|.308 Vanquish. Mrs. K prefers the custom 16" barrel...|
A significant portion of the library - old posts - that live here at the III blog are linked each year across the net. This post has had a fair bit of attention over the last few months - so here it is once again.
I hope you find it useful.
I've rec'd a few emails regarding my "...300 yard self defense..." post below.
I've covered this philosophy in the past, many times, but I have a much larger audience every month (including a percentage of Marxist garbage who seem to think I need to be monitored), so I'll explain the Kerodin Self Defense Doctrine once more.
When a man lays his hands upon you without invitation with the intent of subjugation or harm, he has clearly violated every tenet of civilized society, and I reserve the Right, under Natural Law to defend myself. For the record, I do NOT subscribe to the theory of Proportional Response. If you put your hands upon me with what I perceive to be the intent to subjugate or harm me, you'll be very lucky if I permit you to have your arm back at all. If I choose to let you keep it, it will rattle like a sack of rocks, because I will break every bone in that meat sack in several places. I may simply choose to put your elbow in your ear. Then again, given many variables (not the least of which is my mood at the time) I may simply keep your arm and have it mounted over my fireplace as a trophy.
What of the man who declares his intent to lay hands upon you, but has not yet done so? This is where a portion of my readers part ways with my personal philosophy. Many readers believe that until that man makes a direct, physical move to lay-on hands, I am morally restrained from taking action. I say this with absolute respect for those of you who take that position: I reject it.
If I know a man means me harm and has the potential to accomplish his attack, I believe I remain firmly on the Moral High Ground of Self Defense to go find him and hit him firstest with the mostest with everything I've got until that threat is eliminated - forever. I may get him to change his mind by simply using my words. I may have to dismiss words and have a more direct conversation. He may be the sort who will simply heal up and then come at me again - I have no moral obligation to let that happen. So, if I think the only solution is to ensure he simply cannot ever lay hands upon me is to break his arms in a dozen places - each arm - so that they will never heal into a useful threat, I reserve the Right, under Natural Law, to do so. I may use my own hands to do the damage, or I may use a claw hammer. If I think the only way to eliminate the threat of harm this man has stated he intends to inflict upon me is to make him disappear - I reserve that Right. I have no moral obligation to wait if I believe his threat is legitimate. I have no moral obligation to wait until he tries to put me on a cattle car toward the re-education camp. I can take the initiative and go to his place, or surprise him at Starbucks, and go to work, and I maintain that this remains in the realm of Self Defense.
If I know, through Intel, that men intend to come to my home and subjugate me or harm me, I maintain that I remain on the Moral High Ground of legitimate Self Defense to not be at home, to Flank & Spank (TM) them when they deploy at my property, or engage them before they reach my property, or to go to their place of work and engage them without warning, or to go to their homes and make sure they do not go to work - ever again. I am under no moral obligation to let someone try to harm me.
Now let's consider our Police State. If I am targeted simply because I am a Constitutionalist and I know men with badges and guns intend to confront me (this goes for the full-blown Stack as well as the Lone Wolf cop with an attitude problem who follows me and my wife all around town and into the local grocery store - you know who you are, and more importantly, I know who you are - and just for clarity: I am NOT talking about any member of the Sheriff's department) I believe I remain on the Moral High Ground of Self Defense to counter-attack, first. That's probably an oxymoron. But you get my meaning. I am under no moral obligation to let a Stack corner me without cause in my home, and I am under no moral obligation to tolerate a local LEO who engages in stalking behavior, who may simply be waiting for the "right moment" to confront me with nefarious intent. I reserve the Right under Natural Law (my Rights to Life and Liberty as articulated in the DoI) to ensure that my wife is not caught in a crossfire or is forced to watch her husband be gunned down on a dark roadside just because some thug in a uniform doesn't like my position on LEO.
Now, specifically to my query about a Self Defense load in .308 for ranges of 300 yards or fewer. My wife is under no moral obligation to let a known Bad Guy with known bad intent to get within handgun range or buckle-to-buckle range. I believe she maintains the Moral High Ground of Self Defense to proactively defend herself, if needed against a known threat, at rifle range.
