Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 54

Thread: Applying the NAP to a real life situation

  1. #1

    Applying the NAP to a real life situation

    St. Louis man viciously attacked on commuter train by perps citing Michael Brown

    By Thomas Lifson
    Make no mistake; a race war is being ginned up, with the assistance of major media, and the lead role being occupied by profiteers of conflict. The shooting of Michael Brown, which even Eric Holder acknowledges was fully justified, has been established in the kinds if many as a symbol of race wrongs crying out for vengeance. And now a St. Louis man has received critical injuries in attack whose perpetrators used Michael Brown’s name before brutalizing the stranger whom they encountered on a Metrolink train. Surveillance video documents the whole thing. Other passengers simply stood by and offered no assistance. KSDK TV reports: The victim says one of the men asked to use his cell phone, but he said no. "Then proceeded to ask me about the Michael Brown incident and at that point I knew this was going to be trouble, before I decided what I was going to do he sort of stood up, turned away and then nailed me right in the face," the victim said.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._comments.html


    Suppose this man had been a CC'er. At what point consistent with NAP could he start pumping rounds into center's of mass? First it was a major mistake for a White to get on one of those trains.

    The victim says one of the men asked to use his cell phone, but he said no.

    He should have put space between himself and the thugs without responding. When the thugs attempt to follow in my opinion beginning measures to neutralise the threat(s) would be fully in order.





  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    $#@! the NAP.......

    Here's the video from yesterday;

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...etrolink-train

  4. #3
    Do you two not understand the NAP?

    Actually, let me re-phrase: you two do not understand the NAP.

    The NAP =/= pacifism.

    When the verbal harassment started, I would have stood up, ostensibly to walk away but in reality to allow myself a path to retreat if necessary. If the confrontation had continued and I was carrying, I would have warned the assailant that I was prepared and equipped to defend myself, and that he should end his engagement. Had he persisted, and attempted to strike me, I would have defended myself (red belt TKD), then again sought to separate myself from the assailant so that I could draw without concern for being disarmed. Once I've drawn, I wouldn't pull the trigger unless he kept coming at me.

    That is self-defense, and it is entirely consistent with the NAP.
    Last edited by A Son of Liberty; 03-29-2015 at 09:14 AM.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Do you two not understand the NAP?

    Actually, let me re-phrase: you two do not understand the NAP.
    Ya'll have explained it to me quite often, often enough that I think I understand it pretty well...

    My standard response tends to be more along the line of; "The NAP is a good and noble endeavor but it just doesn't work for my temperament."

    Is that better?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Ya'll have explained it to me quite often, often enough that I think I understand it pretty well...

    My standard response tends to be more along the line of; "The NAP is a good and noble endeavor but it just doesn't work for my temperament."

    Is that better?
    No.

    Re-read my post, I edited.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    No.

    Re-read my post, I edited.
    So my understanding of your NAP doesn't suit you?

    The white dude is a pussy plain and simple, men of any stripe, of any political philosophy sans pacifist, will fight.

    Because you believe in the NAP and will fight isn't good or bad in my opinion, it means you're an honorable man.

    The OP may have a misguided understanding of your NAP but I don't believe I do......I would have never stepped back or waivered, no warning, no talk....

    I don't tolerate punks in my face and I don't threaten......

    I have no fancy "belts" and don't pack a firearm.........Hell I'm not even a large man but I do have heart and self respect.

    If you choose to comport yourself in a manner that abides by some code that's your prerogative just as it's my prerogative to rely on good sense and honor to comport myself.

  8. #7
    NAP =/= NVP
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    So my understanding of your NAP doesn't suit you?

    The white dude is a pussy plain and simple, men of any stripe, of any political philosophy sans pacifist, will fight.

    Because you believe in the NAP and will fight isn't good or bad in my opinion, it means you're an honorable man.

    The OP may have a misguided understanding of your NAP but I don't believe I do......I would have never stepped back or waivered, no warning, no talk....

    I don't tolerate punks in my face and I don't threaten......

    I have no fancy "belts" and don't pack a firearm.........Hell I'm not even a large man but I do have heart and self respect.

    If you choose to comport yourself in a manner that abides by some code that's your prerogative just as it's my prerogative to rely on good sense and honor to comport myself.
    To my knowledge, you haven't explained your understanding of the NAP. My response was wholly in line with the Non-Aggression Principle, and also smart, strategic self-defense. Fools literally do rush in. If that is good sense and honor, I guess we have entirely different ideas about those concepts.

