Using the verb stab as in to be stabbed by a knife (or spaghetti noodles) reminded me of one of Jünger's character in Eumeswil explaining the difference between to stab and to slay. Just me being autistic I guess. Good essay!
Great post. Fatally flawed, of course, but great post :)
I will be answering more fully later, probably Thursday if this week goes OK. but I did want to point out one non-sequitor.
The Ghandi et al examples are not actually on point. The argument that I was, and will be, making is that if you have a country with a very high rate of open civilian ownership and usership of weapons, it becomes harder for the powers that be to get too uppity. Ghandi was in the opposite position: he was in a country where hardly any private citizens had a strong tradition of owning and using appropriate weapons. Indeed, I would imagine that the British had a much easier time taking over India because the average private Indian citizen was not armed and used to using those arms.
Looking forward to writing more and interacting more. I believe I agree with much of your fundamental point: ie that gun-control advocates are not interested in gun-control, they are interested in disarming the civilian population. Not quite the way you put it :)
I’ll probably send #2 tomorrow. I wanted to be merciful and not trigger a grave existential crisis with all my criticisms (😂). Really I just wanted to split my reply into two… take your time. After my second letter I will await your response.
My next post in this series should be out Saturday morning.
Using the verb stab as in to be stabbed by a knife (or spaghetti noodles) reminded me of one of Jünger's character in Eumeswil explaining the difference between to stab and to slay. Just me being autistic I guess. Good essay!
And... my next post in this letter exchange is up. Yes, we have to deal with philosophy.
https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/the-philosophy-of-gun-control
Great post. Fatally flawed, of course, but great post :)
I will be answering more fully later, probably Thursday if this week goes OK. but I did want to point out one non-sequitor.
The Ghandi et al examples are not actually on point. The argument that I was, and will be, making is that if you have a country with a very high rate of open civilian ownership and usership of weapons, it becomes harder for the powers that be to get too uppity. Ghandi was in the opposite position: he was in a country where hardly any private citizens had a strong tradition of owning and using appropriate weapons. Indeed, I would imagine that the British had a much easier time taking over India because the average private Indian citizen was not armed and used to using those arms.
Looking forward to writing more and interacting more. I believe I agree with much of your fundamental point: ie that gun-control advocates are not interested in gun-control, they are interested in disarming the civilian population. Not quite the way you put it :)
I’ll probably send #2 tomorrow. I wanted to be merciful and not trigger a grave existential crisis with all my criticisms (😂). Really I just wanted to split my reply into two… take your time. After my second letter I will await your response.
Outstanding. Good thing they’re not my ideas… or I might have some thinking to do! 😂