Here's where I lose even more people: What of the clerk in the Courthouse who types up the warrant based solely on my "crime" of being a Constitutionalist, which some Enemy of Liberty has determined to be an "Extremist" or "Terrorist"? What of the Legislator who writes or votes for the law (such as NDAA or Patriot Act) that makes such a warrant "Legal"? What of those players behind the scenes who sanction or facilitate the imminent use of force against me? What about the Prosecutor who will use the law as a weapon to subjugate or harm me for the "crimes" listed in Patriot or NDAA? What of the men and women who accept a State paycheck who work as jailers who will keep me locked in a cage? I maintain that I remain on the Moral High Ground of Self Defense to neutralize the threat of imminent force against me, imminent harm or subjugation against me, extending to those people who put the wheels in motion and those people who facilitate those wheels.
And what of my neighbor who votes for the politicians who make such acts "Legal"? Are they not responsible for the harm that is coming my way? I maintain I remain on the Moral High Ground of Self Defense to backfist my neighbor who votes for politicians who pass legislation that takes bread from my table and makes it "Legal" for force to be used against me for malum prohibitum crimes. Bringing their attacks upon me to an end is within my Rights. I am under no moral obligation to sit idly by and permit my neighbors to cause me injury or hardship through proxies who seek to impose infringements upon my Natural Rights.
Finally, what of those people who write words (or speak words) that place my myself or my wife in Harm's Way, in physical jeopardy, such as the recent Nation article or local papers that print SPLC (or other) hit pieces without basis in fact that attempt to inflame local hatred, thus creating an atmosphere of aggression toward me with no regard for the safety of the people about whom they write, because they have no intention of ever permitting facts to get in the way of an agenda-driven, sensationalist piece to sell newspapers or other media? I maintain that I remain firmly on the Moral High Ground of Self Defense to challenge those people until they stop making my world unsafe.
Individual Human Beings are responsible for the actions they take, for the words they write or allow to be published, and for the words they speak. If those words lead to the potential for harm, it is a matter of legitimate Self Defense to take action to end those threats. And don't give me any crap about 1A. The First Amendment is a prohibition of Government to restrict speech - I am under no moral obligation as a private Citizen or as a Human Being, to tolerate people who create an environment of jeapordy by writing or speaking. They do NOT get 1A protection from me.
Lest you think me a hypocrite: I know that what I write exposes Liberals, Leftists, Marxists and Collectivists of all stripes, and other genetic waste to the potential of being reviled by their neighbors. Fugg'em. Liberals, Leftists and Marxists have no place in America, which is a country founded upon individual Liberty. If you seek to infringe the individual Liberty of my Countrymen, you deserve to be punched in the nose. You deserve to know how your own blood tastes in your mouth from a backfist delivered by a Patriot. You deserve to be run out of this country if you will not cease and desist in your attempts to infringe the personal Liberty of Americans. And if you think MY words and actions are a threat to you, I invite you to come find me, and get some. I'm not hard to find, and I don't run.
Infringing individual Liberty is NOT a "Legitimate political difference of opinion..." It is Treason, even if you do not use a rifle to seek your goals. It is the waging of war upon the Constitution and We the People of the United States of America.
It is an attempt to undermine our Founding Principles. It is an attempt to destroy the bedrock that is American Liberty. It is an attempt to impose slavery upon Freemen. It is an attempt to elevate yourself to the position of Master over your neighbors.
That is NOT acceptable behavior in America. By definition, that is un-American. By definition, Americans are never forced to bend knee in deference to any man - be he King or President or neighbor.
Cease and desist, or we who intend to be Free and at Liberty are upon the Moral High Ground of Self Defense when we move to make you stop.
That is the Kerodin Self Defense Doctrine.
Strategy and Tactics will be detailed later. Maybe with my words. Maybe with action. We shall see.