Before everybody gets all giddy over Obama "signing a law to allow guns to be carried in National Parks" you should also understand all the facts:
1. The Bush Administration originally lifted the ban on firearms carry in National Parks due to the difficulty of traveling between state and federal lands because of the differences in their gun laws.
2. A Federal Judge blocked the lifting of the ban by the Bush Administration.
3. Obama's administration declined to appeal the judge's ruling.
4. Congress passed the law allowing it, but the focus of the law was NOT gun carry in national parks; it was a Credit Card Reform Act, which was BIG political points at the time due to the bailout packages and related financial issues at the time. Carrying guns in nat'l parks was simply an item shoe-horned into this act, of which the Pres would have never even considered striking down due to the actual credit card issues the law primarily focused on.
5. Obama signed it into law with no mention whatsoever that it had anything to do with allowing gun carry in nat'l parks. The media lept on that, then Obama subsequently made passing mentions of it because of the political value, nothing more.
Same story for being able to carry on Amtrak trains, it was tagged onto a transportation appropriations bill.
Do you really think the President who disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling on gun bans would have ever passed a law that was solely aimed at allowing gun carry in nat'l parks or on trains? Please.
Romney is no better, in spite of his recent, questionably timed cuddling up to gun rights advocates.
I am glad to see that someone else understands how the system works and how some laws do come to pass by being grouped into something else that may be a required evil, etc,etc..
Gold is wealth embodied. It cannot be lost by digital manipulation. For the record, the people who plan to go camping as a bug out plan will be the first victims.
Can't be worse than what's about to happen.
Being diligent would preclude being killed in their sleep.
Is GC back?
I agree about it can't be digitally manipulated, but gold is only valuable if the party is interested in it. I would rather have goods that are usable. If the water in the area is toxic and you aren't able to spend the time to remove toxins by boiling, etc. Then bottled water will get you by until you can find a safe place to re-fill what it is that you need to survive. If you are starving, and haven't eaten in days, your gold stock will quickly lose value to you as your body screams for the required nutrients it needs to sustain itself. Long story short, you can't eat gold to survive.
While I do agree that people who go camping out as a way to avoid the masses will likely succumb to death the fastest. However, much can be said for survival if no person ever knows you are even in the area. Leave no trace is taught survival tactic in the military and by survival experts when in a less than hospitable location for rather obvious reasons.
And who is GC?
@ rex's comment about gold being useless. you obviously haven't seen the documentaries where people in 3rd world countries buying bread with gold flakes because it's the only thing that can be trusted as any kind of value.
Obviously not. Did Glenn Beck and associates pay to have it "documented?"
Besides since when has livestock, bread, and water not been valuable? See above comment about gold not providing sustenance. From an elemental standpoint on a survival basis, gold is pretty worthless. It doesn't provide any relevant help to human metabolism (it is actually HIGHLY toxic from being a heavy metal), it's soft nature disallows it a usable source for anything other than gamma-ray blocking (lead and concrete are more readily available, and thus likely to be used), heat blocking (an area that it excels at, but from the high cost, inhibits it's use in many areas that composites can do the job), and as monetary supporter.
Carrying around pounds of gold in an apocalyptic scenario that you guys are dreaming will happen will do one thing. Make you a target.