give them nothing.

A long time ago, I had a discussion with my former mother-in-law about my desire to carry a gun for protection. She was very much opposed to the concept, to put it mildly. When I asked her what her plans were if she ever got robbed at gun- or knifepoint, she replied that she’d try and talk it out with her attacker, or just give them what they want.

“Everybody wants to be respected,” she said. “We’re all just human beings.”

I told her that she was nurturing a very dangerous misconception, one that could very well get her hurt or killed someday.

There are people in this world to whom you’re not a human being. They don’t want to be respected by you. They don’t care about you–they’re not even really aware of you. They only care about the food you represent, the money that’s in your pocket. You’re not a person to them, but an obstacle. You’re just in the way of the reward, like a wrapper around a candy bar, and these people are willing to discard you just like that wrapper in order to get what they want.

If you don’t believe that, if you are one of the people who think that “everyone wants to be valued and respected”, you are deluding yourself, to put it mildly. There are literally hundreds of surveillance camera videos out on the Internet that show criminals injuring or killing people for the transgression of not handing over the money or opening the safe fast enough. For those of you who think that “if you give them what they want, they’ll go away”, there are almost as many videos out there of people getting hurt or killed after handing over the goods, simply because they’re now witnesses to a crime that allows for a lengthy jail term. Leaving you alive greatly increases the chance of getting caught, you see, and the extra ten years for shooting you don’t enter the thug’s mind. Besides, few people ever commit a crime expecting to get caught.

Whenever I see the camera footage of some poor convenience store clerk getting shot at point-blank range just because the robber is angry at the lack of cash in the drawer, or the fast food manager being shot as he is lying prone in front of his safe after the robbers have already removed the cash, I get angry. I feel anger at the thought of these low-lifes, people who have never known another way of making a living than to take what they want from others by force. I feel anger at the sight of someone casually taking another’s life over a few hundred bucks–taking a husband from his wife, a son from his parents, or a father from his children, just because they’re in the way. Can you imagine your life ending tonight, with you taking your last breaths on the dingy linoleum floor of some convenience store, just because you had the bad luck of drawing third shift? Can you imagine what it would be like to have everything taken from you in a few moments–your history, your knowledge, your hopes, your dreams, your consciousness–all over a few pieces of paper? If you can, don’t you, too, feel white hot anger when you think of the person who would do such a thing to you without a second thought just so they can get a fix, pay the rent, and get a new game for the Playstation?

It’s mind-boggling to me that there are people who perpetuate the dangerous myth that you can rely on the humanity and reason of a person who is already threatening to kill you over the contents of your wallet, an entirely inhumane and unreasonable act in itself.

“Violence begets violence”, they say, as if that’s somehow a bad thing. In the words of the late Jeff Cooper, I would certainly hope that it does. That’s the whole point of self-defense: when reason doesn’t work anymore, then naked force is the only thing that’s left other than abject surrender. It would be a great and awesome world where the majority of criminals are the ones who end up in the body bag, and not their victims. Appeasement doesn’t stop the bully or the thug, and neither does submission. What stops them is the knowledge that they’re likely to bite off more than they can chew, which is why they invariably pick their targets among those who are perceived as meek or soft.

Think about it for a second, and pretend you’re someone who makes a living by sticking guns in people’s faces. Which kind of society would encourage you to keep doing what you’re doing–one where you know people are being told to “give them what they want and don’t resist”, or one where people refuse to go quietly into that good night, and where they will fight back with anything that comes to hand?

No, the appropriate response to violence is not submission. Submission encourages the thugs, and it gives them absolutely no incentive to consider a career change. When you preach submission, you only guarantee more of the behavior that takes advantage of that submission. The only appropriate response to violence is white-hot anger. When someone sticks a gun in your face and threatens to kill you over the contents of your wallet or your register, your response ought to be rage. The very thought of some low-life thug threatening to snuff you out and make your children orphans for no reason other than the money you carry ought to make you furious.

And then you need to put that fury to good use. Yield nothing, not an inch, not a penny, not a hair on your head, without fighting for it tooth and nail. Do your level best to ensure that if someone has to end up in a body bag this hour, it won’t be your body in that bag. And even if it should happen to be your turn to take your seat in Valhalla, you might as well put your best effort into making sure that you arrive there with your attacker in a firm headlock.

