Oh, I'm a more careful reader than most, and fully duplicated your first post, which is why I replied to you in the first place.
There's no mistaking what you said. You cautioned others to be careful about how they might respond to marauding rioters. You advocated a muted, or semi withdrawn response to the threat of real bodily harm.
I was likewise unambiguous in my response to that suggestion. I disagree with it completely. In the scenario that was being set forth, the only correct response is to answer the threatening force with an equal or greater level of force. Do less, and you'll probably not survive the attack.
I remember NYC before Giuliani became mayor. It only took a small number of savages to make the city virtually unlivable.
And why was that? I'll tell you why. It's because the majority did not exercise their God given right to self defense, and allowed an uncivilized minority to make them shrink back in terror. They bought into the mindset of being disarmed and defenseless, and allowed those whom they'd conveyed their right of self defense to, to convince them that destroying their attackers was outside their personal jurisdiction.
This is Basic Warfare 101. If you've got any confusions on it, I just hope you're far out of range when order in your area breaks down.
You didn’t read my response if you think I said I wouldnt fight. I simply observed that it’s going to get rough if the Kenyan loses. I did mention the perfectly rational preference for a vigil society.
Your puffing bravado does point out the old truism about how much courage there is behind a keyboard.