In the first blog post he stated clearly that standing up for his rights (specifically gun rights) is not important enough to die for. He rationalized his position with the idea that his wealth is not tied to the land (his wealth is mobile) so if threatened he would just leave. He gave further importance of not throwing your life away when you are a father.I am writing from my perspective and my unique situation living in Puerto Rico. I am not implying that my particular calculations would apply throughout the entire world, or in your particular case. (nor should it). Every person's situation is different. I am not trying to make any moral claims.
If anything the second blog post has fortified in my mind the need for true nationalism. I do not hold to any idea of racial superiority but every people deserve their own home. Mr. Kim's parents may have improved the economical setting of his upbringing but they have also taken him from his home. Worse he does not understand the giants who's shoulders he stands on. My nation developed as a high trust Christian (not Judeo-Christian) society but that society has been invaded and a general trust in others is often taken advantage of and used against you.This is too much to go into detail on. Check out Vox Day on his views on immigration being invasion. Proximity + Diversity = War. It's time to circle the wagons. I have no dog in this fight as I'm a foreigner and live in Puerto Rico, but I'm rooting for a explicitly Christian nation to emerge in the upcoming break-up of the United States.
Would you die for the right to bear arms? It's a simple binary answer yes or no. The question however is not exclusively binary. It is situationally dependent. For example if police enter your home to remove your arms, you can fight yes, possibly killing or being killed. If you have faith in the judicial system you may choose to submit to the local authorities and then resolve the problem through the legal system. There are a lot of scenarios that could play out. Stating "I don't think most people in the rally would actually be willing to die for their gun rights" (in reference to the Virginia rally) Mr. Kim has imposed the extreme example to each of the people who were in attendance. To what gain has he made this cowardly assertion?I discussed this more in a different post on what kind of community I would be willing to risk my life for (https://blog.jeffersonkim.com/2020/01/who-will-die-to-protect-liberland-sea.html). I think if I lived in the New Hampshire, I could see myself more realistically joining a militia.
As you noted, the question is not realistic. Perhaps a better question is, "Would I risk my life to defend this community against harm?"
There are two virtues that are put into what appears to be conflict. One of bravery, and one of preservation. Bravery requires you face danger for what is morally right. Preservation requires that you keep yourself and your family safe. They are both virtues but the question is to which do you yield? When given no context but imposing an answer ("would you die for__") you get LARPing. To state categorically that you would not die to protect the right of your family to protect themselves solidifies the fact you are a coward because you can't envision a scenario in which bravery is more important than self preservation.I think we are both thinking of different circumstances in our minds. In my particular case, I am stating that there is no particular community, other than my direct blood, that I would be willing to risk my life for.
We would need to discuss particular situations to discuss what my hypothetical response would be.
I think the rest of your article relates more to hypothetical situations that we would need to discuss directly. I think we may be in agreement if we are on the same page for literally every variable. It's impossible for us to determine every single variable being in such different environments and life situations.