Those with no idea what the subject line means can safely ignore this post. For the merely curious, this relates to my responsibility to manage a Plone-based web site for the body of churches to which I belong. For other webmasters and Plone folk, this is a tidbit I had to search quite a bit to find, which will allow me to export my user records from Plone 2.5's GRUF (Group User Folder) system for import into another system, without losing their ability to log in with current passwords. I plan to import my users into Plone 3+.

The recipes available at plone.org were little help, as the getPassword() and _getPassword() methods seem to have been rendered inert by Plone 2.5, probably in an attempt to tighten security. But I finally managed to find this blog post about exporting member hashes from Plone 3, and was able to confirm that the essentials also work in Plone 2.5. (By the way, you can't export the original passwords, because they are not stored on the system. Only the cryptographic hash is stored, which can be compared at login time to a hash generated from the password provided by the user.)

If you find that you want to extract your users' password hashes, then this is what you need to do within an External Method.

acl_users = getToolByName(self, 'acl_users')
passwords = acl_users.source_users._user_passwords

Then you can use a user id as an index into passwords to find the corresponding hash. If you need help obtaining the user ids...

mtool = getToolByName(self, 'portal_membership')
for member in mtool.listMembers():
    pwhash = (passwords[member.getId()])

While on vacation recently, my wife and I attended a 2-day defensive handgun course at Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. It was partly experimental, to see if the online descriptions of this training are borne out in reality. I wanted to know about the level and quality of training, but I also hoped it would be good enough to help my dear wife to achieve a level of proficiency and comfort with the use of a handgun that might prove decisive in a situation where she might have to defend herself and/or our children in my absence.

The level of training exceeded my high expectations and hopes. One would not think that so much could be taught in only two long days, but the curriculum is geared toward both quality and quantity of training. I regret somewhat that we had not signed up for the 4-day defensive handgun class instead, though I intend to take it sometime later.

Part of the curriculum at Front Sight is training in manual skills, which are important for obvious reasons. Yet at least half of the training is mental work. I intend to reflect on elements of what was taught in several blog posts. One might wonder why I'd like to do this. My reasons are threefold:

1. In order to undertake a systematic review of what I learned.

2. Because a number of those concepts may be applied in other disciplines more directly related to the usual topics I address here.

3. Because those who read these posts might learn something useful, and may even find it interesting.

I'm restricted from reproducing the classroom materials here or quoting them extensively, and I probably won't even quote them to the full degree of "fair use," though I will use their terminology.

The first concept I'd like to consider is "levels of competence." How skilled are you in the disciplines that you consider to be important?

[fs]: http://www.frontsight.com Front Sight distinguishes several levels of competence, applying these to skill at arms. However, these categories may easily apply to other skills too.

First, there are some who are intentionally incompetent. They are the ones who have made a conscious decision to be and remain unskilled. It may sound ridiculous, but we nevertheless meet people who for various reasons (fear, politics, religion, economic factors, etc.) do not want any aptitude at all. In the case of skill at arms, some of them have been educated by school or media in the fallacy that weapons are intrinsically dangerous in the sense that it is more risky to be near a weapon or to touch one than it would be to engage in any other activity. This is easily shown to be a fallacy by the far more dangerous occupational hazards that injure or kill daily.

The hazards of traveling in the wilderness of Mt.~Hood or the Grand Canyon have claimed many lives, and though injuries and deaths continue, many others engage in those hazardous activities safely, with great benefit. Farming and commercial fishing are also notoriously hazardous, but even home maintenance can be quite dangerous. Motorcycle riding has a reputation for great risk too, though driving in 4-wheeled cages (cars) assumes similar risks. Yet in all of these examples, many people undertake "risky" activities to great advantage.

People who are intentionally incompetent, if they ever attempt the activity involving their incompetence, are almost certain to hurt themselves, and probably innocent neighbors too. However, if those people become competent (even if they still don't enjoy using their skills), then they are far less likely to cause injury to themselves or others through negligence or blunders. The tragedy is that most of them have already made their decision to be incompetent. So if they are ever thrust into a situation in which skills are needed, someone is probably going to get hurt, and maybe killed.