Advertisements

52 thoughts on “give them nothing.

  1. The Armed Canadian says:

    Marko,

    Whenever someone has told me that “give them what they want” or “everyone just wants to be respected”, I respond with “What kind of respect has the criminal shown you by threatening you harm?”.

    The two are not equal and anyone who try to use “appeals to their better nature” are, quite literally, gambling with their lives. It is tragic that they do so and unfortunate if they learn too late the folly of that decision.

    I’ve been angered too many times by the videos you mention. I scream at the TV at the liberals who can never hear me, “THAT’S why you carry a gun!”

    Great post.

  2. Mark says:

    I’m going to keep bugging you to run for office, until you do just to shut me up.

    At least your media-buy will be cheaper by having a friendly TV production company handy.

  3. BobG says:

    Couldn’t agree more; why should a person be rewarded because they were willing to kill you for your wallet?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Pilfered shamelessly from a ‘favorite quotes’ thread on THR:

    “Being multilingual is an excellent survival skill in today’s world; being fluent in another person’s native tongue means you can quickly and clearly communicate with them. And violence is the first language of all predators.”

    For anyone who doesn’t ‘get it’ I would highly suggest reading the essay A Nation of Cowards.
    http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

    English kanigit

  5. Scaramouche says:

    Never appeal to a man’s better nature. He might not have one.

    –RAH

  6. Tam says:

    If there is one thing I simply cannot understand, it’s passivity in the face of your potential killer.

    I’ve been there.

    I’ll never be there again.

    I ain’t goin’ out like that.

  7. Chris Byrne says:

    I wrote something on this a few months ago:

    Don’t give them what they want

  8. pdb says:

    They ain’t gettin’ nuttin’ from me but fast moving lead and insensitive language.

    A family member once used the “violence begets violence” bromide on me. Invoking St. Cooper I replied: “Hell yes. Anyone bringing violence to me or my kin is gonna beget more violence than they know what to do with.”

  9. Jay G says:

    Good post Marko. Anything else I might try to add would only detract from its elegance…

  10. Jerry says:

    One other thing that really angers me. The idea that prosecution of criminals has to be done “humanely.” Where did the crooks demonstrate any humanity?

    A scene from the John Wayne movie “The Shootist” after Wayne’s character shot a robber, the would be crook begged not to be left to die. He got the line back, “…that’s what you intended to do for me…”

    Yeah, I carry too, but I typically go into places that prohibit even licensed carry.

  11. Less says:

    When they start rounding us up into the camps under HR1955, I’ll gladly fight the resistance under Feldmarschall Kloos.

    Let’s hope his aim is as good as his reasoning…

  12. Asphyxiated Emancipation says:

    I recall seeing this somewhere, can’t recall where exactly. ” I may be found dead in a ditch someday, but I’ll be lying in a pile of brass.”
    That about sums it up for me. I’ve found that by submitting to a bully/criminal, you encourage him. “Give him what he wants, and once he has what he came for, hell go away.”
    What if he wants your life? Your daughter’s life? I say, if someone comes for your gold, give them lead. Lots of lead.
    There are those in life who understand only strength. They see the world as weaker than me/stronger than me. It’s important to remain on the right side of that equation…

  13. Hooz says:

    I too have been on the wrong end of some punk’s gun.

    I too promised “Never Again”.

    Excellent post.

  14. Who is..... Carteach0? says:

    Agreed. Nothing more need be said.

  15. Michael says:

    In a perfect world, we could respond with appropriate violence to criminal acts, with no serious negative repercussions. The People’s Republik of Kalifornia is far from being a perfect world. I do have the right to defend my home in that Kalifornia has no senseless “duty to retreat,” but even then I cannot slay a goblin for mere property, even if he is inside my home. Even if I am 100% “justified” by my betters in the D.A.’s office and I am able to avoid a criminal trial for punching some scumbag’s ticket, there are always relatives looking for a free handout via the vile civil trial. All of this has made me plan on shooting/knifing/physically resisting only a “violent” crime. A goblin who manages to get the jump on me can have my wallet. As much as it angers me and makes me want to respond with sheer unbridled violence, it simply is not worth the hassle of explaining to my betters at the P.D. why I choose to escalate violence, and the very real possibility of having to spend a great deal of time and money on bottom feeding attorneys to avoid a civil suit. If I estimate that I will not be harmed, he gets a pass. If, on the other hand, I estimate that he will harm me or a loved one, then all bets are off and I will do my very best to cancel his sorry self.

  16. pax says:

    Marko ~

    Another really excellent essay.

    The one-sentence response I’ve used to good effect in similar conversations is simply to say, “Okay. Now, what if what they want is to kill you, or to kidnap and rape your child?”

    Always makes them blink. Sometimes makes them think.

  17. jimbob86 says:

    “If you want MORE of something, you make it cheaper/more profitable, safer and convenient. If you want LESS of something, make it expensive, more dangerous, and more inconvenient.”

    By giving a mugger what he wants, you are subsidizing muggers in general. By fighting back, you are helping to make mugging an expensive, hazardous and increasingly rare career choice.

  18. James R. Hall says:

    To quote Michael:
    “If I estimate that I will not be harmed, he gets a pass. If, on the other hand, I estimate that he will harm me or a loved one, then all bets are off…”

    Casinos get rich off of bad estimates, just as cemeteries are full of them! When a guy with bad intentions faces me with a weapon, there is only a single, logical, estimated outcome. Indeed, my take is that he invalidated his pass at the onset. Besides, it’s much harder to hit a target that is rushing at you enraged or is shooting back, than one standing still with his hands in the air or lying prone and groveling for his life.

    Thanks Marko! True genius is the ability to explain a difficult concept in terms so simple that anyone can understand.

  19. Ned Kelley says:

    Gee, Marko…
    looks like you changed a lot of minds here.
    Does anyone read your stuff who doesn’t agree with you.

  20. Marko says:

    The hell should I know?

    Like I know the philosophy of every one of the ten thousand plus visitors who read these scribblings every month.

    What’s it to you, anyway?

  21. Ned Kelley says:

    Nothing…no skin off my ass.
    You just seem to be preaching to the choir.
    I’m just pointing out that no one weighs in with “What are you afraid of, Marko?”
    No one points out that what you propose as the remedy to all these bad situations never even touches on the “Don’t be in the situation in the first place” angle.
    Don’t get me wrong. Ah, go ahead. I don’t care.
    I think everyone should own as many guns as they can afford. If they’re going to carry it, have some balls and put it out on your hip… and quit sweating this “concealed carry” horseshit (“I’ve got a note from the cops that says they know I’ll only shoot ‘bad’ people…and, I took a class”).
    And, wow! Ten thousand plus. Aren’t you the shit?
    If you’re so fucking brilliant and/or capable, then, again what are you afraid of?
    BTW be sure to post when you actually shoot someone.
    One more thing: “If I’m found dead in a ditch, I want to be lying on a pile of brass”.
    Read: “I want full evidence that I shot a “pile of brass” worth of rounds and ended up dead anyway.”
    Keep that off my tombstone please. It just makes you sound stupid.

  22. Marko says:

    Ned,

    I’m not afraid of much, actually. Most of my fears tend to center around losing my kids or spouse, which is something I probably share with most parents and married folks. Other than that, there’s not much that can scare me.

    It’s obvious that you disagree with my opinion, but you haven’t even tried to refute any of my arguments. You just went straight for the “you must be so afraid”, and “concealed carry is for chickenshits who don’t have the balls to open carry” angles.

    “Don’t be in the situation in the first place”, that’s a brilliant concept. And I don’t mean that in a smart-ass way. It’s my primary method of conflict avoidance. I don’t do dumb things, i don’t associate with people who do dumb things, and I stay out of dangerous spots. The truth of the matter, however, is that sometimes trouble comes looking for you, through no fault of your own.

    Tell you what, you deal with the bad people of the world in whatever matter you see fit, and I’ll deal with them in my own way. Hopefully, we’ll both die of old age without ever having to visit harm on another human being. In the meantime, stay off my frequency if you can’t keep a polite tongue in your head. Until then, I don’t give a rat’s ass on your ideas of conflict resolution, concealed carry, avoidance tactics, or the size of my ego, and I didn’t visit *your* blog to seek them out.

