Sheepdogs or Wolfhounds.

The term Sheepdog is often used by people in the Gun Community and has been for some years.  However I am not sure its accurate.  Sheepdogs may fight off wolves and coyotes, but they also help herd them… At least the working dog types do.  Some live their lives as Sheep.  Raised with them.  Stay with them.  Generally act and even look like them.  There is no one breed of Sheepdog, as its a generic term.  But over all, the term lacks accuracy for our purposes here.
Wolfhounds on the other hand…
Few breeds can be called Wolfhounds and all have the same traits.  They were all bred specifically to act as Protectors, Guardians, and some were even bred specifically to hunt Wolves.  Such as the Irish Wolfhound.  Originally called a Warhound by the early Irish, the struck fear in the Romans who encountered them. After the Romans were sent packing, the breed was refund to the Wolf Hunter we know of today.
Wolfhounds don’t try to herd sheep.  In today’s country, such a task is useless.  Over half of this nation doesn’t want to watch out for Wolves.  They think the Wolves will be nice if they are nice to them.  They are truly Sheep.  They can’t read and comprehend History.  History shows us that when Wolves have an easy meal, they well come back.  Wolfhounds naturally understand this.  We are a breed apart.  We can’t educate the Sheep.  We can’t be responsible for them.  We can only be responsible for our own families, and ignore the rest, let them live their lives as they wish.
The Wolfhounds don’t expect anyone else to fight the Wolves for them.  We train ourselves to protect those we love.  We may train together, may fight together, but we will fight on our own if needs be.
The Wolfhound can’t help but to be this way as its his nature. Its our nature. 
We are Wolfhounds.
We were born Wolfhounds, and we will die Wolfhounds.  We can’t think like Sheep.  And we can’t tolerate Wolves.

32 thoughts on “Sheepdogs or Wolfhounds.”

  1. Interesting. I’ve heard that argument before but have always disliked the corollary – that in nearly all cases wolfhounds are functionally obsolete but cannot, themselves, realize it. I think your last line particularly highlights the inflexibility of the wolfhound and I’m not completely comfortable comparing myself to that. At least sheepdog implies adaptivity, an urge to leadership, and an important present-day role.

  2. If nothing else, you pose an interesting thought exercise. I imagine the signers of the Declaration of Independence were confronted by a similar situation. They chose their course and so must we.

    I often wonder what the catalyst for change will be and how it will come about but my crystal ball is dark and cloudy of late. I can only make ready and hope to stand fast in the gap on “St. Crispin’s Day”.

  3. I’ve never fully been able to embrace the sheepdog analogy. It’s directed toward military and law enforcement, who are tasked with protecting the flock. I’m not a soldier nor a cop, I’m just responsible for my self and my family. My readiness to protect myself, however, will act as a deterrent and hopefully protect others as well.

    What I get from that essay is that you should not be surprised or dissuaded in your pursuit of defensive skill, when the ‘sheep’ treat you with fear. All they wish to see are your fangs, not your intentions. They are willing to overlook what they may already know about you, and assign evil intentions to your heart, simply because you have taken up weapons and learned how to use them.

    1. In many cases the sheep can not tell the difference between the sheepdogs and the wolves… or wolfhounds. All have sharp teeth that sheep do not, and that is all they see.

      1. But if they wear a UNIFORM, suddenly it’s OK. Sheep WANT to be protected, they just don’t understand wolfhounds/sheepdogs functioning independently and can’t imagine that former cops and soldiers carry their skills and mindset with them when pursuing other career options because they are indistinguishable from criminals when not dressed in overt government sanction and their scary capacities presumably “under control”.

  4. Very interesting premise!. One that I had not thought of previously. I linked this immediately.

    One note that I might disagree with, is that we can’t educate Sheep. I think the latest round on nuttery by the gun control cabal, and how it has spawned so many first time gun owners…might refute the thought that some can’t learn.

