|.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.
I believe that can be filed under Fair Warning.....ReplyDelete
We’ll be walking in the same direction.ReplyDelete
I tried to cut, paste and copy what you wrote but its not working properly???
This one's a keeper Kerodin. The post you wrote hit the nail right on the head. In my A.O. my neighbors and I have been going after the small time meth labs, meth dealers and meth users because they of course are the immediate threat to our safety and property.
We have one meth user/cook/dealer who owns a house on our street who is in jail until January when he may be paroled. We are doing everything in our power legally to block his release since he made direct threats to myself and some other neighbors, and no we will not burn his house down or do anything illegal.
I find with patience and tenacity, I can a make an enemy use their own energy to destroy themselves.
Very well said. Well thought out and stated clearly. It happens to be my attitude too. Thanks for posting it!ReplyDelete
Although I have always felt the same way as Kerodin does, I have never quite put it to words. Well done!ReplyDelete
In all my years, (67 of them) I have been fortunate not have had to confront many people who would transgress against me. I have always thought it was "body language" or just my "attitude" that kept people at bay. But after reading "Kerotin's Doctrine", maybe it is a mindset that exudes a warning to others, telegraphing "danger".
Reading the words of this Doctrine have brought me to a place I have been before. Several could have died and would have, except for a fleeting sense of "level of seriousness" on my part. My questions at the time were, was the threat enough to kill for or will just the threat of dying be enough to keep them off my back. And was their threat worth paying the consequences if I had ended their threat for this lifetime?
That's a lot to think about in the few seconds while your hands are choking the lifes blood from someone elses brain. But it happened.
The one thing I would like to learn, but probably not in the shape to learn anymore is, how do you slam an elbow into someone elses ear? That is something I should have learned many, many years ago. I can do claw hammers though.
Well, once the arm is detached, it can be inserted elbow-first into an ear fairly easily. :-DDelete
Those who intend you harm may arrive in a hardened vehicle; eventually, the passengers will be exposed when they leave the vehicle and the support people who service and fuel the vehicle will be exposed, as well. Those who intend you harm are vulnerable, often in ways they do not expect.ReplyDelete
This is a fine article/blog, thank you for publishing it.
I was with you for most of your article. I thought, "This man is basically expressing the Non-Aggression Principle.ReplyDelete
Like you, I look at "threats" systemically... so, rather than seeing the policeman's gun as the threat, I conceive of the whole system that led to that gun being in those hands at that time. Thousands of people "collaborated" in creating that threat. So, "the enemy" is everywhere. And vulnerable.
But, in recognising these facts, you set your mind into the mentality of Civil War. Father against Son. Wife against Husband.
However, you lost me once you cited the virtues of the Constitution. I don't hold much faith in "bits of paper" and it's pretty obvious that the Constitution has had no power to prevent the American slide into fascism.
But, even within the Constitution, the provisions for taxation represent State' violence against every individual ... at the most basic level. I can't support a document which enshrines that behaviour.
Do no harm and cause no loss. That's all the Constitution that is needed, IMO.
The Constitution was written to ESTABLISH this mess. It laid the foundations not of peace and prosperity, but of our enslavement to the State. Further, the colonists rebelled against the crown for LESS than has been done here. But read the Declaration, don't take my word for it - we're seeing the VERY complaints the colonists raised.
And the Bill of Rights was eroded from Day 1.
9th and 10th died at Appomattox Courthouse, April 9, 1865. First was killed outright with Patriot 1, if not before. Fifth has been destroyed as well, and Fourth died with DWI checkpoints, if not sooner. Second in 1934, if not arguably before - everything since that ban on "dangerous assault weapons" (to use the buzzwords of today) is essentially turning off the life-support. Again, groundwork was laid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Revolutionary_War
(Keep reading down the links - it's where the Statist interpretations became a big deal.)
Arguably, the 3rd amendment is not yet fully dead, though with the emerging surveillance state, and the actual asset forfeiture laws, and the occasions where police force people out of their homes - it's sort of de facto dead, if not de jure.
Sixth, Speedy trial - RIGHT. Don't know when, but evidently DEAD.
7th - well, 1973 they cut the jury to 6 instead of 12. Maybe this one's still alive in some way?
Eighth Amendment? Excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishment? Hm, your assets can be seized without trial; your funds frozen, and yet - because you HAVE assets - you can be denied a Public Defender? How about SWAT raids at 3:30 AM, burning your daughtyer, or gettign family (or YOU) shot, for the crime of OWNING - not even SELLING, just OWNING - plants. (Includes examples like raiding a house that is growing TOMATO plants. Or the flash-bang that burned a young girl because the SWAT operator didn't know how the equipment worked? Or the policy of murdering dogs which are clearly family pets? "Collaterol Damage" is A-OK if the Cops do it? The "I smell pot" excuse to force entry into a home and do whatever they wish?) Yeah, dead.
Bear in mind that the ILLUSION of freedom is infinitely easier to maintain, and it allows CONTROL of the populace. If we don't deal with the little things, on principle - we have abandoned the field of battle.
Further, we now have a tyrant issuing orders via "Executive Order" - a king in all but name.
We've been declared PROPERTY of the State.
Now, what are we going to DO about it, since (1) Elections are fixed, and regatrdless of election results, the Agenda continues the same; (2) Jury Nullification has been declared a crime, outright - and can result in jail time; (3) Freedom of Speech? Where? Invisible freedom of speach = government censorship.
We are being aggressed against. I do NOT have a solution - yet. But I'm still cogitating...
You too. Take a look around and understand where you're at. Go cogitate someplace else. Take Anonymous with you. Maybe you two can cogitate together.Delete
Right on, brother.ReplyDelete
A proactive defense is completely justified under the right conditions. and that's how I teach it in my tactical courses. Only a fool will let an obvious threat get close enough to his loved ones to do them harm in SHTF. Mason Dixon TacticalReplyDelete
Spot on Brother Patriot!! If there is no objection, I would like to pass this along to others in my A.O. that are of like mind.
Flat-Land Patriot in the Southeast
Sorry, using the argument that "...the piece of paper [Constitution] never stopped us from sliding into tyranny is like saying the gun bears the responsibility to firing and killing the kid without Human Agency as a participant.ReplyDelete
The logical fallacy is beyond the ability to measure.
People are the problem - with guns killing kids and with pieces per stopping tyranny.
You're right about the logical fallacy there, and it cuts both ways. Human Agency is the sole causation, and that's that.Delete
You can probably prove that the Constitution is the best instantiation of Rule of Law ever created. What you can't prove is that Rule of Law will ever trump Human Agency. That's because it never could, which is a decent explanation for why it never has.
With consent, Rule of Law is a wonderful thing. But then, with consent pretty much anything is.
Here's a question for everyone who says, "I believe in the Constitution."ReplyDelete
Let's imagine that a Congress/Senate jumped through all the hoops and amended the Bill of Rights. That's possible ... even conceivable.
Now, let's imagine that they amended the BoR so as to strike out the Second Amendment. All done "legally" and with full respect to the relevant articles of the Constitution.
How many of you would shrug your shoulders, cite the power of that "bit of paper" and say, "Turn in your guns, guys. Every last one of them."
If you are reading this and thinking, "No way would I turn in my guns.", then I would suggest that DO NOT believe in that "bit of paper". I would suggest that your beliefs are founded upon something deeper. Something which is internal to your own psyche and character.
Sorry - the first ten amendments are NOT open for repeal - read the preamble. Any attempt to do so is immediate violation of the compact and war.Delete
Uh, slick, you're in the wrong place. You gotta have rocks in your head coming in to this blog with those patently ignorant arguments.Delete
Time to go. You will gain no traction here.
Sorry Sam, I just really can't suffer these fools and idiots with their same parroted arguments ad nauseum. My politeness has pretty much come to an end.
Feel free to not post this comment if you feel I'm out of line.
I just recieved my first real American Flag. The Civil Peacetime Flag. Awesome. Oh, and good post dude.ReplyDelete
Jim NDV III
Am I correct in thinking that the 18th Amendment was negated by the 21st Amendment?ReplyDelete
Why shouldn't that happen with any of the others?
However, you state that this would mean 'war'. How so? Isn't it true that there are some 20,000 un-Constitutional firearms laws on the books? AFAICS, there has been no effective resistance to those.
Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that the RKBA does not reside within the Constitution. It lives independently of any such 'authority'. The Constitution is merely a formal recognition of the RKBA.
Your assessment is dead on, and we will see it. Your essay is, indeed fair warning, as many others have also issued:
Therefore, as much as my soul laments against the harsh truth before me, I make this declaration to my enemies who press me into this battle, that none shall be able to afterwards say “I did not know, you did not warn me”;
RTWT - http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/a-time-to-kill/
Except of course, this definition of "self-defense" can be (and frequently is) used to justify any act of violence carried out by anyone against anyone, under any possible circumstances, real or imagined, because the attacker can claim that the victim was a threat to them. See Bush, G. W. vs Hussein, S (2003). Or... every single war since "because we want your land and food and valuables" stopped being a good enough excuse in polite society.ReplyDelete
Indeed, as the definition itself contains a clear, explicit threat against, well, everyone in at least the United States and probably elsewhere (except, conveniently, the people most likely to ever do something about it), every one of the persons threatened in this manifesto could legitimately claim this principle of "self-defense" as an excuse to gun the author down in the street.
As is typical of all philosophical systems that try to stretch single, simple principles to cover all possible circumstances of human life, it cannot be applied to real human behavior without horrific consequences for all involved.
In all seriousness, I hope you find a good therapist and together find a way to deal with your anger issues. The first step is acknowledging that you have a problem.
Love and Peace.
Clement, you stand among a large group of people who read what they want to read instead of the words on the page.Delete
Somehow I think you must fall into one of the categories of people from whom I feel justified in defending myself. Just a hunch.
But just for clarity, let me posit: If I am your neighbor and I vote for a politician who promises to impose a 100% income tax on you and yours, you feel no right to physically defend yourself until...when?
And keep in mind the parameters as clearly set forth in the Doctrine: The outcome must be possible and legitimate...
While the Doctrine you set forth would seem very reasonable in an anarchic environment and community, how can it be used in the current situation that is the "United States of America" today without bringing harm to one's own family and loved ones? If one makes an effort to physically cause the cessation of the threat posed by a neighbor voting for a measure that would Threaten you, in this society such an action would bring down the full force of these Thugs In Uniform to gun oneself and one's loved ones down. Is this a risk that must be accepted in the pursuit of Liberty? Can the Doctrine be applied without endangering one's family?
~Curious For Truth
An additional question related to the previous one: as pointed out in your statement, the threat is indeed everywhere, from lawyers and thugs-in-uniform to bureaucrats and neighbors who vote for them. What is the appropriate response to neutralize this threat? The solution that seems to be offered is an immediate resort to physical means for permanent neutralization, but as noted in my previous post, this method of response almost certainly brings grave threats to the Liberty and Life of oneself and one's family as well. Yet these threats are not to be tolerated. What then is the solution? What of when the threat is stronger than any armed resistance possible, as occurred during the martial law imposed by the thugs-in-uniform after the so-called Boston Marathon Bombing? How should even a group of well-armed individuals protect their Liberty from such Threats?
~Curious For Truth
Wow lots of Homeland Security geeks coming in here to mess with the wrong patriots. You guys need to find a better place to put such truthful conversation like our own forfather's did. We need to have meetings that are private no phones allowed they record video and audio 24/7 of your life. And if you goto fight toss all the electronic crap in a fire it's the spy in your pocket and the Internet is also a patriots worst nightmare. God bless American patriots be safe. Next buy a top notch drone blocker. So when electronic hell is unleashed on our families you can jam it's signal and recover that device and retask it for better purpose. I will post this for now on so u know who is writing this in the future. Sheeple are nothing more than an ID10T error .ReplyDelete