  23. Greg in Allston says:

    My dad gave me a piece of advice in my youth that has always resonated deeply with me and that is “never go looking for a fight, but if a fight happens to find you, you had better damned well give it everything you’ve got”. Sheep, predator or sheepdog, it’s your choice, your call. What’s it going to be? Truly, there are some things that are worth dying for. For me, like Tam said, “I ain’t going out that way”. And I’m not going to let it happen to my loved ones while I can still draw a breath. Show me just one example where appeasement and/or submission to unjust threat or violence has made life better for anyone but the assailant and I might consider changing my mind. Until then, I can only go by the long history of humanity to show that the only way to counter tyrants, thugs and predators is to give them violence like they’ve never imagined. I can live with that philosophy.

    Thank you for a brilliant post Marko.

  24. Weer'd Beard says:

    Reasoning with a criminal is almost always spoken by a reasonable person, who has never mugged somebody for drug money.

    Rational discussion can only be had by a pair of rational people, and rational people don’t threaten harm for money, or rape for sport.

    If you find yourself face-to-face with a person who thinks the above is a good idea, you are NOT dealing with a rational person. Reasoning with them will NOT go the way you might expect

    Go into a toy store on a weekend. You’ll see a small child pitching a fit over somthing they have been denied. Good parents will tough it out and stand their ground.

    Kids who are rewarded for such behavior get worse. Why would this be any different from adults being rewarded for bad bahavior. Even if you save your own neck by submission, the next person who is mugged may not submit quite enugh this time…..

  25. Anonymous says:

    Ned, you’re truly deserving of a nmae I rarely use for people- dunce.

    Take it from a cop- There is no ‘safe place’. Someone will ALWAYS find a way.

    “Don’t be in the situation in the first place” is what someone else called an illogical argument in the very first post by Marko I ever read.

    It’s a nice thought, but sadly, this shit called ‘reality’ often intrudes.

    Granny was sitting in her living room sewing (me gots hat!) when two dirtbags on parole knocked in her door, beat the shit of her, and made off with about 3 bucks in small change…Dumb bitch shouldn’t have put herself in that situation in the first place, by Ned’s argument.

    Granny has since become a very pro-gun woman, BTW.

  26. Ned Kelley says:

    Well Marko, I just typed a long response (probably too long) which the comment-preview feature promptly ate.
    I have no heart for typing it again so I’ll just hit some salient points.
    First off, Sorry for my tone of last night. You tapped into a reservoir of anger and frustration that didn’t belong to you.
    Anon, I’m obviously not talking about your Granny, nor am I talking about defending your home in the face of an obvious threat.
    What I am alking about is the soccer dads who shoot the kid’s coach because Junior isn’t getting enough play or the parking-lot arguments that end up with someone having to call an ambulance.
    I’m not sure some people consider the gravity of the easy availability of deadly force.
    Marko,my initial observation was simply this: No one who responded to your post needed any convincing. What is the point of telling and retelling each other how right you are? Especially if it also lets the world know that you carry, not only a wallet full of credit cards/cash but also a very expensive, hard-to-acquire piece of hardware favored by the criminal element. Just seems it ought to be more low key.

  27. jimbob86 says:

    Mr. Ned seems to think we should shut up about our right to carry. The Antis can riase all the emo-fueled ruckus they want, and we should hold our tounges……. I for one will not cede the debate. Keep posting these gems, Marko. You are an excellent Wordsmith, and it is every bit as useful to know a good Wordsmith as a good Gunsmith, at least until the shooting starts……

  28. Ned Kelley says:

    Jimbob,
    You’re the type I’m talking about. When WHAT shooting starts?
    And you should shut up. Ever heard of “low profile”? Ya’ think when this big anti-gun showdown happens, the powers that be aren’t going to come first after the most vocal and “dangerous” sounding morons?
    I agree, Marko turns a nice phrase but all he’s doing is validating your beleifs – as if you can’t just hold them without constant reassurance.

