Aggressiveness carries with it an incalculable moral edge in any combat, offensive or defensive.

It is true that a victim who fights back may suffer for it, but one who does not almost certainly will suffer for it.

The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.

By doing what our assailant least expects us to do, we may throw him completely off. ... what he usually least suspects is instant, violent counterattack, so the principle of aggressiveness is closely tied to threat of surprise.

What are we going to do if citizens are disarmed, and the government doesn't obey its own laws?

If I wasn't a trader, I would probably be in the film business in some capacity and writing in some other form. I went to NYU Film School and London Film School.

The one who anticipates the action wins. The one who does not, loses.