i'm sorry but i didn't get a single thing you said. I've had a long and hard day, please explain what you're trying to say to me in an easier way.
I am happy to elaborate
The Non-Aggression Principle is a “secular and Christian” scripturally supported deontological principle (duty), which has been constructed and improved upon for over two thousand and three hundred years, and is primarily based on the ethical premise of “non-violence” or “no harm”. The NAP principle was formulated and improved upon by Christians, other faiths, and also by secular philosophical contributers alike.
Here are a couple famous quotes – there are more unrefined versions in history and many more refined ones in recent history.
"Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." - (John Locke)
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." and "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." (Thomas Jefferson)
The “Declaration of Independence”, the “United States Constitution” and the “Bill of Rights” were heavily influenced by the NAP principle, as many of the U.S founders were “Lockean” students, such as Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Franklin. Though it should be realized that compromises were made by many in order to agree.
Scriptural fundamentals however will at times require more personal sacrifice, “more restrictively” than the NAP principle itself; meaning that obedience from God may ask one person “specifically” to obey altruistically (self-sacrificially), yet another to intercede with boldness. The NAP principle provides ethical grounds for self defense which can in variance manifest in the confines of civil law “just-law”, yet scripture moves us to the principles of “no harm” in harmony with the NAP, but also with furthering obedience requires each person to know how the Spirit shall lead.
If an American Christian is assaulted, then the NAP would give him/her the "ethical" right to “justly” defend their bodies, family and property, and it would be “probable” for them to defend it in the United States in most all cases because the law of the land is predicated on the notions of individual liberty. However, scriptural fundamentals also require that Christians must obey God in the highest priority unto severe altruism, simple contentment, or bold civil disobedience against despotic manifestations in the law. Thus it can mean by Christ's exemplar demonstration that we may be required to surrender the body to despotic forces even to the death, or be required to stand up with unwavering peaceful courage against towering despots for the purpose of liberty. It “may” or “may-not” be required “to-not” defend the body from evil men as a Christian as the Spirit leads.
Can we agree that turning the other cheek reaches the brute with a demonstration of love, and shall love in exchange for plunder demonstrate temperance to the plundering despot, yet when the innocent are in jeopardy receiving violence, it may be a father or mother's resolve to nullify the attacker with any appropriate means available for just defence. Shall a persons bodily defence also be rationalized in the same manor but with greater emphasis in scripture to challenge for opportunity to demonstrate the love of Christ.