  29. Weer'd Beard says:

    Ned, I understand your feelings. I used to be VERY anti gun for the exact reasons you stated. I didn’t want people to get into a fight and instead of using fists, use guns. I didn’t like the idea of drug dealers buying guns at the local 5 and dime to hold up people. I didn’t want gun fights erupting in the streets. I didn’t want American Dad shooting his son who had to go pee in the middle of the night and happened to trip over somthing and make an intruder like noise. I didn’t want uber high-power machine guns to be availble to the general populous.

    I’m still for all of that stuff, and I also fully support the 2nd amendment and the right for people to be armed. It wasn’t so much of a change as a realization. Those things I was afraid of almost NEVER happen. People with CCW not only rarely use their gun in an illigal maner, but they tend to be less likely to commit ANY crimes at all.
    http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf
    here’s a good start on some facts.

    The Clinton Assault Weapons ban seemed like a good idea to my former Anti-gun self, untill I relized that #1 it had nothing to do with Machine guns, #2, it really had nothing to do with how “Dangerous” the guns banned were, #3, it didn’t really actully BAN anything, just meant that no NEW guns could be made, and some simple modifications allowed the guns to be sold anyway, and #4 it did NOTHING to stop crime, as “Assault Weapons” were almost never used in crimes.

    As for just avoiding trouble, its a GREAT plan. But would you be willing to say that ALL victems of violent crime were attacked because they weren’t being careful?

    Bottom line, after learning how to properly shoot (I was amazed at what a safe and controled hobby it is) and learned a few things about guns (and I started to see blatant lies in the Media and politics), and started reading books that were both for and against gun control and gathering raw facts on the matter, I relized that people like Marko are right.

    You are safer when you’re armed. A house with a responcibly handled gun is safer than one without it.

    The shooting you read about in the new? Well almost all of them involve guns that were illigally held and illigally used. If multiple laws were broken for the crime to happen, how exactly would one or two more gun laws have stopped it? Well it WILL stop lawful people like Marko and myself from using guns to PROTECT our families, because we have respect for the laws of the land.

    I understand your anger, Ned, but the target of your anger should be the same as the target of Marko’s and my anger, not the Author.

    But I for one apriciate your courage to question our stance.

  30. Weer'd Beard says:

    PS I forgot to spell check, so I’m sure my HORRIBLE spelling is obvious in that monster of a post.

  31. vinnie says:

    I thought after 19 guys with box cutters got a hold of 4 airplanes that I would never hear “just give them what they want, its not worth your life” ever again.

    Sad that I did. And so soon.

  32. Andrew says:

    Ned, so far you’ve told us that we should keep a low profile, and carry our guns out in the open. Run that by me again?

    Then there was this:

    What I am alking about is the soccer dads who shoot the kid’s coach because Junior isn’t getting enough play or the parking-lot arguments that end up with someone having to call an ambulance.

    Proving, I guess, that Ned doesn’t know what he’s “alking” about.

    Permit holders are an incredibly law-abiding bunch — more so than almost any demographic, including police officers.

    We do a good job of avoiding trouble, but we won’t cede the right to be prepared to deal with the unavoidable.

    Do you have smoke detectors in your home? A fire extinguisher? Does this mean that you’re just itching for a fire?

    No. It just means that you are prudently hedging your bets against disaster. That’s all we’re doing.

    As for Marko preaching to the choir, sure. That’s an inevitable aspect of blog audiences: we tend to gravitate toward people holding opinions with which we agree. In that sense, your visit here is valuable. You bring a different (though largely intellectually dishonest) viewpoint to the discussion.

    And that’s why the choir comes to hear the preaching: the preacher can help give us the logical and rhetorical tools to persuade our friends, families, co-workers and others of the rationality and righteousness of our positions.

    Stick around, and leave your preconceived notions at the door. You may even learn something.

    Andrew Rothman
    MADFI
    http://www.madfi.org

  33. jimbob86 says:

    “WHAT shooting?” he says…..

    Any shooting I have to do. If I don’t have the time or ability to flee from the situation, I cetainly am not going to debate the issue with the threat. Once the need for the hammer to fall is realized, words are useless.

    As for shutting up and hiding in a hole so the .gov does not come and take me away, IF that were REALLY going to happen, THEN WE ALL ALREADY LIVE IN A POLICE STATE.

    I think you want me, and the rest of the pro-carry folks, to marginalize OURSELVES, because you can’t win the CCW debate through logic. I will not cede the debate we have won. I have my CHP. I will carry and not apologize for it. And I will work to eliminate some of the stupid restrictions on my CHP…….. hiding in a hole will not accomplish that.

  34. Marko says:

    Ned,

    fair enough.

    I don’t have a particular audience in mind when I write these little essays. It’s true that 90% of people who read them are already convinced of the slant of the piece, but I write as much for the remaining 10%…maybe even more so.

    Only fools like to hear only their own echo. If I can’t (or won’t) engage in debates with people who don’t share my opinion, I don’t need to be advocating them in public, right?

  35. skywriter says:

    Predators don’t understand respect. They do understand power. Even at 5’9″ and 165 pounds of good muscle, as a female I am proportionally incapable of unarmed defense of myself against some 250 pound guy that wants to kill, rape or main me. Or someone with a flat edged weapon or gun of his own. In my line of work, I’ve testified against more than one person who offered to pay me back when they got out of jail. I’m not afraid. I can shoot a 3 inch grouping of .45’s from 50 feet, and a five inch grouping in near darkness, because not only do I carry, I do the responsible thing and make sure I carry with proficiency. Like I check my smoke alarm batteries and my fire extinguishers. My tools of protection are up to the job day or night.

  36. Oliver Hart-Parr says:

    Call me Ned Kelly.
    Jimbob, or is it Andrew? You obviously don’t get what I’m talking about.
    Marko, thanks for your gracious acceptance of my ranting.
    I’ll take my leave now, and, with my remedial students, hold further classes at my house.
    I hope that I’m welcome to drop in again and stir the shit. I plan on it (at least the dropping in part).
    Again, you seem intelligent and sensitive (if conservative but – I been there. I can always hope) and butting heads with you has been fun.
    Weird beard, (I know I spelled it wrong – I don’t care – anyway – My beard is weirder than yours), bless your heart, don’t sweat the small shit re. spelling. In the heat of the moment we all sound like idiots.
    In closing, I’m not Ned Kelly – and I’m not going to tell you who Ned Kelly was. You’ll only gain from the chase (helluva chase – Wikipedia).
    I will say this: that I will hold forth on this subject tomorrow on my blog “Weapons, Warfare and Industrial Idiocy”.
    Follow the links on the profile and you’ll get there.
    My kids, Betsy and Bob, also have blogs listed there. Bob wants comments on his story. If you’ve got something good to say – go ye therefore. If not, say nothing. Our relationship, such as it is, will go beter.
    See ya’ tomorrow.
    Marko, Thanks again for your hospitality. I’ll endevor to be far more civil next time I drop by.

  37. mike w. says:

    Well said Marko! especially the part I’ve quoted below. It has always amazed me that so many people can’t seem to grasp such a simple concept.

    “It’s mind-boggling to me that there are people who perpetuate the dangerous myth that you can rely on the humanity and reason of a person who is already threatening to kill you over the contents of your wallet, an entirely inhumane and unreasonable act in itself.”

  38. Rustmeister says:

    Excellent read there, Marko.

    As for Ned and anyone else using the “echo chamber” theme, I have to say one reason I read other peoples stuff is not to reinforce my ideals, but to get different perspectives on an issue.

    For (almost) every anti-gunner out there, there is some point that can be made to get them thinking.

    Obviously, every point is different. The more I have in the tool kit, the better chance I have in getting an anti to start thinking outside their box.

    Thanks again for the great essay.

  39. charliegirl says:

    I am a 54 y/o, married, white female who has never been afraid of going anywhere I wanted. The smart thing, though, would be (and common sense dictates!) that you stay out of places where you might be a target of convenience, or a victim of quirky happenstance.
    My husband was ALL FOR me getting my cc/permit. I was reluctant, but not because I have the typical attitude of many females: “Guns? HORRIBLE!”
    But because I tend to think of the 2nd Amendment as my “permit”.
    The phrase, “Violence begets violence” is used by pacifists who want a disarmed populace. And one I would agree with on it’s face if it weren’t for the fact we live in a world increasing with violence. We live in a world that has bad guys living in it and truth be told, sometime you might have to defend yourself.
    Ask Suzanna Gratia-Hupp.
    End of discussion. Even if it’s just ONE TIME, you will be thankful and it may be that your family will be the ones who are doing the thanking.
    I worked DOWNTOWN Little Rock some years back… and in the late fall and winter it would be quite dark when I would take that long walk to the mostly deserted parking lot to drive home. I didn’t think about it much at the time, but at some point it could have happened that I would have been met with someone with nefariousness in mind. But Thank GOD it did not happen that way.
    Now I live and work in a place that on the surface seems quite “safe”. But there’s still that chance that something might happen. I say:
    Better to be equipped and trained and not need to defend yourself, than NEED TO and not be able to and lose your life or the life of someone you love.
    Who wants to step up to take THAT chance?

  40. Kristopher says:

    Just one comment for Ned / Oliver:

    If the leftists get their way and try to round up firearms … some of us will not be playing the “cold dead hands” game with the SWAT teams.

    We will have better things to do than shoot at cops for trying to enforce bad laws.

    We will disappear completely, leave no forwarding address, and go out and hunt the leftists twinkies who thought they could back us into a corner and not suffer any consequences.

  41. Oliver Hart-Parr says:

    This is why only neo-cons take neo-cons seriously. You only hear what you’re programed to hear and everything else gets crammed into the mold.
    I’m not anti-gun. I love guns. I can’t afford, financially, to love them as much as I’d like.
    Kristopher, you have a nice banner on your blog: “Self-Defense a Human Right” That sums up my point and my attitude. The 2nd ammendment only facilitates this. It’s not just the “right to carry”. It’s a basic human, inalienable right to avail yourself of any weaponry also available to anyone who may attack you. Depending on the Constitution to keep this operating for you is asking for trouble. It’s not even a “right” any longer . It’s now a “privilege”.
    The difference: a right is automatic and can’t be taken away. A privilege comes with reponsiblities attached and can be lost. This is straight from my Navy boot camp, “Rights and Responsibilities” class 35 years ago.
    Treating the Constitution as if it came from the “Burning Bush” is setting yourself up. It’s a human document that, even though it’s probably the longest-lived such document on earth – and is certainly one of the best if not the best, is fallible, subject to interpretation and has people trying to cram silly, redundant things into it on a regular basis.
    I don’t feel it’s to be depended upon heavily for the basic stuff, life, liberty etc especially since our current leaders are tossing out inconvenient bits as we speak.
    The reality though was summed up best in an article in, I think “The Atlantic” and I may have the figures wrong but the message should be clear.
    There are 200 million registered firearms in the US as opposed to roughly 20 million LEO’s of various kinds. They can’t take your guns. They won’t even try.
    Which of you would let them? Which cops would sign up for the duty?
    In the meantime, I have no guns. They were lost in a house fire – just last night.

  42. Kristopher says:

    Ned:
    Ok … I made an assumption. I apologize for mis-representing you.

    You also made an assumption. I am an atheist. I am aware that if I don’t go to the wall to defend my rights, they will vanish.

    As for gun confiscation … it wouldn’t happen overnight. Most of the victim disarmament crowd aren’t dumb enough to try to do it all at once. They prefer cooking their frogs slowly.

  43. Rustmeister says:

    20 million LEO’s of various kinds. They can’t take your guns. They won’t even try.

    They did after Katrina.

  44. Oliver Hart-Parr says:

    Kristopher, Thanks, but I’m not sure how I assumed anything regarding religious beliefs or lack thereof. The burning bush reference I guess.
    As for the gradual confiscation issue, be a smart frog and jump out of the water. You’ll have advance notice. Bury the damned things in the woods and say they were stolen. They can’t take what they can’t find.
    “They did after Katrina.”
    Maybe. How sucessful were they? And besides, was that Hillary running around in her pants suit disarming everyone? I think it’s safe to say the “anti-gun” crowd had nothing to do with it.

  45. Weer'd Beard says:

    Oliver, I hope you’re right. But then again as a gun owner I like to hope for the best, but plan for the worst. I have a gun in my nightstand not because I think we might have a breakin. If I thought that was real I’d move. Nope its because I know break-ins happen, and if they do I know I’d REALLY like a gun in my nightstand.

    Maybe Hillary and the Antis won’t try and take all the guns like they did in England, Australia, and Many other nations.

