Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Some "No Fort Sumter" follow-up questions.

Bill Mullins asks:

"Now, Dutchman, I want to know if I can resist the black-BDU-gang BEFORE they actually kill one of us or do I have to wait for them to actually kill one of us first."

You can "resist" them by your refusal to comply. But you can only resist them by force of arms (which is I think what you're asking) after one, or more than one, of us is dead by their hands.

They have to cross the line and that means dead bodies on our side. It is the only way. The fact that some of us are willing to accept those rules as the price of the game does not mean that all are. I understand that.

Now, I am NOT saying that if they attack you, you have to stand there and take it. That's ridiculous. You have the absolute right to defend yourself and your property with deadly force.

Bob Wright and I were chatting about this topic the other day and he repeated something that he always said over the years -- that when it does kick off it will be over something that no one expects, in a place they would last guess, over an issue that comes as a surprise to everyone, except in retrospect.

But yes, I am saying that somebody on our side's got to die a victim of federal aggression before the rest of us take it as a tripwire and respond.

Because this tripwire could be literally anybody over just about any infringement ought to make the jack booted thugs more cautious. So far, there is little concrete evidence of that.

So, for now, I will continue to wave my arms and insult the interstellar cockroach, yelling, "Eat me!" It is not fair to propose the gambit if you are unwilling to be the bait yourself.


We also have this --

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post ""No Fort Sumters" means exactly that.":

Haven't they killed enough people already? Why do you want to wait for ONE more? Are you afraid to right what has already been done? Or are you just afraid to commit your humming bird ass to your aligator mouth?

Well, my brave anonymous friend, it is actually "hummingbird" and "alligator." And since I live what I preach and put my name on it every day, and if I am willing to be that "one more," tell me, brave boy, what is it that you are doing? Really? You don't even have the stones to put a name on your insult. What a wuss.



Anonymous said...

The obvious problem is that, when the thugs come for their victim, and the victim resists, it will be spun as an ambush, murder, terrorist attack, etc. - and the victim is extremely unlikely to be alive to refute the spin.

Anonymous said...

He's probably an agent provocateur.

Weaver said...

As you already know, I completely agree we must not have a Fort Sumter. The problem is that no matter what happens the majority of the world will be told that we fired first. Unless enough of us are there to witness the first round how are any of us to know when "it's time"?


bob reynolds said...

"But you can only resist them by force of arms (which is I think what you're asking) after one, or more than one, of us is dead by their hands."

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that death of "one, or more than one, of us" is something that has to occur at some point in the future. That absent this future death there is no _moral_ justification for "shooting the bastards" right damn now.

To that I say: Bullshit. The actions on their part that provide sufficient _moral_ justification have happened many times over already. And you and everybody who reads here can come up with several.

That does not mean that I think you, or anybody else, _should_ start shooting the bastards. You have, on numerous occasions, written of good _strategic_ and _cost_ reasons why we should delay that action while we continue to pursue less costly methods of achieving the desired end. And so far I am in agreement that assessment that the time is not here _yet_ but the morality of it is not the issue.

Aside from that, you yelling "Eat me!" is appreciated. As you have been told before, them "eating" you is one of many trip wires. "They" would be best off to just leave you alone; I suspect that they are not that smart.

Brock Townsend said...


I suggest that just like on Oath Keepers/Alarm & Muster that we should reveal our names. They can find out the name of anyone behind a computer anyway, so there should be no reason, other than for trolls, unless I'm missing something.

Anonymous said...

We cannot turn into what we defend against... I am prepared to die for liberty as the first fallen but would prefer to not fall at all. We cannot let the statists have a justifyable reason, we must be undeniably squeaky clean to gain the support of the people

the allegory

arpjoe said...

A little Revolutionary War History from "Paul Revere's Ride", by David Hackett Fischer.

New England Whig leaders were prepared to fight for their freedom, but they could not start the fight without forfeiting the moral advantage of their cause. They believed that if shots had to be fired, it was urgently important that a British soldier must be the one to fire first.

Unknown said...

IOT assure that one of our side being killed would surely be a trip wire, how about trying to adopt the "guardian angel" concept the US Army tried to use in Iraq. That is, for one or more good guys out in the open, there is one who is unseen watching over them. That way, if a bad guy tries something, he will get a response right then and there from the unseen element. Again, this is a US Army concept called "guardian angel."

Anonymous said...

As the first anonymous poster, I believe I now understand what Mike is saying by "No Fort Sumpters".

"Take care of your own defense as you see fit, but attacks should not take place (outside of self-defense) until the thugs have murdered one more of us."

Makes perfect sense to me, even though there has already been plenty of blood shed by the thugs.