Update in this paragraph: As I was originally writing this post out, I forgot one of the levels of competence: the unconsciously incompetent. These are people who assume that they are competent, but don't really have the experience or exposure to training that would show them otherwise. In terms of firearm skills, most people who deal with firearms would fall into this category. They may have never considered competence to be an important question, or something that they might improve. Most people are never confronted with their own incompetence as a problem, and of those who are confronted, many will deny or poo-poo it anyway. It's hard to admit that you don't stack up.

Third, some are consciously incompetent. They are not opposed to learning skills, and understand that competence would be to their advantage. Napoleon Dynamite is a great example, and is iconic for many of us who lament our lack of skills in various areas. What people like us need is training and inspiration, whether in the form of a cassette and groovy dance moves or a course at Front Sight, or something else.

Fourth, some are consciously competent. These have learned what they need to know, and are able to apply it whenever the need arises. This is the level of competence that satisfies me in most areas, and which I try to achieve, if possible. It requires some effort, not only in the learning or training process, but also in maintaining those skills. I have some amount of conscious competence now in certain areas, like handgun defense, but I'm also conscious of much more that I don't know. You can see, then, that these categories are not exclusive. They are also a bit idealistic, because nobody fits only one category. Yet these categories are also useful to set goals and to distinguish between skill levels in real life.

In the notoriously dangerous imaginative game "Dungeons and Dragons," as in many more recent video-based adventure games, there are systems for quantifying the skills a character has achieved at a given point in time. These levels of competence serve a similar function in a less exact way. The difference is that the skills under consideration are not necessarily a game. Some could be related to a game, like playing cards or baseball, but I'm more interested in practical skills like the ones I've mentioned above. If someone breaks into my house in the dead of night while my family is sleeping, I think the skills required to stop the threat of that hostile criminal are more important than the ability to play second base. That's my opinion, anyway.

The fifth category describes those who are unconsciously competent. They have reached a level of skill in which they don't even have to think about what they are doing. They act and react appropriately with minimal effort. In a true defensive situation, Front Sight says we are about half as good as we would be in a training situation. That sounds reasonable. Sometimes you hear soldiers, law enforcement, or others interviewed after some crisis, saying that they can't really take credit for their heroic performance. Their training just took over, and saved the day. That's the kind of unconscious competence that anyone might need in an emergency.

How might one apply these categories to our spiritual lives? Ah, this is a dangerous question, but with the proper skills, we can still address it safely. It's dangerous because these categories are centered around our own abilities and skills, which can never be adequate to do what is necessary in spiritual life. Romans 8:7 says, "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." No amount of training can enable us to keep God's commandments, because our natural disposition is always to break them. (When the civil laws and their enforcement do not hold people in check, it's this rebellious and wicked nature in mankind that may require us to defend our families and neighbors.)

Instead of applying these categories to spiritual competence, we might think of them in terms of certainty or comfort. Some people are intentionally uncertain about their salvation. We often call them agnostics. Many are unconsciously uncertain, probably because they are preoccupied with other, less weighty concerns.
Some are consciously uncertain. When the Holy Spirit works through the Law to accuse the conscience of a person, that person becomes uncertain of his salvation, and consciously realizes that he needs certainty. The way to certainty is not through training or practice in skills (as Buddhism and many other religions would say), but by repentance and the declaration of God's forgiveness in Jesus Christ.

Some are consciously certain of their salvation, or consciously comforted. They are consciously aware of why they have joy through each day, even in the midst of suffering. This awareness brings them back again and again to receive the divine gift of forgiveness and the tangible assurances that our Savior provides of His favor and our future with Him in heaven. I think this state is the one we should all desire.

Finally, some are unconsciously certain of their salvation. I think that this state would be detrimental, because the sinful flesh will easily lead such a person to neglect, ignore, and even despise the external spiritual gifts of God, thinking that they are not needed. In time, the certainty of salvation through Christ would be replaced by a certainty of salvation without Christ, which is not true at all. Such a person would need to review God's requirements of our lives in thought, word, and deed, in order to be reminded that he daily has many damning sins to repent, and consequently has a continuing need to receive God's forgiveness.

If you have any thoughts about these things, they are welcome.

OK, OK! I'll post it now!

While I was at synod convention, I was happily able to maintain my daily readings in the Lutheran Confessions by using the pocket edition of the new Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. I made a note to myself that I should post this paragraph from the Apology, because of its relevance to our growing synodical discussion about liturgy and "contemporary worship."

Sitting at my desktop computer at home, I just consulted my lists of things to do, and found that note. Below it, I found a note to check out www.intrepidlutherans.com, though I don't remember who mentioned it at convention. Always looking for the easier task, I fired up the web browser and typed in the address. What I saw there was part 6 of a series of blog posts excerpted from an essay by one of my more profoundly influential college professors, Daniel Deutschlander. The essay is on "The Western Rite," which, for the uninitated, is the collection of liturgies customarily used by our churches.

I couldn't resist. I meant to wait until I could print it out and read it on paper, but I started reading the full PDF version of that paper. What a weak fool I am. But at the bottom of the first page was a quotation from the Lutheran Confessions, which Deutschlander urges upon those who might like to chuck the Western Rite in favor of something of their own devising. Have you guessed it? Yes, it's the Apology, Article XV, paragraph 51.

So having been amused by that long-winded introduction (that's me, not necessarily you), I'll urge you all the more to consider these words carefully. They are a part of what every Lutheran, by virtue of claiming that name, confesses to be true. Here's the way it's written in Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions.

Still, we teach that freedom should be so controlled that the inexperienced may not be offended and, because of freedom’s abuse [Romans 14: 13-23], may not become more opposed to the true doctrine of the Gospel. Nothing in customary rites should be changed without a reasonable cause. So to nurture unity, old customs that can be kept without sin or great inconvenience should be kept. 52 In this very assembly we have shown well enough that for love’s sake we do not refuse to keep adiaphora with others, even though they may be burdensome. We have judged that such public unity, which could indeed be produced without offending consciences, should be preferred.

It's admittedly subjective to judge what is a "great inconvenience." If you have anything to write on the matter, please do so.

This refers to Matthew 19:29:

Christ does not mean that leaving parents, wife, and siblings is a work that must be done because it merits the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Indeed, such leaving is cursed. Anyone who leaves parents or wife to merit the forgiveness of sins or eternal life by this work dishonors Christ.

There are two kinds of leaving. One happens without a call, without God's command, which Christ does not approve (Matthew 15:9). The works we choose are useless services. When Christ speaks about leaving wife and children, it becomes clear that He does not approve this kind of leaving. We know that God's commandment forbids leaving wife and children. God's command to leave is different, that is, when power or tyranny pushes us either to leave or to deny the Gospel. Here we are commanded to bear injury and should rather allow not only wealth, wife, and children, but life to be taken from us. Christ approves of this kind of leaving, and so He adds for the Gospel's "sake." He does so to illustrate that He is speaking not of those who injure wife and children, but who bear injury because of the confession of the Gospel.

(Apology Article XXVII, par. 40--41 -- Concordia p. 243-244)

Doesn't that call to mind the line from the older, TLH translation of A Mighty Fortress?

Also this (especially for Mary's consideration, given her interest in past comments):

The division, control, and possession of property are civil ordinances, approved by God's Word in the commandment "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15).

(Apology XXVII, par. 46, same page)

Notice the way this translation is worded here to relate these things to the seventh commandment, especially the word "approved." Previously I've written something like "implied by."

From the Apology (Defense) of the Augsburg Confession, article V, paragraphs 113 and following. You can read the whole thing at the Book of Concord web site.

