Yes, the point is that you need to prioritize dealing with traitors, and that there is practically no such thing as "too much" when using force against traitors when discovered. The enemy can be engaged in the field, and when you do so, you must be confident that you don't have any long knives waiting for your back, metaphorically or literally.
Funny observation- does @altident think being shot twice wouldn't hurt? Comment, Mr. altident?
Let me ask you, if I had you tied to a chair and gave you the option:
I can put two bullets in you, or I can hit you with my gun until you’re dead.
Which would you choose?
You're taking the metaphor way to literally. I get it- you have a ferocious hatred for the notion of disloyalty, and you can probably come up with all kinds of horrible ways to kill them.
Point is: Deal with traitors first, with extreme force, then you can engage the enemy. That's the "big picture" application of this idiom.
I guess more than anything I’m just trying to understand why you think “extreme force” (your words) applies more so to two gunshots than to beating someone to death with a gun.
Like, honestly, I think a better option still is to put two shots into the traitor, THEN beat him until he's dead, and then leave the enemy locked in the room (prison cell) alive.
(post is archived)