    You do not fight with your back against the wall if you can avoid it. ALWAYS give yourself a way out - you never know what your enemy is planning. That is good sense.

    Having some basic hand-to-hand self-defense skill is, again, just good sense. There truly is a difference between actually defending yourself and flailing like an idiot.

    Honor demands that you give your enemy fair warning.

    Finally, your comment, "$#@! the NAP" strongly suggests that you either have no idea what the NAP recommends in such a situation, or that you're simply a loud mouth punk.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    To my knowledge, you haven't explained your understanding of the NAP. My response was wholly in line with the Non-Aggression Principle, and also smart, strategic self-defense. Fools literally do rush in. If that is good sense and honor, I guess we have entirely different ideas about those concepts.

    You do not fight with your back against the wall if you can avoid it. ALWAYS give yourself a way out - you never know what your enemy is planning. That is good sense.

    Having some basic hand-to-hand self-defense skill is, again, just good sense. There truly is a difference between actually defending yourself and flailing like an idiot.

    Honor demands that you give your enemy fair warning.

    Finally, your comment, "$#@! the NAP" strongly suggests that you either have no idea what the NAP recommends in such a situation, or that you're simply a loud mouth punk.
    And a great big warm $#@! OFF to you too $#@!.
    Last edited by tod evans; 03-29-2015 at 10:13 AM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    And a great big warm $#@! OFF to you too $#@!.
    The only thing you might have legitimately taken offense to there was "loud mouth punk", and you left yourself open to it.

    Whatever. You haven't said anything worthy of consideration in this thread yet. There. Take offense to that.

  13. #11
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    9,138
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    The NAP is very clear in this situation. After the first aggresor struck the victim, the white guy should have stood up and knocked out the punk in the red shirt.
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  14. #12
    Any indication AT ALL that the train assault victim considered himself to be a libertarian?

    Where is Bernard Goetz when you need him?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    And a great big warm $#@! OFF to you too $#@!.
    If you're quite through with your petulant, disruptive temper tantrum and regurgitating your ignorant nonsense, perhaps you'll pay attention a moment and actually learn a thing or two, that you may actually be capable of contributing something of value.

    I mean, the least you anti-NAPers could do is bother to formulate an actual criticism that isn't immediately disregardable as nonsensical drivel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    The NAP is very clear in this situation. After the first aggresor struck the victim, the white guy should have stood up and knocked out the punk in the red shirt.
    The threat of violence is just as actionable as physical violence under NAP; threats of aggression are a form of coercion, after all. One wouldn't necessarily need to wait to be struck, for instance, to begin defending themselves. Particularly in these kinds of situations, the threat of imminent violence is often very observable.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleocon1 View Post
    Suppose this man had been a CC'er. At what point consistent with NAP could he start pumping rounds into center's of mass? First it was a major mistake for a White to get on one of those trains.
    Hard to say. I tend to think NAP demands a certain measure of equitability where defensive violence is concerned. I imagine putting a gun in their face may have been sufficient enough to put a halt to the situation. If they had come at him at that point, they're not leaving many other options, it seems. Of course, he may not have had the time or opportunity to preempt in such a way, so it's a bit difficult to say.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  16. #14
    I mean, the least you anti-NAPers could do is bother to formulate an actual criticism that isn't immediately disregardable as nonsensical drivel.
    Challenge accepted. I'll try to do this at some point when I have the time.

  17. #15
    The answer is immediately he enters your personal space, start shooting. Don't hesitate or else you will be gang raped and die from trauma or AIDS you get following the rape. That is what NAP prescribes.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    If you're quite through with your petulant, disruptive temper tantrum and regurgitating your ignorant nonsense, perhaps you'll pay attention a moment and actually learn a thing or two, that you may actually be capable of contributing something of value.
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt so that maybe you can educate me in the finer points of the NAP seeing as how every swinging dick here seems to be armed and possessing some sort of hand to hand training....

    I've been reading ya'lls discussions for years on this and they all seem to boil down to how one of you justifies shooting someone.

    The white guy obviously wasn't armed like all of you brave NAP-ers and he just sat there like a pussy, is that how you behave without your firearm?

    Most people don't leave home armed just like most people don't know hand to hand combat techniques yet of all those unarmed and untrained people I know every one of them will fight.

    I'm not "anti-NAP" in any way shape or form, I just don't ever accept another mans idea of justifiable violence or defense. If you choose to do so that's up to you, I won't hold it against you.