On the other hand, perfection, i. e the integrity of the Church, is preserved, when the strong bear with the weak, when the people take in good part some faults in the conduct of their teachers [have patience also with their preachers], when the bishops make some allowances for the weakness of the people [know how to exercise forbearance to the people, according to circumstances, with respect to all kinds of weaknesses and faults]. 114] Of these precepts of equity the books of all the wise are full, namely, that in every-day life we should make many allowances mutually for the sake of common tranquillity. And of this Paul frequently teaches both here and elsewhere. Wherefore the adversaries argue indiscreetly from. the term "perfection" that love justifies, while Paul speaks of common integrity and tranquillity. And thus Ambrose interprets this passage: Just as a building is said to be perfect or entire when all its parts are fitly joined together with one another. 115] Moreover, it is disgraceful for the adversaries to preach so much concerning love while they nowhere exhibit it. What are they now doing? They are rending asunder churches, they are writing laws in blood, and are proposing to the most clement prince, the Emperor, that these should be promulgated; they are slaughtering priests and other good men, if any one have [even] slightly intimated that he does not entirely approve some manifest abuse. [They wish all dead who say a single word against their godless doctrine.] These things are not consistent with those declamations of love, which if the adversaries would follow, the churches would be tranquil and the state have peace. For these tumults would be quieted if the adversaries would not insist with too much bitterness [from sheer vengeful spite and pharisaical envy, against the truth which they have perceived] upon certain traditions, useless for godliness, most of which not even those very persons observe who most earnestly defend them. But they easily forgive themselves, and yet do not likewise forgive others according to the passage in the poet: I forgive myself, Maevius said. 116] But this is very far distant from those encomiums of love which they here recite from Paul, nor do they understand the word any more than the walls which give it back. 117] From Peter they cite also this sentence, 1 Pet. 4:8: Charity shall cover the multitude of sins. It is evident that also Peter speaks of love towards one's neighbor, because he joins this passage to the precept by which he commands that they should love one another. Neither could it have come into the mind of any apostle that our love overcomes sin and death; that love is the propitiation on account of which to the exclusion of Christ as Mediator, God is reconciled; that love is righteousness without Christ as Mediator. For this love, if there would be any, would be a righteousness of the Law, and not of the Gospel, which promises to us reconciliation and righteousness if we believe that, for the sake of Christ as Propitiator, the Father has been reconciled, and that the merits of Christ are bestowed upon us. 118] Peter, accordingly, urges us, a little before, to come to Christ that we may be built upon Christ. And he adds, 1 Pet. 2:4-6: He that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. When God judges and convicts us, our love does not free us from confusion [from our works and lives, we truly suffer shame]. But faith in Christ liberates us in these fears, because we know that for Christ's sake we are forgiven.

119] Besides, this sentence concerning love is derived from Prov. 10:12, where the antithesis clearly shows how it ought to be understood: Hatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins. 120] It teaches precisely the same thing as that passage of Paul taken from Colossians, that if any dissensions would occur they should be moderated and settled by our equitable and lenient conduct. Dissensions, it says, increase by means of hatred, as we often see that from the most trifling offenses tragedies arise [from the smallest sparks a great conflagration arises]. Certain trifling offenses occurred between Caius Caesar and Pompey, in which, if the one had yielded a very little to the other, civil war would not have arisen. But while each indulged his own hatred, from a matter of no account the greatest commotions arose. 121] And many heresies have arisen in the Church only from the hatred of the teachers. Therefore it does not refer to a person's own faults, but to the faults of others, when it says: Charity covereth sins, namely, those of others, and that, too, among men, i.e., even though these offenses occur, yet love overlooks them, forgives, yields, and does not carry all things to the extremity of justice. Peter, therefore, does not mean that love merits in God's sight the remission of sins, that it is a propitiation to the exclusion of Christ as Mediator, that it regenerates and justifies, but that it is not morose, harsh, intractable towards men, that it overlooks some mistakes of its friends, that it takes in good part even the harsher manners of others, just as the well-known maxim enjoins: Know, but do not hate, the manners of a friend. 122] Nor was it without design that the apostle taught so frequently concerning this office what the philosophers call ejpieivkeian, leniency. For this virtue is necessary for retaining public harmony [in the Church and the civil government], which cannot last unless pastors and Churches mutually overlook and pardon many things [if they want to be extremely particular about every defect, and do not allow many things to flow by without noticing them]

Why Lutheran? Because Bach is one of us. At least, he was before he was translated into paradise, and I can prove it. Check it out.

The defense training available at Front Sight is so thorough that they even cover what one should expect after surviving an attempt upon your life and well-being. There are two other "problems" that we must face and either endure or overcome. They are possible criminal and civil liability.

Emotionally, we can expect elation or joy at being alive after the attack is over. We might later regret what happened, especially if we had to cause serious injury, and that injury led to the death of an assailant. This regret can be especially powerful for a Christian who understands the implications of dying with unrepented sin. It means that someone has reached the end of his time of grace, and will be found lacking on the day of Judgment. That person is already subjected to suffering in the place of torment prepared for the demons, and will suffer there eternally. By contrast, as a Christian, you would be prepared to die in the certainty of Jesus' mercy, and God's promise of eternal life. Regret can lead to anger and doubt, and when dealing with the social consequences of surviving the battle, to fear and panic. Those emotions are not a beneficial combination when encountering "problems two and three."

The lecture at Front Sight comes from a secular perspective, which is somewhat different from a Christian perspective. It bids us to remember that survival is the most important thing, so that whatever difficulty may come as a result of the deadly encounter is of secondary importance. We should try to retain the joy of still being alive, as we undergo the hardships of dealing with possible criminal and civil liability. You have to be alive first in order to deal with those things, and death is the worst alternative. That's the temporal, secular perspective.

The eternal, Christian perspective is a bit different, because Christians are in the business of being prepared for death, and want their neighbors to be prepared for it too. We know that the consequence of being unprepared for death is worse than the death of one who is already prepared. As a result, we may be quite willing to die rather than have another person face the certainty of everlasting punishment. Hence, a Christian's sense of regret and even guilt in the aftermath of a self defense situation may be quite strong. God has provided a way to deal with that in the gift of absolution, or the forgiveness pronounced upon the strength of Jesus' atoning death. However, a wise Christian will also try to obtain an accurate perspective before the encounter takes place.

When confronted with an assailant, you will not be inside his head. The best assumption is that he has no regard or respect for your life, well-being, or property, nor any regard or respect for anyone who may be with or near you. You don't know what his goal is. It may be to enrich himself, to prove a point, to obtain some pleasure, or any number of other things. However, when you recognize his threat to you and your neighbors' life and property, you can be sure that he intends to harm. Likely, his intent to harm includes a willingness, and perhaps even a desire, to take a life. Those who are morally bound by the Law or by concern for the eternal well-being of our neighbors are placed at a disadvantage, because we are inclined to regard the assailant as one of our neighbors. He has no care for us, but we are inclined to care for him.

It is important to understand that Christians are responsible not only to do what we might for the eternal well-being of an assailant, but also to care for all our other neighbors too. That includes our spouse, our children, our parents, fellow students or colleagues, and any other associates. In fact, it also includes ourselves. Every one of them will be somewhere for eternity, and we should be concerned about them as much as about our assailant. Should the time of grace end for any of them, it is just as serious as for the assailant. We may be able to say, "I am ready to enter heaven this instant," but can we say the same for anyone else?

It is also important to understand that using deadly force in self defense is quite a different thing from trying to kill someone, and also quite different from having no regard for the life of another person. In defending against an attack, we may use violence in a way that injures the assailant, but the intent is only to stop the attack, and the violence should be calculated to do that in the most effective way, preferably without killing the assailant. That is only possible with serious skills and mental preparation. If the defense uses a firearm, for example, the recommended action is to place a controlled pair of shots into the thoracic cavity of the assailant. At Front Sight, we learned that this will almost always stop the fight, and that 80% of the time, the assailant will still live to receive medical treatment. Of those who do, 80% of them will recover with no lasting physical consequences.

So the application of deadly or violent force in self defense is not necessarily the end of an assailant's time of grace. If done with sufficient forethought and skill, and with God's blessing, it will only end the attack, and will provide an opportunity for the assailant to repent and receive the blessing of faith before death. It will also protect all the potential victims from having their own time of grace cut short by someone who has no regard for their lives or well-being. It's still possible that someone may die, but that's not much different from dealing with other deadly forces that many of us encounter on a daily or weekly basis. "There but by the grace of God go I."

All of these considerations should help a Christian to deal with the challenges that arise in the aftermath of a defensive action. They should help us to reason our way through the emotional reflexes, and to trust that God's gracious presence is still with us. Also, remember that there will likely be a sense of guilt. That's why God has given us private confession and absolution, as well as the rich table of forgiveness set weekly in the Divine Service.

Immediately after the use of deadly force, we should secure the area from other possible threats and call the authorities. We don't need to be evasive about our part in what has happened, because we have been careful to use deadly force only when it was reasonably justified. Just speak the truth. Then, comply with law enforcement, remembering that they can't read your mind to know whether your intentions are good or bad. Be courteously helpful to the investigation by pointing out witnesses that might be interviewed before you give a statement. Then, ask the officer ready to take your statement if he has any intention of charging you with a crime or arresting you. If he indicates that this is his intention, then is the time to courteously invoke your right to remain silent. It's not that you have anything to hide, but the problems of legal and civil liability are such that the innocent are sometimes made to suffer and pay as though they were guilty of something. Justice is often not completely just.

If you will be charged or investigated for a crime, you will want an attorney who can help you best. That's not a criminal attorney, who is more accustomed to plea barganing for clients who have committed crimes. It's not a superstar defender of famous personalities, who has become notorious with the District Attorney and the justice system. It's someone who has a track record of working with the DA, and may even be acquainted with him on a personal level. Once you have such an attorney, let him guide you in all public statements or discussions you may have about the case.

Criminal liability depends first upon your own actions, but it also depends upon decisions made by law enforcement, investigators, the justice system, and finally, a jury of those peers who would rather not be there, but could not get out of the obligation. From outside that system, we can logically consider whether someone has broken the law as a black and white question. Once the wheels of justice are turning, however, it's quite possible for the conclusion to end up being factually wrong, so that "justice" is really an injustice. That's why there are appeals, at least for those with the money to afford them. If that's a sobering thought, remember Joseph's example, and that God had a plan for him even through years of unjust punishment and imprisonment.

The other problem is civil liability. If you were to lose a criminal case (justly or not), you would likely also face civil liability toward the family of the assailant. In fact, you might face a civil case even if you win the criminal case. Such is the fallen world we live in. Again, remember the example of Joseph, and even Job. Remember those examples now, before the time comes when you might have to use deadly force in self-defense. The best possible outcome of self defense is when you get to keep what you had to begin with. As a Christian, I'd add that the best possible outcome would also include your assailant and all his potential victims surviving to receive God's gift of forgiveness, faith, and eternal life.

Theologically liberal churches avoid on principle what they call "doctrines and creeds." They seem to consider such things evil. Here's something that the Lutheran Confessions have to say about that. (The Lutheran Confessions define what the name "Lutheran" means.)

This is the case: being instructed from the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, we are sure about our doctrine and Confession. ... Besides, this matter is important also for another reason. There are troublesome and contentious people who do not allow themselves to be bound to any formula of the pure doctrine. They may not have the freedom to stir up controversies, according to their good pleasure, that cause grounds for offense, or to publish and fight for extreme opinions. For eventually the result of these things is that the pure doctrine is hidden and lost. Then nothing is passed on to future generations except academic opinions and delays of judgment.

Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, Second Edition, p. 10.

In Tae Kwon Do class, my instructor has spoken about the need to be aware of our surroundings. That includes items like where the exits are located, where hiding places may be, what kind and how many potential assailants there are in what places. Such awareness can help one to anticipate an attack so that it might either be avoided altogether or the reaction time is instantaneous, increasing the effectiveness of your defense and the likelihood of your survival.

What I learned at [Front Sight][fs] makes mental awareness into a discipline that's both simpler and more exact. It involves a color code similar to the Department of Defense's "Defense Conditions:" Defcon 1, Defcon 2, etc., or the Department of Homeland Security's color-coded threat conditions.

[fs]: http://www.frontsight.com Each color represents a state of awareness, beginning with condition white. Those in condition white are oblivious, perhaps because they are asleep, or they are so absorbed in something (a movie, a book, an iPod, etc.) that they don't know or care what threats may exist in their surroundings. Obviously, this is a dangerous condition in which to live your life. You are not prepared to defend yourself or others from any threat, because you cannot identify any threats. You are an easy target for evildoers, and nothing more.

Condition yellow describes those who are continually on the lookout for potential threats. They notice the behavior of other people, and whether it fits their activities. They notice potential hiding places, in order to anticipate possible attacks. They may alter their location or facing direction to increase their ability to observe their environment safely, with space to maneuver defensively. The awareness of condition yellow comes from a continual, almost sub-conscious scan of the surroundings. It's not the same thing as paranoia, but rather an acute awareness. Those in condition yellow are prepared to identify anything or anyone that is suspicious, and may possibly represent a threat. This is the condition in which we should try to remain as much as possible, rather than condition white, because then we are not an easy target for evildoers. However, when we have identified a potential threat, we immediately enter condition orange.

Condition orange is when we pay close attention to a potential threat that has been identified. This is the time when you might change position, stance, or direction, either to improve your tactical position or to test whether the threat is real. In a car, you might make a series of unlikely turns or stops while watching a potential threat in your mirrors. On a sidewalk, you might pause at a storefront window where you can watch a potential assailant in the reflection, or cross the street to see if potential assailants follow. This is the time to determine whether the potential threat is a false alarm or an actual threat. Meanwhile, your awareness of the environment allows you to form possible plans of defense. When I took a motorcycle safety course, I learned the ungainly acronym SIPDE, for Scan, Identify, Predict, Decide, Execute. It's a series of steps that can be used constantly by riders to watch for potential threats in traffic and respond quickly and appropriately to remain safe. Condition orange corresponds to the Predict and Decide steps of SIPDE, after one's continual Scan (in condition yellow) has Identified a potential threat. If an evildoer is paying attention, he may notice that you in condition orange are not easy prey, but are already aware that something may be amiss.

If while in condition orange, you verify that the threat is real, then you immediately enter condition red. A potential threat has been verified to be real, and it is time to take defensive action. In a car, you may drive to a police station, or if at a stop light, immediately make a right turn -- over the sidewalk, if necessary. If flight is not possible, you immediately assume the best tactical advantage possible for a fight. There is likely to be an apparent disparity of force between you and your assailant(s), and if that is the case, it is time to present your weapon to the ready. It is also time to shout a command or warning, such as "Stop right there!" It may sound premature, but remember that a genuine threat has been verified to exist, and the intention of your assailant(s) is to do you harm, and possibly to harm your companions or neighbors too. At this point, you must mentally draw a line in the sand, identifying the point at which you will respond with violence, because it's reasonable to predict that attack is immediately forthcoming. When that line is crossed, you enter condition black.

Condition black is when your combat training is set in motion. In martial arts, you apply sufficient force to control the situation in as short a time as possible. That means you will probably break or crush things, making your assailant require an ambulance to leave the scene. That is the only way at this point that you can guarantee he will break off his attack. That becomes even more important if there are multiple assailants. They should be disabled as quickly as possible, one at a time. With a firearm defense, the goal is the same: to end the attack as quickly as possible. In either case, you may be using deadly force, though the goal is not to kill. A controlled pair of shots to the thoracic cavity will stop most attacks as quickly as possible, and will also make an ambulance necessary for the assailant to leave the scene. In most cases, he will still survive the encounter, and that's just fine.

In rare cases, the controlled pair of shots will not stop the attack. Perhaps he is high on drugs or adrenaline. Perhaps he is wearing body armor under his clothing. Perhaps he is simply tough and determined. You can't tell. He is still attacking you with deadly force, and you are reduced to one option to stop his attack: a shot into the ocular-cranial cavity. The alternative is to allow him to harm or kill you and others. In condition black, you are prepared to do whatever it takes to stop the attack.