  5. Ah yes, Democrats seem to think inanimate objects can be “evil” in an of themselves and can grant power, but then they’ll turn around and say there is no good or evil, only situations. I remember recently reading about some left wing tool threatening violence and in his statements it was clear that he assumed that power flowed from the possession of a weapon, the concept of intent, training, and experience didn’t register in his world view at all.
    I remember one reading that the classical Romans had no cult of the sword. It was just a tool for them. In parts of Russian Siberia they are starting to have wolf problem because the game the wolves usually eat are in scarce because the extreme and lingering cold killed them off, so the wolves are heading South into populated areas, apparently the current generation of wolves don’t remember. It’s open season and a bounty on them now.

  6. I love this. Being a lean, mean wolfhound is a MUCH better symbol and mental state than being a shaggy-ass babysitting sheep dog. I’m stealing it and, what’s more, I’m suggesting it to Lt. Col Grossman.

  7. I am no wolfhound. I was not bred to run down and destroy wolves.

    I am a mutt…through and through. A little bit beagle, a sprinkle of golden retriever, and some terrier.
    I am soft, furry and I tend to slobber when around those I love. But I still have fangs when someone gets between me and mine. So, somewhere not so far down the line there was definitely a doberman and a pitbull…

  8. I like your analogy. I always say a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, meaning for me at least he has a higher calling than just himself.

  9. This whole argument, is based upon a premise that is invalid.

    The invalid premise being:

    That I care, or will involve myself in any situation whereby I may be harmed, for the benefit of a third party.

    My only duty to involve myself in a violent situation, is for the defense of myself, and my family. Beyond that, I will not involve myself, and I would argue that there are moral reasons to NOT involve yourself in the affairs of a third party, as well. (Misperception, wrongful assessment, etc)

    Simply put, what is wrong with the use of the word “sheepdog” as a descriptor of oneself, is not the word, but the concept, and changing out one word (sheepdog) for another (wolfhound) does nothing to deal with the underlying issue that the concept is flawed.

    1. So in the event you see armed thugs attacking someone, you wouldn’t go to the defense of say, some school kids walking past your home… or the old lady down the street a couple houses… or co-workers at work… or a Mom and Kids coming out of a grocery store… or Friends – if you had any. That’s nice to know. Because that tells me you are the thing that is flawed, and not this concept that doesn’t apply to you.
      There is one that does apply though. “Craven”. Shoe, Fit, Wear.

    2. Wait, so just because you’re selfish and cowardly, you assume everyone is? Not the case, man. Some people actually think about the welfare of others and not just themselves. I know that probably just blew your mind so you might want to sit down and take it easy for a while.

    3. Dan,
      The concept is hardly flawed. The concept implies a moral choice, one to take action to restore the moral balance. Just as your choice to not intervene is moral, the choice to intervene is moral. That choice to intervene is self-serving and also serves the interest of the person you have chosen to protect. Your interest is in preserving the peace and preventing a predator from causing injury and in doing so you preserve the health of the individual that is being attacked or at least lessening the injury.
      The moral choice you make by not intervening except under a very restrictive set of circumstances limits your ability to protect the community at large and provide a deterrent to aggression. Your choice to not intervene, though moral, does lead to emboldening predators. Just as acting to prevent harm can have consequences so does not acting to prevent harm.
      For those of us who have made the choice to act immediately in the face of danger it is clear, our choice is morally superior.

    4. I may be running against the crowd here, but I’m not going to immediately pile on Dan. I feel that there is a significant middle ground between abject social cowardice and moral justice.

      Haji shooting up a group of kids at the mall? I’m in. Mope fixing to execute a uniformed officer? Done. Group of thugs stabbing a woman? Deadly force situations all.

      That being said, Dan does highlight an excellent point. That of misinterpretation. Guy with a woman on the ground at gunpoint? Could be a murder in progress or it could be a UC officer effecting a drug arrest. Two guys in a knife fight? Could be 2 bangers fighting for leadership or it could be a mugging. Who knows?

