I'm getting confused about this self-defense stuff,
I mean, is this attacking or just getting rough?
'Cause call me a square but I think there's a diff':
One thing's getting floored, another's getting cliffed.
An Israeli insider, though a bit beery,
Held forth on Self-D, both practice and theory.
.
"Look, if A attacks B, what's B s'posed to do?
Apologize for messing up A's new hair-do?
The moment A mutters, 'C'mon, make my day,'
B has the right to pull out rifle and spray,
Or even if A's day is looking unmade,
B can fair whack him and save us a raid.
.
"Now let's say A may some heat be packing,
And B knows he'll use it, having C's backing.
B's in his good right to hit both A and C,
Though would do better to pay D to agree
That C is a creep that should be out-taken,
And save own his energy for when A needs shakin'.
.
"And it gets even worse! Let's say now that D
Is distracted by F who's attacked by E,
And can't do that much against enemy A.
Why, B should hit E and help F any way,
Freeing D to whack A and ride herd on G,
Who's in cahoots with that son-of-a-gun C.
.
"And don't be afraid to invoke danger in future,
Saying that A, after surgery and suture,
Might pick himself up and dust himself off,
Start over again and on promises scoff,
So kick him when down and spare not the shoe:
You're dealing with crazies who know not what they do.
.
"Look, Phil, I know this gets pretty complex,
Self-D is an art, like fine wine or good sex,
The point is always to have excuse to kick butt,
For 'defense' is cool to both pol and wingnut.
Attack? That's for amateurs, so twentieth-cent';
Cry you're for 'decency,' your Volk heaven-sent."
(Article changed on Nov 04, 2023 at 12:21 PM EDT)