In the comfort of our desk chairs, without an assailant trying to do us harm, it may seem more reasonable to call 911 and wait for the police. That would certainly be more gentle toward your murderous neighbor-villain, and we should love our neighbor instead of harming him. But what about your family with you? And are you not also your own neighbor? Besides that, use of deadly force to defend yourself does not automatically mean the assailant will die, but if all goes well, you and others will escape harm. The Fifth Commandment requires not only that we refrain from harming our neighbor, but also that we defend them. Calling 911 as the only answer to Condition Red is not much of a defense. The average length of a gun battle is 2.5 to 3 seconds, and an excellent 911 response time in the city is about 5 minutes. You can call 911 after you survive, so that your assailants might receive the medical care they need.

Condition black is about one thing: stopping the attack.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

The rest of the article is here.

Perhaps you've also seen this illustration of the way our progressive income tax works.

I believe that Christians should be interested in helping our neighbors. In fact, that should be our second consideration in everything we do. I suppose that many people view our progressive income tax system as a way that we all help our neighbor. The desire to do that is laudable, but I challenge anyone to explain how it's truly an example of love for your neighbor. Did you voluntarily choose to pay your taxes, or did you have no choice in the matter? If you are a beneficiary of the system, which would include something like 90% of Americans, do you think that your reduced tax burden -- or in some cases, your income from the system -- comes to you from the love of your neighbors?

The entitlement systems run by our government are also funded from tax-like collection schemes. Whether or not you think that the Social Security program is a benefit to our society, and whether or not you think it has a hope of a continued existence, you should consider the fact that its funding theoretically comes from our neighbors, and is not provided voluntarily. So these government entitlement systems may be one way that our own labor ends up helping our neighbors, but that help is still not given voluntarily, let alone out of love.

If Christians want to help their neighbors, they should do so voluntarily. We can probably agree about that, but I might go a step further. If our neighbors want our help, they should not take it at gunpoint or threat of prison. Even though that very thing is legalized through our progressive tax system, I tend to think it's contrary to the seventh commandment (You shall not steal).

I'm not advocating a rebellion against our government, or that anyone refuse to pay taxes. Caesar has always used the income of Christians to do many immoral things. What I am suggesting is that when Christians have some kind of influence over what Caesar does, we should do what we can to improve things, out of love for our neighbor.

You've perhaps heard the pejorative term "birthers," used by defenders of President Obama's qualification for his office as a native-born American to describe those who demanded proof of that qualification. Now there's apparently a similar pejorative, "tenthers," used for those who advocate adherence to the Tenth Amendment. If you search the archives here on the Plucked Chicken, you may find references to the Tenth Amendment. Since before the last presidential election, my appreciation for that amendment has been growing significantly, as well as my disappointment in the myriad ways it has been ignored since well before my lifetime.

The reason progressives don't like the Tenth Amendment is because it stands in the way of statism on the part of the federal government. Put another way, it helps to keep the federal government, well, federal, which means strictly limited. The Tenth Amendment is in the Bill of Rights not because it reserves individual rights -- which makes it unusual in that honored company -- but because it requires the states to be involved in the protections of individual rights, each in its own semi-sovereign way.

So I guess I was a tenther when tenthers weren't cool. In case anyone reading this has a problem with that, I have a suggestion for another pejorative you might use for me and others like me. It follows from the fact that the qualifications for the office of President as well as the Tenth Amendment are found in the same document: the Constitution of the United States. Why don't you start calling people like me "constitutioners?" I suppose it doesn't roll off the lips like a good pejorative should, but it's really what you're getting at with the other terms, isn't it? You object to those who advocate that our government should be defined and limited by the Constitution, as originally written and amended.

I should offer the caveat that our Constitution and its amendments are not perfect. Yet the Constitution is about as good as we can expect in a fallen world, and it serves well the role of limiting the evils of statist tyranny that inevitably rise up in any centralized government. The Constitution is one successful attempt to establish a government compatible with the Christian conscience, and protecting the individual freedoms implied by Christian morality.