And more specifically, the difference between a threat and a promise.
I was recently going through some of Joe Huffman's posts, and I came upon one about Threepers. As usual, it was an excellent post, but I believe the value is in the comments. Some of the commenters asked a fundamental question:
Is carrying a firearm in and of itself, a threat of violence?
Most people know what a threat is, kids especially. 'If you don't eat your peas, I'm going to throw all of your Easter candy away.' Adults as well: 'If you don't give me all of your money, I'll cut you.'
Here's the promise: 'If you eat your peas, I'll take you to the park.' 'If you try to do me harm, I will shoot you.'
See the subtle, yet oh so distinct difference? I knew you could.
What caught my eye was that the question was posed in the context of threepers. It's my opinion that those who disagree with the threeper philosophy misrepresent intentionally their principles. The most glaring is the idea of 'No Ft Sumpter's'.
The threeper philosophy, to me, is one that stands against an out-of-control government, particularly the ATF, and letting that government know that 'We know what you did, and if you do it again we will retaliate.'
It's a promise .... not a threat.
pm
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment