TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote: The collectivists hate it when people refuse to be a victim --it undermines their whole basis for exerting their power and control.

You are absolutely right, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care what label you put on them but those behind the collectivist line of thinking have a very predictable pattern. I must subordinate myself to any aspect of the environment, to those who wish to make me into a crime victim and to any whim of any government. Resistance is not appreciated. I become a bad person when I don't agree with this line of thinking.

I've been around guns all of my life and never realized why they have always been such a volatile issue. Only recently have I understood that the basic problem really has nothing to do with guns but whether or not you should defend yourself. In reading some of the writing from the Revolutionary War period, I've found that this is not a new problem. There appears to have been a fairly significant portion of the Colonists who thought along the collectivist lines. It is a wonder that we ever got a government that wasn't built on collectivist principles.

The Annoyed Man wrote:My son was always large for his age (6' 240 today at age 21), and he has a fairly placid temperament. It's amazing to me how many big kids get picked on. He has always been strong as an ox, so we were a little afraid of what he might do to someone in a fight. Foolishly, up until he was about ten, we forbade him to fight - but I was bullied as a young boy too, and I was only repeating the parenting my parents taught me. We finally green lighted him to defend himself (but big trouble if he started it). It wasn't long before he trashed a couple of kids who had it coming. End of problem. Lesson learned all the way around.

I anticipated the bully issue with my son and daughter, and put both into martial arts classes at age 6. By the time they reached the age where bullying usually becomes an issue, they were highly proficient at self defense.

Like TAM, I initially told them not to fight for less than serious injury threatening situations because young kids don't have the sense to calibrate the response properly. However, when my son encountered serious bullying by a group and the school failed to act after I notified them of the situation, I changed the instructions to:"Do what needs doing. Take out the leader. Don't leave marks and don't do anything that will need medical treatment."

When the next bullying attempt occurred, he followed my instructions to the letter. The principal was apoplectic. He howled and threatened. I responded that the kid had no option since he and his subordinates were incompetent to prevent physical harm to my child.

I then quoted state law on self defense and told them if they wanted to take it further I'd provide contact information for my attorney. The principal slunk back into his hole, the kids who had been doing the bullying learned their lesson, other would be bullies decided there were enough other available victims that they didn't need to mess with my son, and the world came back into balance.

My take on all this is that violence is seldom the answer - but when it is, it's the ONLY answer.

chasfm11 wrote:Only recently have I understood that the basic problem really has nothing to do with guns but whether or not you should defend yourself. In reading some of the writing from the Revolutionary War period, I've found that this is not a new problem. There appears to have been a fairly significant portion of the Colonists who thought along the collectivist lines. It is a wonder that we ever got a government that wasn't built on collectivist principles.

I think this is indeed the fundamental issue. It's simple logic: if you believe in the right to self-defense guns are the only effective and reliable means of securing it --whether or not bad guys have guns. If all guns are magically eliminated tomorrow we will merely be back to rule and subjugation by brute force. Home invasions, murders, assaults, and rapes won't cease occurring, individuals will merely cease having any means of defending themselves from attack. Depriving good citizens of guns only makes sense if that is the intended result.

Excaliber wrote: My take on all this is that violence is seldom the answer - but when it is, it's the ONLY answer.

That is the best summation that I've seen. Thanks.

...agreed...when the powers that be(law) have been corrupted to the point that appealing to the law gains the people no justice nor relief...those powers(even if they represent the law) must be overthrown...the house must be cleaned...that's what happened in 1776...thank God!!!