TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I don’t want no gun because I am afraid of myself, that I might kill somebody.
I have what is known as an Irish temper. I was born in the year of the rooster, however, and I tend to back down after I shoot my mouth off. That is, my bark is worse than my bite. If that bark were the sound of a gun because I pulled the trigger, I would regret the consequences even more than my long history of other mistakes. History for me is by definition a mistake, and I don’t want to make it worse.
I am a liberal thinker, but I am a conservative actor and a friend of the police. That is not to say that I appreciate them all.
Civilization is a veneer, and my personal mask is rather thin. One never knows what he might do in certain situations that he has not experienced before. I could jump the gun.
I have had opportunities to defend myself by killing someone who threatened my life, and I refrained. Fortunately, such a defense was unnecessary, and I survived by overpowering my assailants.
I believe I would, but I do not know if I would kill someone in self-defense or kill someone for hurting or threatening to harm my loved ones, including my countrymen whom I love at a distance, or human beings in general since I am one of them. My dad used to say that he who loves everybody loves nobody.
As far as theory goes I am a limited pacifist. I believe there are extreme cases where war is justified. I disagree with Martyrs for Love, that it is better to die from injustice than to violently defend oneself.
History teaches me that violence may be necessary for the moral improvement of the race.
I believe the motive for the Second Amendment guaranteed people the right to bear arms against the existing police power, at that time the British police power, and to establish armories where arms could be kept in the event they were needed for the defense of communities. Very few individuals carried guns in settled communities.
So yes I believe that arms should be available including heavy arms in the event the police power is being abused and needs to be overthrown to protect the people from tyranny.
The recent shootings of police officers in retaliation for shooting of civilians by other officers does not suit my theory. The misdeeds or mistakes of a few should not condemn the entirety.
And we should be careful in the very beginning to distinguish between an intentional misdeed an a stupid mistake or involuntary harm. It behooves us to gather together to examine the evidence and reason upon it instead of seeking immediate revenge.
I do confess that if my loved ones were killed I would naturally want revenge right away.
And I must add that I would want revenge against the particular person who did the harm and not against innocent people of that person’s status or class, or his family or tribe as if feuding were the law of the land.
A classic sense of justice would deem it wrong to go into a school and shoot anyone other than the bully who offended me. Likewise it would be unjust for me to shoot any police officers other than the ones that committed the offense.
Yes, I can imagine myself lying in wait for a police officer who killed a loved one so that I could torture and execute him. However my imagination would also include the grief of his family upon his pain and death. I pray that that would deter me. Only barbarians would harm a man’s entire family for a personal offense.
Again, civilization is a veneer; we have vestiges of barbarism throughout the world today that could plunge it into chaos.
Now turning to the recent to police shootings that have spawned outrage throughout the nation, and retaliation against police officers who were not even involved in the shootings, I pray that everyone should stand back and consider all of the evidence as well as the psychology of the officers in their situations and reason upon it at length.
I assume first of all the best; therefore, for the sake of argument I propose that the shooting of the man in the car stopped for a broken light was a mistake due to CONFUSION. That is, due to the officer’s perception of the weapon referred to by the deceased after he was asked to present his drivers license. When he reached for it, the officer did not stop to consider the matter because he perceived the gentleman was going for a gun.
To say that it was just a traffic stop does not take into account the fact that police officers are regularly maimed and murdered after stopping people for traffic violations.
In other words I presume the officer is innocent of murder and racism until there is proof otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course we expected the officer not to shoot until he actually saw a gun, but we should remember that the time from the sight of the gun to a bullet entering our heart can be a matter of one second.
As for the man shot point-blank when he was being restrained on the ground, that seems to me to be an unnecessary use of deadly force even though a witness testifying against the police officer said the victim had a gun in his back pocket.
Even so I would withhold judgment until all of the evidence is collected and reasoned on. If the man were my brother, I do not believe that I would stalk the officer who shot him in order to kill him, if my barbarous instinct motivated me to do so, because the fact that my brother was carrying a gun and that he was on parole gives me cause to think that he who carries a gun is more likely to be shot.
Now the man who assaulted officers in Dallas, killing five of them and wounding others, said he did that in retaliation for the two police shootings.
He had armed himself, however, long before those shootings occurred, and it occurs to me that he was of a disposition that we call “looking for an excuse to immediately kill somebody.”
His hatred of himself and resentment of society was displaced on white people and police officers. It might have been displaced on other convenient scapegoats, to the purpose of acting out his rage.
No, this is not the time for a race war or any kind of war. As always, if we would maintain civilization and progress we must listen to reason, which is the name of a social process that no particular person owns alone.
If it be fundamentally true that we live by illusions and fictions let them be the best ones grounded on our finer instincts.
One voice of reason I believe should be heeded Is that of our reasonable professor of constitutional law, Barack Obama, the President of the United States, who is by nature between black and white thinking.
Yes, what he says is propaganda, but remember that his propaganda on this occasion is true to our ideals and well being
I might change my mind if things get really bad. Right now, no thank you, I don’t want no gun.
David Arthur Walters