From 1) Samuel Kaplin & 2) Sandy Sandfort:
The senario that I see, is [1] the borders being closed.... [2] All of the firearms and weapons being removed from private hands.... [3] The U.S. economy being isolated from the rest of the world.... [1] If they stopped foreign businesspeople and tourists, the economy suffers. Without Mexican "guest workers" the price of agricultural products go through the ceiling. The US can[not] afford to close its borders. [2] . . . Gun ownership is *growing* not declining. These folks are *serious* about keeping their weapons. . . . . [3] The US economy is broad, but not that broad. Without world trade (especially for petroleum) we would grind to a halt. . . . ...................................................................... ........... Although I can't see the US arriving at Samuel's scenario completely, neither can I prevent from seeing the threat which does rear its ugly head; the trend is towards the proposal & acceptance of more controls. It may not succeed 100%, but still there is an intervening time to consider during which the "legislators" attempt to accomplish just these things. 1) The suffering of the economy has not stopped the big G in the past from preventing "guest workers" or others from crossing the borders, or at least giving them & their US employers a hard time in the process. 2) Gun ownership may be increasing (among the "inner city youth" mostly, it appears sometimes), but nevertheless there are many other groups building up their campaigns against the possession of certain weapons and against "violence" per se. 3) There are always groups in govmt & private industry who wish for protection against the vicissitudes of world trade problems; if it were not for the efforts of those who constantly oppose them it is conceivable that the US could be closed to most areas of trade (even if only temporarily, until the pain becomes too great). It isn't conceivable that the US would ever become 100% isolated and totalitarian, but it is true that there are many people who would support such measures as would arrive at that stage eventually, if they could have their way. Sandy & others (including myself) may be able to reason that it wouldn't work to do such-and-such, because of the adverse consequences and because it wouldn't make economic sense, but it doesn't follow logically that the members of Congress & their supporters will also reason along the same lines. Unfortunately I am constantly reading in the news that just such restrictive, constraining ideas and interests are being proposed in Congress and applauded by private groups. I think that there may be a big tug-of-war between the growing contrasts in the political/philosophical inclinations of the citizenry of the US. The lines between them are becoming more clearly demarcated (to myself, anyway). (Oh - and of course, there will be a role in there, in between, for crypto, what with all the secret messages they will all want to send to each other.) Blanc