    I will however state that I'm willing to bet that every one of you NAP-ers who advocates the use of firearms in situations such as described in the OP have never been in such a situation. So it's a fair assumption ya'll are just blowing hot air.

    Have you specifically Cabel ever even been in a fist fight? Or are you preaching that which you have no actual knowledge of?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    The only thing you might have legitimately taken offense to there was "loud mouth punk", and you left yourself open to it.

    Whatever. You haven't said anything worthy of consideration in this thread yet. There. Take offense to that.
    That you believe that you're entitled to grasp my comprehension of a philosophy I don't abide by is offensive in and of itself but when you choose to go so far as to attempt to paint my beliefs or behaviors with your brush that's gone to far, and I do take offense.

    I was kind enough to acknowledge your beliefs and professed behavior in respectful terms even though I personally find folks who carry weapons and brag about their training to be compensating for something.

    If you're looking for someone to validate either your philosophies or behavior you might, maybe someday, if the situation is right and the stars are aligned, exhibit then you're barking up the wrong tree 'cause I'm not playing.

    March your happy ass downtown with your sidearm and martial arts training, I'm plenty secure in an ol' T-shirt and worn jeans.........We'll see who leaves unscathed.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt so that maybe you can educate me in the finer points of the NAP seeing as how every swinging dick here seems to be armed and possessing some sort of hand to hand training....

    I've been reading ya'lls discussions for years on this and they all seem to boil down to how one of you justifies shooting someone.

    The white guy obviously wasn't armed like all of you brave NAP-ers and he just sat there like a pussy, is that how you behave without your firearm?

    Most people don't leave home armed just like most people don't know hand to hand combat techniques yet of all those unarmed and untrained people I know every one of them will fight.

    I'm not "anti-NAP" in any way shape or form, I just don't ever accept another mans idea of justifiable violence or defense. If you choose to do so that's up to you, I won't hold it against you.

    I will however state that I'm willing to bet that every one of you NAP-ers who advocates the use of firearms in situations such as described in the OP have never been in such a situation. So it's a fair assumption ya'll are just blowing hot air.

    Have you specifically Cabel ever even been in a fist fight? Or are you preaching that which you have no actual knowledge of?
    Evidently your reading comprehension is as terrible as your understanding of NAP.

    Suppose this man had been a CC'er.
    Do you understand what the word "suppose" means in this statement, and thus how it has applied to the subsequent discussion? Surely that is not expecting too much, is it?

    Yes, I have been in a fight before, not that this is at all relevant to anything. And I don't see where I've been preaching much of anything, anyway. The only positions I've taken in this thread have been concerning equitability where defensive violence is concerned, and that defensive violence may be justifiable under NAP where there is a credible threat of imminent violence. Perhaps if you were less absorbed with commenting on who is or isn't a pussy, and pretending like your irrelevant, desperate assumptions were not just pulled directly out of your ass, you'd actually bother to address the content of the discussion, rather than continuing to prattle on in the same inane way you have been since your first post in this thread.
    Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    Evidently your reading comprehension is as terrible as your understanding of NAP.



    Do you understand what the word "suppose" means in this statement, and thus how it has applied to the subsequent discussion? Surely that is not expecting too much, is it?

    Yes, I have been in a fight before, not that this is at all relevant to anything. And I don't see where I've been preaching much of anything, anyway. The only positions I've taken in this thread have been concerning equitability where defensive violence is concerned, and that defensive violence may be justifiable under NAP where there is a credible threat of imminent violence. Perhaps if you were less absorbed with commenting on who is or isn't a pussy, and pretending like your irrelevant, desperate assumptions were not just pulled directly out of your ass, you'd actually bother to address the content of the discussion, rather than continuing to prattle on in the same inane way you have been since your first post in this thread.
    Au-contraire, the "prattling" predicates this post...

    The assumption that your verbiage is incomprehensible to all but the uneducated is ludicrous.

    Your point about "defensive violence", albeit poorly couched, merely upholds my previous statements with an abundance of superlative BS.

    The only pussy mentioned is the white guy in the OP, singular white guy, is your comprehension failing?

    If you actually have a point to make relevant to either the OP, the behaviors exhibited in the OP or perhaps the application of the NAP contrary to my statements I'm waiting to read them.....

    I still see absolutely no reason to consult or abide by some modern day political philosophy before jumping up and fighting back given the circumstances.

    Further I see people advocating everything from backing up and talking to pulling nonexistent firearms as professed logical responses they allegedly base on this NAP...

    Help me understand the sanity or logic involved?