      Further, there is the principle of just who are you willing to give your life for? Keep in mind that you may not win. Intervene, and you could end up dead. Liquor store holdup or bank robbery for example. Sure the guy is threatening people with a gun, but at the end of the day you are risking your life for the businesses cash and some grown folks that, quite frankly should be protecting themselves. If I’m killed “saving” a few strangers, will any of them probably step up and take care of my kids and my wife? Nope. My loved ones are without my support, guidance, and love because I wanted to protect some people that should have protected themselves.

      Point is, it’s hardly black and white. There are obviously situations where my (for example) conscience could not live with inaction, where my death would actually be the lesser of two evils. But there are also plenty of situations where it’s simply not my business, and I will have already ushered my family out the back while others are left in potential danger.

      It takes maturity, realistic thinking, and training to know the difference and understand when it’s time to do something smart and when it’s time to do something brave.

      1. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

        Craven. You see someone in your community being assaulted and you could do something but you don’t – fucking craven.

        1. So you see “someone in your community being assaulted”, you interject yourself and end up killing someone, and then the mayor shakes your hand, the police pat your back and send you on your way with a hearty “good job citizen?”

          Would be great if it were true, but if the Zimmerman trial has illustrated anything, you’re more apt to find yourself paying several hundred thousand in legal fees defending yourself from criminal charges. I guess it will still be worth it if the person you “saved” opts to fund your legal defense, but that’s unlikely. It’s even less likely that they will step up and provide for your family while you’re in prison. What if you’re shot and/or killed? As you die do you suppose the thought of this stranger/someone in community taking care of the people that YOU should be taking care of will bring you peace in that final moment? The example of a police officer having to deal with 3rd party situations is often brought up, but remember; in a shooting aftermath a cop defends himself with the support of his union reps and counsel, not to mention what should be an entire institution in his corner. A citizen is alone, and in some jurisdictions will be OPPOSED by virtually the entire legal system.

          No two situations are the same and while some are completely valid for 3rd party intervention, many are not. Where a person draws that line is intensely personal and the result of much soul searching, and honestly shouldn’t be derided.

          1. A) Find a different jurisdiction, if yours has too many examples of sheep who /favor/ the predators.

            B) Dan didn’t argue that this is a personal choice. Dan argue that /no one/ should intervene. He claimed that it is immoral to help others. He claimed that the entire /concept/ of defending others is “wrong.”

            Yes, there are cases where there’s no good choice, and you have to accept that putting your family through hell to protect a gangbanger might not be worth it. But that’s not what Dan said. So, maybe re-read his post and decide if you really want to defend his position…

  10. Dan….put simply, your comment denotes pure cowardice. Moral reasons not to get involved? I can see if two guys are having a fist fight. Sure, not your deal. What about the reasons that Ogre put up. Is it your moral obligation to stay out of it if an adult is beating up kids walking home from school? You sicken me.

  11. Dan, if you care, I can spin you a selfish reason for intervening when a third party is under CLEARLY UNLAWFUL attack.

    Here it is: if the bad guy gets away, you or a family member may be among his FUTURE victims.

    I’m a cop. There are about 1 of me for every 500 people. Meanwhile, there are about 10 violent sociopaths for every 500 people. Sociopaths outnumber cops ten to one. But I figure that about half of the population has the ABILITY to physically intervene to STOP violent crime, to one extent or another. And there’d be a whole lot less violent crime if people would do that.

    In other words, Dan, YOU are part of a group which outnumbers the bad guys 25:1. The ONLY reason that criminals can operate is because people like YOU are too apathetic to intervene.

  12. I have gone over this concept on my own blog myself and have come up with calling myself a ram instead of a sheepdog, for I walk amongst the sheep, eat with the sheep , converse with the sheep and pretty much do everything a sheep does, but when faced with a threat I have the horns to defend myself

Comments are closed.