    I won’t let them have a chance, because dispite the rise in crime in those nations, they won’t be getting their guns back anytime soon, maybe ever.

  46. Kristopher says:

    Bury nothing. If you aren’t comfortable breaking the law, sell them for cash to someone who is.

    If it actually looks like they will come for you, don’t be there. Empty your bank and credit accounts into cash, and get rid of any vehicles that are still in your name. The SWAT team can go raid an empty house.

  47. Byron says:

    Ned,

    Friend, I’ve been in the situation of having an intruder in my home between me and the (hunting at that time)firearms while I was between the exits and him. By your logic, perhaps I should not have gone home and thereby avoided the situation in the first place.

    Sorry, I carry instead with the full intention of shooting any future intruder before he shoots me. Sometimes, I carry openly but more often concealed. Not that it’s any business of yours.

  48. Oliver Hart-Parr says:

    Bryon,
    You idiot. If you feel a need to carry a gun then CARRY THE DAMNED THING and quit trying to make the rest of believe that it’s because you’re not scared.
    And Kristopher, The sage of this blog just decided he’s going to buy a house in New England – and count on the one in K-ville to sell.
    So, empty the accounts and disappear?
    Gee, no one’s ever tried that before. They’ll be a’scratchin’ their heads over “Whar’d he go?”.
    And besides, back to Marko and his proposed move, (Congrats Mrs Marko BTW – and, FYI – I live in suburbia and pee off the porch regularly. So, congrats to the man of the house as well) if you own a house, you’re going to just toss that and hide in the woods…so you don’t lose your guns… that they know you have becaue you’ve gotten the note that makes it okay.
    You’re either on their side or not. If self-defense is a “natual right” then exercise it – and quit trying to make everyone else validate it for you.

  49. T.C.K. says:

    “”They did after Katrina.”
    Maybe. How sucessful were they? And besides, was that Hillary running around in her pants suit disarming everyone? I think it’s safe to say the “anti-gun” crowd had nothing to do with it.”

    Well, considering it took multiple court rulings just to make them admit that they had no authority to do what they did, and that many people still haven’t gotten their guns back, I’d say the civil disarmenent people were pretty damn successful. Also, not one “reasonable” gun control organization condemned this obvious piss-fest of the rights of the people, if they commented at all it was full of praise. As for Hilary AntiChrist, she was one of the senators that worked hard to try to scuttle the law that would help keep something that that from happening again, so I’d say the anti-gunners were pretty solidly behind it.

  50. Anonymous says:

    Marko,

    I saw that your piece was reprinted in the Dillon’s catalog.

    Congratulations (and I hope you got paid.)

  51. Alchemist says:

    Your post reminds me of what my self-defence teacher told us at school. He said that the rapist who attacks you feeds on your fear, that is what he wants, what he needs, that is the whole POINT of what he is trying to do.
    He expects that when he pushes you to the ground, that you will shrink away and cry and beg, and submit.
    What he does not expect is for you to jump back up, get in his face and scream abuse at him at the top of your lungs. He does not expect you to hit him, scratch him and draw attention to him. He does not expect to hear a string of obscenities that would make a sailor blush screamed at him.
    Our teacher told us that if we do this he will run. He will run because he is a coward, and will look for an easier target.
    Four short years later I unfortunately found myself in a position to find out if it was true.
    So I fought, and he ran, his ears burning as I rained foul curses down upon his head.
    What you say is true. Bullies rely on the fear of their victims. The only sensible way of dealing with a bully is to kick him where it hurts, it’s all he understands.
    This is what I am teaching my daughter. If someone is leaving in a body bag it won’t be her.

  52. ZaP2012 says:

    This makes since but it is not limited to street violence, it can also be applied to all the social programs that are being installed in America. Money is being taken away from the people who earned it in order to provide for those who clam they need it and the people who support these socialist programs are the sheep who are submitting to the government they might not have much to lose and might be gaining more from such programs but they are sacrificing their self-responsibility which in turn means they are sacrificing their liberties. The ones who don’t want the programs are giving everything they have to stop them from becoming law because they have much to lose from their passing. This is just me stating my thoughts on how one idea can be applied in many ways.

Comments are closed.