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by paleocon1 View Post
    [h=1]

    Suppose this man had been a CC'er. At what point consistent with NAP could he start pumping rounds into center's of mass? First it was a major mistake for a White to get on one of those trains.
    After the punch it's open season.

    On a practical basis there's nothing you can do about that kind of attack other than take revenge.

    Alternatively you can go Bernie Goetz on the bastards and accept the judgment of a jury.

  24. #21
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    9,138
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabal View Post
    The threat of violence is just as actionable as physical violence under NAP; threats of aggression are a form of coercion, after all. One wouldn't necessarily need to wait to be struck, for instance, to begin defending themselves. Particularly in these kinds of situations, the threat of imminent violence is often very observable.
    I agree with this. A person need not wait for an aggressor to draw blood before defending themselves.
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    That you believe that you're entitled to grasp my comprehension of a philosophy I don't abide by is offensive in and of itself but when you choose to go so far as to attempt to paint my beliefs or behaviors with your brush that's gone to far, and I do take offense.

    I was kind enough to acknowledge your beliefs and professed behavior in respectful terms even though I personally find folks who carry weapons and brag about their training to be compensating for something.

    If you're looking for someone to validate either your philosophies or behavior you might, maybe someday, if the situation is right and the stars are aligned, exhibit then you're barking up the wrong tree 'cause I'm not playing.

    March your happy ass downtown with your sidearm and martial arts training, I'm plenty secure in an ol' T-shirt and worn jeans.........We'll see who leaves unscathed.
    What on earth are you talking about?

    You weren't kind enough to do anything of the sort. Your first post in this thread was, "$#@! the NAP". The man being attacked was not practicing "non-aggression" as it relates to the Non-Aggression Principle. I did you the favor of explaining how someone who adheres to the NAP might respond to the unprovoked attack portrayed in the video. You responded to that with a lot of macho posturing, as if that is any kind of self-defense. Now you continue to brag about not having any martial training or weapon, but ol' Billy Badass can handle himself just fine. I suspect it is YOU would would leave downtown rather 'scathed'.

    So, to reiterate: The OP questioned how the NAP would apply; you jumped in willy-nilly to say "$#@! the NAP" (for some unknown reason); I explained to you how an NAP adherent would handle the situation; after that, I have no idea what you've been talking about.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post

    I still see absolutely no reason to consult or abide by some modern day political philosophy before jumping up and fighting back given the circumstances.

    Further I see people advocating everything from backing up and talking to pulling nonexistent firearms as professed logical responses they allegedly base on this NAP...

    Help me understand the sanity or logic involved?
    You talk while he's talking to you, with the intent of de-escalating. You back away because you never fight with your back to the wall if you can avoid it. IF, as the OP proposed, you're carrying, you pull as a last resort. Only tough guys who've never been there brag about kicking ass and taking names.

    Does that help?

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    What on earth are you talking about?

    You weren't kind enough to do anything of the sort. Your first post in this thread was, "$#@! the NAP". The man being attacked was not practicing "non-aggression" as it relates to the Non-Aggression Principle. I did you the favor of explaining how someone who adheres to the NAP might respond to the unprovoked attack portrayed in the video. You responded to that with a lot of macho posturing, as if that is any kind of self-defense. Now you continue to brag about not having any martial training or weapon, but ol' Billy Badass can handle himself just fine. I suspect it is YOU would would leave downtown rather 'scathed'.

    So, to reiterate: The OP questioned how the NAP would apply; you jumped in willy-nilly to say "$#@! the NAP" (for some unknown reason); I explained to you how an NAP adherent would handle the situation; after that, I have no idea what you've been talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    You talk while he's talking to you, with the intent of de-escalating. You back away because you never fight with your back to the wall if you can avoid it. IF, as the OP proposed, you're carrying, you pull as a last resort. Only tough guys who've never been there brag about kicking ass and taking names.

    Does that help?
    Macho posturing?

    Seems as though the "I travel packing" crowd is doing the posturing from here.

    Fighting back and "kicking ass and taking names" aren't the same thing in my world but I suppose if one's used to using a weapon instead of his fists maybe he couldn't differentiate.

    My opinion of "$#@! the NAP" was directly related to dealing with aggressive punks in public such as in the OP's video, there's not time to reflect on what's acceptable to some political philosophy, you either fight or cower. If you watch the video, the white dude, (pussy) sits there "thinking" and not fighting.

    All the talk in the world wouldn't have given anyone but the most adroit time to draw and aim in the circumstances depicted so proselytizing as to the NAP's acceptable protocol is nothing more than posturing in itself.

    The obvious response isn't to consult some proscribed course of action verbatim it's to meet force with force without thought or reflection. Maybe you're one who can draw and accurately fire a concealed weapon in those circumstances, I'm certainly not and I'll bet most folks who even acknowledge the NAP aren't either.

    But to your credit you did humor the OP and offer him advice that could have some very lethal real world consequences....



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Guys, "by the NAP", every other person on that train should pull their piece and make Swiss cheese out of the clear and obvious threat.

    We're obviously not in a NAP world, so trying to apply the principle to a situation like this is going to yield erroneous answers.

    The way modern cities are set up, it's impossible to live by NAP and assure your own security. You need to be in too close with too many other people, and that nearness can be leveraged into setting up lose-lose situations for any victim.

    Move out of the cities if you want to live by NAP. Otherwise you're going to have to live by prayer.

  30. #26
    Yea, the man is such a pussy because he lost a fight where he was ambushed by a bunch of teenagers, only a pussy would lose that fight. We all know that if it had happened to us, we would have fought them off, the sucker punch? we would have ducked it and returned a round house.

    Some people are delusional around here. And for people who haven't seen the video of the ambush of this poor man some are calling a pussy. The youtube video is below. Watch how the guy in red was watching and waiting just for the right time to attack. In close quarters like that and with numbers on his side, he had a slim change of getting out without getting beat. Its not about being a pussy, its about knowing when you are defeated and saving yourself to fight another day.



    One more thing about the NAP, there is no system that will guarantee that bad things will never happen to you, no system whatsoever. The idea is that if someone goes against it, you can unload on them no questions asked. Think of it like self defense, you are allowed to defend yourself only when you are aggressed upon. I mean how can anyone argue with that?

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    That is self-defense, and it is entirely consistent with the NAP.
    Hmmm... I would not quite go the path you outlined. Retreating to gain interval, yes. Avenue of escape... on a moving train? No. I would announce NOTHING to him, save the commend to "stop" or "go away". Once my weapon is drawn, it is going to be used immediately. I do not draw a weapon in an attempt to intimidate or "reason" with an attacker. I do so to drop him in his tracks in order to stop the threat. TKD? Not unless there is no other available instrumentality. One never engages in hand to hand combat unless there is absolutely no other choice.

    To get on a train like that without a gun is sheer idiocy. You are trapped, possibly outnumbered, could easily be surrounded, and can bank 99.999% that when the fur starts flying, nobody will come to your aid. Therefore, a firearm is your best bet for successful self-defense in a situation such as this because the moment you drop the first assailant, the rest are likely to calm down very quickly.

    These situations are endlessly dangerous; so much so that most people have absolutely no clue what a prime virtue it is to avoid them and to be properly prepared. When in questionable circumstances, you never let anyone suspicious to you get within arm's length. I would have my weapon in hand, in a pocket out of common sight, ready to go. A guy like that will get one and only one opportunity to strike me before he strikes the floor. It is a sad thing, but this is the nature of these situations. If you do not want to be killed or maimed, you must be willing to kill or maim in defense of your right to bodily integrity.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    So my understanding of your NAP doesn't suit you?

    The white dude is a pussy plain and simple, men of any stripe, of any political philosophy sans pacifist, will fight.
    PassIVist. I am a pacifist. I endeavor to remain peaceful at any reasonable cost, "reasonable" being the key qualifier, but if you insist on a dance, I will not shrink away if there is no opportunity to exit, stage left. A passivist, such as a "good" Mennonite, will stand, well... passively by as you gut him like a fish. Not me.

