08 April, 2009

A Defence of Defense

CSMK sent me the link I think it well worth posting about.
A Defence of Defense

On this topic, in the recent past, it has often been said that "We will just have to agree to disagree," and for most of my life I have lived according to that dictate. This has never produced agreement, or even termination of the issues under discussion. It was simply a method to disengage; exhibition boxing, with fighters returning to their corners following rounds where no punches landed, at times with none even being thrown.

But alas, the world has changed, drastically; altered to such extent that to me it is no longer recognizable. Some of my thoughts, my beliefs and even some of my actions seem oddly inappropriate, or worse, unacceptable. Consequently, I no longer accept that we can "agree to disagree" and further, I will longer attempt to reason with you. If this seems arbitrary or personally offensive let me add that, in attempting to specify the recipients for this, I found I could not. Therefore I am writing to everyone, stating the case as simply as possible and you must judge the value for yourself. Whether you choose to finish reading this or not, you will find that there are consequences to either choice.

Defense, as a subject and in its concepts, is as simple and basic as any subject can be, extending from a status of non-thinking "instinct" to one of years' long intelligent planning. Moreover, it is common to all living beings, from the smallest of germs, unable to be seen, to the largest of animals, impossible to ignore. While there are animals without natural predators, even these have developed defenses; knowledge of the poisonous or for use against those that will fight against being consumed. If there were any species that did not have or use defense, it must have became extinct long ago.

No; defense is not complex. It is probably the most understood and widely utilized behavior possible among sentient beings, across all boundaries, both natural and artificial and with or without intelligent thought. It is truly a mystery then, to contemplate that defense can be contentious. It is though, but only, amusingly enough, to what is delightfully called intellect.

Defensives choices can be summarized with two words that are familiar to all; "Fight or Flight." The second choice, "Flight" has seldom been contentious, seen as nothing more than a non-aggressive act of removing yourself from perceived danger. A choice of flight however, is not always available or practicable; dead-end escape routes or being unwilling to abandon protected children, are inherent situational limitations. But some arbitrary limitations have now been added. Whether artificial bounds of logic or law should be added, such as the daily quoted, entertaining line "If you're not guilty, why did you run?" produces only doubt, confusion and submission to aggression. Flight however does sometimes remain a valid choice, within limitations.

When the word "Fight" is mentioned however, simplicity disappears; all Hell breaks loose, and the subject becomes encumbered with related concepts, conditional choices, moral circumstances, and even invented word definitions. I have already stated that I am no longer willing to "reason with you," and this seems an appropriate time to add that I also do not write to propose, argue, sway, convince or even inform. I am aware of all facets of the issues, the contentious opposites of moral and immoral, peace and war, and the philosophies concerning the nature of man. For years I have taken part in all aspects of these issues, including the newest; political correctness, enforced fairness and tolerance of multiculturalism. As the world has changed, and is changing, I can no longer view these disagreements as anything other than unending mental masturbation that produces no climax or satisfaction. So, what then is the purpose of this letter? It is to state, in no uncertain terms, a view of the world in which you now live. I write, as a nice guy, concerned with your safety, to say that you may be in danger; perhaps mortal danger. As I do not know exactly who you are as you read this, I have some questions about you.

Do you believe in, and will you act, in defense? For me this is a rhetorical yes; but I know that some will answer in the negative. For those, my retort is simple; "Bull****, you are lying." I stand ready to walk up to you, grab you by the throat and begin squeezing, keeping breath from your body. I fully expect you will raise a hand in defense, to prevent this, and would be astounded if you did not. You are safe, of course, as I do not want, and will not, kill you for a test. Some might even allow for my commitment, with a strong-willed lapse into unconsciousness, to prove a point. I will not argue your view, as I know I am replaceable in this experiment by someone that is willing to kill you, then your family, then your friends and then your neighbors. Yes, the world has changed and I am not responsible for the change or for your safety.

Will you, in an act of defense, grab a stick, a rock or any handy object to protect yourself and loved ones? Again my rhetorical yes, and a "bull****" for the naysayers; most of them anyway as I cannot exclude exceptions. For these exceptional people, I will only say that I may mourn your family, but I will not mourn you or take on the responsibility of your family once you have allowed your self-destruction. My view is that you should have become extinct long ago, preventing the proliferation of that gene, that belief and that reaction. Again, in many ways you may protest or argue, but I have already said that I will not. That's just one of the ways of the world now; made possible in part by your stupid and continued resistance to a valid view of defense.

And we now arrive where you suspected we were headed; to the subject of weapons. I finally realized that the unending arguments on this subject were not really about "guns," demonstrated by the continuing fight in some places, even after guns are banned, against swords, then knives, then to "sticks" (those clubs I mentioned) and further even to toy guns and other items that "may appear to be guns." What are weapons or firearms in this context? Nothing more than "intelligent planning" to have a powerful "stick" handy when it becomes needed. Again I say "Bull****" to those that would prohibit them, and again I maintain that, however your contrived protests against guns are presented, you are lying. And sadly, lying, even to yourself, can have tragic consequences.

The lie is caught in observable, logical inconsistency; proved by simply looking at reality. In every case it is obvious that weapons and firearms are allowed; to the armed forces, police, regulatory agencies, officers of the court and yes, even politicians. This approval however is not extended to "free people," it is not willingly granted to "citizens." This stance and its observable outcome reveals a basic belief. It is not sticks, stones or firearms being legislated against; it is "selected people," and your contempt for these "certain people" is blatantly and obviously on display. All of these people can be divided into two groups; those approved, as presumed to be "under approved direction" and those that are not. Period.

It really is that simple, and I will no longer argue, as it is desired to focus the argument into endless, meaningless repetition. I write, as a good and kind person, to tell you that you are in danger, not from me but from yourself, as you will live within the results produced by your actions.

Having opposed my position on my right to bear arms and attempted to make me defenseless by voting to disarm me by law, this may be a good time for you to review some of your assumptions. Will those you have approved of having arms respond at all times, and act on your behalf when they do respond? Do you have a firm belief that police or U.S. Troops will not fire upon its own citizens? Will you seek my help, and will I respond, when you are come under immediate threat? Will I do so at cost and expenditure; knowing that I also increase a threat to myself and loved ones in order to help you?

Think of other questions on your own - and note that they all boil down to a single one: Will a reasonable person work to preserve another, one that has worked against their efforts of life preservation? There are two broad classes of parasites, one feeds and survives on its host in symbiotic relationship, being careful, in its own interest, to help it survive; the other, short-sighted and without thought for its own well being, endangers and kills its host.

I do not know, and will not speculate, on how or what constitutes the criteria for the division of people; after all, those allowed the provision of arms were and are those "free people" and "citizens" prior to joining those "approved classes" you believe you direct. I will not even speculate that "gun owners" are "hated for our freedoms" or any of your many other projections. I simply want you to know that I consider you, and your arguments, irrelevant. I read history and I am content to leave you to the one you are creating for yourself, you are deserving of it. I hope you remember this at the appropriate time.
The man who wrote this is much more elegant & circumspect than I- and he is absolutely correct about remembering.


No comments: