# If shtf today..



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

How quickly would a new government come forward, or would the old one? Which would you choose, and how would you support or oppose?


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

There are so many levels of SHTF and so many possibilities for gov't collapse that it is really hard to say without more specifics to your scenario. After a major SHTF situation I could see several governments form and claim that they are the new legitimate gov't. My guess is that who your knew gov't is will be based on your geography, unless you plan on making the journey to a different part of the country. Which may be very difficult based on the original SHTF and the level of destruction.


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

Sentry18 said:


> There are so many levels of SHTF and so many possibilities for gov't collapse that it is really hard to say without more specifics to your scenario. After a major SHTF situation I could see several governments form and claim that they are the new legitimate gov't. My guess is that who your knew gov't is will be based on your geography, unless you plan on making the journey to a different part of the country. Which may be very difficult based on the original SHTF and the level of destruction.


Good point...

Say complete economic collapse, since that seems the most likely real world scenario at the moment over any other SHTF scenario.

I see multiple governments/militias rising up too... But what if you lived in an area that a militia started that wasn't about resurrecting the constitution....


----------



## GrinnanBarrett (Aug 31, 2012)

Reality is this, it would be different state by state and region within the states. Texas as an example would have more problems in the urban areas bringing order back. Dallas, Houston and San Antonio would be hot beds for trouble. For one thing what do you do with millions of people you do not have food and water for? The Rio Grande Valley would be a real problem with the influx of Mexican Gangs into the area creating a new Northern Mexico holding till the Texans came in to put an end to that. 

Look for a lot of bloodshed in many areas of the country. Atlanta, Philadelphia, NY City, Chicago, LA, and just about any where in the NE US corridor where you have 25 percent of your population crammed into such a small area it would not be pretty to try and bring order to. A true SHTF experience where every state is impacted would be impossible for the Federal Government to deal with in any timely manner. Look at NY and NJ during and after Sandy as an example. Just trying to give basic services can be overwhelming. 

People think of FEMA as some sort of giant agency when in fact they are not really that large. One of their biggest centers is in Denton, TX and they are responsible for so much area they can't do much beyond the basics. The individual states would have to be the interim Government for most areas of the country. Using a Grid down scenario as an example you have to consider how long it would take to rebuild a burned out grid structure. You are talking a year to three years at best. 

The Feds will have more on their plate than they can deal with just to control the overseas assets alone. GB


----------



## kejmack (May 17, 2011)

You are assuming that a SHTF event would mean the collapse of the government. I don't think so. How do you know that the government wouldn't welcome a SHTF situation in order to suspend the Constitution and seize more power?


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

kejmack said:


> You are assuming that a SHTF event would mean the collapse of the government. I don't think so. How do you know that the government wouldn't welcome a SHTF situation in order to suspend the Constitution and seize more power?


Ok, run with that... Personally, I wouldn't stand for the suspension of the constitution, unless it was by a president that had our best interest at heart and I don't think that of the current administration...


----------



## Bravo_12v (Dec 30, 2011)

At no time is the suspension of The Constitution in our best interests.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

I think there is already a shadow government acting in America. And just like the military has plans drawn up for any enemy (foreign and/or domestic) there are already layered plans of continuing central governance over the States.



invision said:


> Ok, run with that... Personally, I wouldn't stand for the suspension of the constitution, unless it was by a president that had our best interest at heart and I don't think that of the current administration...


But they already passed it with The Patriot Acts I and II, the Military Commissions Act and now with the McCain/Levin amendment to the NDAA that removes your right to an attorney, charges, habeas corpus and due process.


----------



## Attila (Jan 30, 2011)

GrinnanBarrett said:


> Texas as an example would have more problems in the urban areas bringing order back. Dallas, Houston and San Antonio would be hot beds for trouble. For one thing what do you do with millions of people you do not have food and water for? The Rio Grande Valley would be a real problem with the influx of Mexican Gangs into the area creating a new Northern Mexico holding till the Texans came in to put an end to that.
> 
> ~
> 
> The Feds will have more on their plate than they can deal with just to control the overseas assets alone. GB


Yep. State governments will step in where there is a strong governor. And you're right about Texas. The metroplex, Houston, and Austin -San Antonio corridor will be nightmarish. Of course as the denizens of those a fore mentioned cities escape into the country side they'll be met by a none too happy populace. The smaller outlying towns will be overrun rather quickly. It will suck living 100 miles outside in any direction.

The Nueces Strip will be lost at least during the crisis, and will require military action to retake it. Political groups like la raza unida, (the San Antonio mayor's mom was a founding member of la raza), will enjoy some early victories but will not be able to sustain itself. Same goes in Houston and DFW for street/drug gangs.

I can see see Rick Perry stepping up to the plate, and doing what needs to be done. Some won't like it, but he will. He will use whatever is at hand to prevent a total collapse of the state government. The DPS, State Guard, etc will be at his disposal. I can also see him arresting federal officers if the president was to implement marshall law, and usurp the constitution. I also believe that most country sheriff's in Texas, especially the rural areas, will not be cooperative with any federal implementation of marshall law.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

A problem I see with the 'gangs would take over' scenario is that for the organization to survive with followers it has to be able to provide something, as in necessities in their absence post SHTF, which they do not have to do now. While that could work in the short run with them looting and pillaging, it has no future unless they want to become farmers. That seems unlikely.
Same thing applies to the gubt. Once it no longer provides the bread and circuses, the people rise up or just walk away, as in go off grid.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Bravo_12v said:


> At no time is the suspension of The Constitution in our best interests.


You can suspend the Constitution, although I agree that politically our (originally: less the democratizing ammendments...) constitution is one of the best though out forms of Government out there, but that's not what usually is being talked about when people say: "suspend the Constitution." Usually they mean suspend Natural Rights, and since the Government does not GIVE natural rights to suspend those rights endowed by our creation is theft, violence, an act of WAR against any people. Just because the Constitution expressly lists rights DOES NOT MEAN it grants rights.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

It sounds like you are looking for a fictional story rather than an intellectual answer. There are too many variables to answer this question. I think most of us would support local, small, constitutional Government (except the liberals out there who will no doubt want the monster back which destroyed us...), but beyond that generalization I don't think anyone can make an educated statement about your question.


----------