    I have no fancy "belts" and don't pack a firearm.........Hell I'm not even a large man but I do have heart and self respect.
    My philosophy differs. I carry a gun everywhere I go. I've been in the combat arts 44 years now and I know exactly how dangerous a fight - ANY fight - actually is. Combat is inherently non-linear - $#@! goes sideways in an instant, often giving no indication that it was going to do that. Example: one year when I was in a particularly foul mood, I was cut off at the Schank Rd intersection of Route 9 in Freehold NJ by some young kid. What he did was particularly dangerous. Turned out he was going to the same place as I, the supermarket. I pulled next to him to tell him that his stunt was not very smart. He pulls hit sunglasses down on his nose and snidely responds to me. Like a $#@!ing idiot, I took the bait in violation of everything that had been trained into me - it was the first and only time in my life when I did such a thing - and I told him that he'd better watch his mouth or I'd be watching it for him. He came back at me with more cheek and I got out of the car, VERY angry. He tried getting out and I slammed the door on his leg. How it is I did not break it, I could not figure. He managed to get out and then said the worst thing he could have: "Hey, I don't want to fight you, man." That $#@! sent me over the edge and I upper-cut him with such force that, had I connected properly, 100% certain I would have killed him instantly. Lucky for us both, I was in such a poor state of self-control that my fist glanced off his teeth, slicing my flesh to the bare knuckle bones - still have the scars. I splattered his mouth wide open, blood everywhere. At that point I instantly regained myself and thought, "oh $#@!... now what?" I was ready to leave, but he got pissed and chased me around the lot for several minutes, in waves. He'd see the blood, get pissed, come after me, calm, see blood... rinse, repeat. I told him he would never put a hand on me, and he never did - as I attempted to dissuade him from doing something we'd both regret. He finally gave up and went his way and I, to the ER to get sticthed up.

    The point of this tale of embarrassing stupidity is that, having punched this guy as I did, ANYTHING could have ensued. He could have been armed and shot me and would have been dead within his rights to do so. He was a complete $#@!, and I was even worse for volunteering my self control to the breezes. Had I really connected, he would be dead and I would still be in prison, 27 years later. Having missed, had he summoned the resolve to hurt me, I would either have gotten a good beating or would have had to beat or kill him in defense of my own life and limb. Either way, everyone loses. I $#@!ed up majorly, learned the lesson, and have transgressed no more.

    You don't EVER want to engage another in such combat because $#@! will come out of nowhere that you would never expect and your life can turn to poo in well under one second.

    If you choose to comport yourself in a manner that abides by some code that's your prerogative just as it's my prerogative to rely on good sense and honor to comport myself.
    Hear hear.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Macho posturing?

    Seems as though the "I travel packing" crowd is doing the posturing from here.

    Fighting back and "kicking ass and taking names" aren't the same thing in my world but I suppose if one's used to using a weapon instead of his fists maybe he couldn't differentiate.

    My opinion of "$#@! the NAP" was directly related to dealing with aggressive punks in public such as in the OP's video, there's not time to reflect on what's acceptable to some political philosophy, you either fight or cower. If you watch the video, the white dude, (pussy) sits there "thinking" and not fighting.

    All the talk in the world wouldn't have given anyone but the most adroit time to draw and aim in the circumstances depicted so proselytizing as to the NAP's acceptable protocol is nothing more than posturing in itself.

    The obvious response isn't to consult some proscribed course of action verbatim it's to meet force with force without thought or reflection. Maybe you're one who can draw and accurately fire a concealed weapon in those circumstances, I'm certainly not and I'll bet most folks who even acknowledge the NAP aren't either.

    But to your credit you did humor the OP and offer him advice that could have some very lethal real world consequences....
    Dude... AGAIN, the OP specifically asked about a CCW. That's the only reason it was brought up.

    And AGAIN, the tactics I suggested are SMART, not consulting a philosophy. If you want to rush in and get a knife stuck in your gut, or jumped by 4 guys and have the life kicked out of you, go right ahead. It just so happens that my approach also conforms generally to the NAP.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Hmmm... I would not quite go the path you outlined. Retreating to gain interval, yes. Avenue of escape... on a moving train? No. I would announce NOTHING to him, save the commend to "stop" or "go away". Once my weapon is drawn, it is going to be used immediately. I do not draw a weapon in an attempt to intimidate or "reason" with an attacker. I do so to drop him in his tracks in order to stop the threat. TKD? Not unless there is no other available instrumentality. One never engages in hand to hand combat unless there is absolutely no other choice.
    Read what I wrote again. I suggested buying time - the guy had his back to a wall. If it were me, not knowing what I'm facing (is he armed, is he carrying a knife/shiv, am I going to be jumped by 3 other guys), I want space behind me to hold them off (if I can). I mentioned using hand-to-hand to keep the attacker at bay and to give myself space (TKD is a martial art specifically designed for that purpose, as I'm sure you know).

    Honestly you're probably correct about drawing and shooting. I personally am not keen to kill someone... granted, I put my life in my hands by hesitating, and I know that, and I probably need to re-examine and get over it. So I'll give that to you.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 01:34 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-27-2015, 11:47 AM
  3. Son of a close family friend takes his life after cops escalate situation.
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-10-2014, 08:40 PM
  4. This situation is getting very serious. (Real Martial Law)
    By FrankRep in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-06-2008, 02:58 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •