out combat. I agree to not letting yourself be pacified and domesticated, but opposing the governing
powers and/or the military during a national or international crisis is seriously counter-productive, dangerous and in some cases damned senseless.
The potential for very extreme situations exist. Which is why I gave my opinion on the original topic of the thread in the first place. Ammo is
useful, very useful, and the we will all benefit a lot from figuring out how to ensure the avaliability of it. In my opinion though, any particepation
in large scale exchange of fire should be far removed from any survivalist efforts during a crisis.
A handful of scenarios where that could be endorsed comes to mind. The invasion of my own nation (Norway) by Nazi Germany in 1940 saw many civilians
turn saboteurs and guerilla fighters mainly during the first weeks, but also lasting all the way through to our liberation in 1945. None of it was
based in any defience against the Norwegian government though, and a lot of it was joint defence effort with for example Polish and British forces. A
situation where the government is gone and there is no central organization of armed forces may also call for the protection of organized communities.