Miriam and All Straight Shooters.
It's a classic example of Circular Thinking.
So we allow this person to hold a gun? As short a time ago as Monday,
September Tenth, slavery is being enforced by those with guns in their
hands. But of course the gun slingers are the point men, enforcing
the Law. And that Law was set in place by mostly White men, to enable
today's Slaves to be legally held at gun point. And with the holding
of guns as enforcers of the Law of the Land, the gun slingers feel
empowered to treat the Slaves with hatred and to abuse them for any
simple act defined as resistance.
This is the "Civilization" we now live in. The Guns Rule. The local
cop is packing, and will use his/her gun regardless of the infraction,
so long as the officer feels threatened. And Slaves do tend to scare
their Masters. Many States allow citizens to pack. The sense is that
if everyone has a gun, no one will use them...More Circular Thinking?
And now Teachers are being urged to pack, and Reverend Williams or
Jones or Johnson will preach the Gospel of Love and Peace from the
pulpit, while packing.
Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War! Civilization! Maybe
the focus should not be on who holds the gun, but rather, on Why!
Carl Jarvis
On 9/9/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you read that person's pro gun argument, behind what sounds like reason,
is trule irrationality or psychosis. There's a detachment from reality that
can't be reached by reason.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2018 11:18 AM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: my blog carl jarvis <carjar82.carls@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Is carrying a gun a civilized act
Here's an interesting post from another list, with my reaction.
Carl Jarvis
******
why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without
exception.
Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and
the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason
and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a
100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old
retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy
on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun
removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a
potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all
guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s
potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways.
Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior
party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that
fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much
TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at
worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor
of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the
field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as
a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot
be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because
it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who
would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a
gun is a civilized act.
***
My reply:
Reason or Force.
Far too long we have followed this logic. A weapon will enable us to force
our opponent to capitulate. And we then call the result, "Civilization".
But Violence does not beget Reason. Violence only begets Violence.
And if we want to call the result, "civilization", we are simply announcing
the end of our Human Race.
The choice should not be between reason and Force. The choice should be
between our current conception of Civilization and the creation of a
Superior Civilization. If we follow the belief that a gun will give us
civilization, then the end result will be the end of the Human Race. A gun
can only create a level playing field if it is the biggest gun on the block.
So we must build bigger guns, more deadly methods of enforcing our
"civilization". Guns, by the way, work well in many situations, but poison
works as well in others. Creation of new weapons that can seek out an
opponent without warning, mutant viruses, super sound waves, all sorts of
new, yet to be invented weapons must be developed to counter the power of
that gun. The end result is never Civilization. The result is always more
and bigger violence.
The more difficult road to take is the one that calls for total
reconstruction of that which we call "Civilization". And that is the
discussion we need to turn to.
Cordially,
Carl Jarvis