Every year, my kids present me with a form from school, whcih I must read and sign, and return for my childs file.

I call it the "Non-Agression Pact".  The School Districts call it a "Zero Tolerance Policy for Violence".  It essentially says that anyone fighting in school, or on school property, would be subject to various levels of punishment, regardless of who initiated the violence.  Kind of a Mutally Assured Destruction suicide pact kind of thing.

Being pointless to try to argue the administrators out of such a ridiculous policy, I simply sign the form.  However, when I return the form to my child, I also give them verbal instructions; to whit:

"If you are the one that throws the first punch (or kick, as both my kids are belts in Tae Kwon Do), you are in far more trouble with me than anything the School can do to you.

If you are attacked, I expect you to fight back.  I will stand by you, whatever the School dcecides to do to punish you for defending yourself.

If you DO NOT fight back, the consequences you face from me will be far worse than anything the school could possibly threaten you with."

When the British Sailors and Marines were released from their illegal detention by Iran, the ranking officer said:

"Fighting back was simply not an option," said (Royal Marine Captain Chris) Air of their capture.

So rather than show a spine, the Captain surrendered his command.  It may have been that the Iranians would have backed down if faced with a resolute command.  It may have been that a fire fight would have ensued (though that is doubtful, as the purpose of the exercise was to embarass the Brits, and flex some Iranian muscle, not to start a war).  Instead, the Captain, and his command were taken hostage, and used as stooges for Iranians prooganda.

During the shooting spree at the Federal Way Mall a year or two ago, one man present actually had a concealed carry permit, and had his weapon with him, but refused to use it.  He was wounded and crippled by the gunman, and yet the media declared him a Hero.  Meanwhile, the shooter remained at large to menance others.

Now, we have the slaughter at Virginia Tech, and, with a very few excpetions, the vast majority of the people killed were gunned down like sheep.  One professor, a 77 year old holocaust survivor, put himself in harms way to protect his students.

One man killed 32 people people, with hundreds of potential targets, and to this date, there are no reports of anyone trying to stop him.

This post isnt about gun control (for it or against it), it is about taking a stand against evil and your adversaries.  It is about realizing that there are times when you must fight back - that sometimes violence is the most appropriate response.

How many lives could have been saved if someone had tackled this madman during his shooting spree?  He was oine man with a gun - a group could have easily overpowered him, with a far lower death toll than actually occurred.

 I though that Sept 11, 2001 had taught people two lessons:  1) You might as well fight back, because you are probably going to be killed anyway; and 2) the Cavalry is not coming over the hill to rescue you.  The police (or military) cannot be on every street corner, in every hallway.  You MUST take some responsibility for your own protection.

Nonvoilence and it's cousin, Pacifism, are wonderful ideals.  But you can only afford to have those ideals if others stand ready to protect you while you espouse them.  And, as we are painfully taught from time to time, our defenders are not always there, and we must stand up for ourselves.

Sometimes, you must fight back.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS