Thebastidge: Not quite everything
  • Cascade Policy Inst.
  • Evergreen Freedom Foundation
  • Free State Project
  • Seastead Institute
  • Open Carry.Org
  • No Nonsense
  • TDA Training
  • Believe it
  • -->

    ********************Southwest Washington Surplus, your prepping supply store********************

    Wednesday, March 26, 2008

    Not quite everything

    Not to take anmything away from the courage this young woman showed but she didn't do quite everything. As Lawdog says:

    In a just and sane world, when Gary Michael Hilton stepped out of the undergrowth with a bayonet and a baton, Meredith Emerson would have produced a .38 and centre-punched his rotten heart out through his spineless back.

    A commenter over there says something I have to disagree with:

    Personally, I would prefer that every female be mandated to carry a blade any time they are outside of their residence, with a considerable fine to be levied upon the parents, or her if a legal age. A handgun to be added to the requirement by a certain age. Details can be argued. I would want a fine to be extremely punishing. Don't want to carry? Don't leave your house! Do I sound a little excessive? I have reason to.

    It's not that I'm against promoting self-defense or personal responsibility, but the means of implementation of both remain and always will remain an exercise for the individual. Not to mention, getting into a knife fight will almost certainly get you cut, possibly badly.

    This is not a continuation of the false meme that "a gun is more likely to be used against you than successfully used to defend yourself."

    First, I believe that you can successfully use a knife to protect yourself. However, any time you have to actually get within arm's ditsance of an attacker you are probably going to take at least a little damage. Knives are still largely dependent upon strength and agility. Guns give you the option of eliminating the threat from a distance great enough to avoid physical contact, as well as being far less dependent upon upper body strength.

    Secondly, if people would rather be hurt than defend themselves, that is their right. They just don't have the right to make the same choice for anyone else. The Amish and the Quakers don't force their pacifist beliefs on anyone through legislation, why should hippies be allowed to?


    Blogger A-6Dude said...

    The 'why' is simple. They want to control our lives. Those of us that want individual freedoms understand that choices have consequences. Those that want to force their socialist (or whatever other controlling subsidiary of it) lifestyle on us think that they know better how to run our lives than we do.

    In the Navy, in dogfighting, we called having a weapon that will reach the threat before theirs can reach you 'out-sticking' your opponent. The man with the bigger stick should win.

    6:25 PM  
    Blogger Larry said...

    We're having a microcosmic scenario on individual choice playing out at work right now. With a new security team, threats are being made against employment if we don't all conform to security postures. It's a liability issue, but too many people are indoctrinated into the "they have your best interest at heart, why don't you just comply" mindset. They don't understand that we all take our chances, and individuals have different tolerances for risk.

    Right now, with the IDF we have been taking this week, I am ok with wearing our IBA everywhere we go. The last time they wanted us to do this, I wasn't, becaus eit was out of line with the rest of the IZ as security posture went.

    One of my guys is contemplating quittting because he doesn't feel the need. We work inside a hardened facility, we're never more than a few feet from bunkers, he personally would rather take his chances on being able to sprint to a bunker unencumbered.

    Some people just don't get why he can't be a team playe ron this issue.

    7:51 AM  

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

    << Home