A Gun in Every Home

Two fine films: The Lost City and Blood Diamond.

I joined Blood Diamond during a village massacre

and said to my wife A gun in every home.

Those devils would think twice

before razing the village and seizing the boys.

A well-regulated militia.

The local militia the most interesting moment

in a strong film with motive (economic, emotional), action (chases, fights)

      and a sexy, sexless love story.

Use of violence by the local militia for a limited purpose: protect the

      community, the young

from the janjaweed. The crop from the weed.

Limited scope and defensive posture

but armed and coordinated, cooperative, the men (and the women) side

      by side.

Warriors at the gate, you will not run, you will not bargain.

Just violence = limited scope, defensive posture.

Great music. Cuba, Africa.

The Lost City, when the communists tell the club owner under threat of

      violence

No saxophones in the band. The saxophone!

Invented by a Belgian -- Look what the Belgians are doing in the Congo!

When the state's violence is turned against the citizenry

for non-violent acts.

This quiet neighborhood, July,

undergirded by violence, force. That's a given --

any farmer, custodian, EMT will tell you that.

Without just violence

Gandhi's scope, and King's, might be vanishingly limited,

negligible (but not non-existent)?

                                                Regarding King

the matter is simple -- he was non-violent but dependent upon

federal force to counter the South's violence.

No doubt without the larger force, the non-violent would be

      overwhelmed by southern violence.

Here, non-violence was a tactic, not an ethic.

Gandhi, however, had no violent partner to protect him from the British.

      Or did he?

1. There was the potential violence of the population, which Gandhi

    restrained but could release which the British feared, and

2. It was the restrained (limited scope) violence of the British that

    allowed Gandhi to exist rather than be extinguished -- this restraint

    was a (British) cultural imperative (limited scope) as well as emanating

    from Britain's view of India as a protectorate and valued citizen of the

    United Kingdom (defensive posture).

What about violence or threat of violence to compel compliance with

      community

as in mortgage foreclosure, driving without license, drug possession.

Perhaps it is necessary violence to maintain orderly commerce, the

      common space, and preempt bad behaviors associated with

      otherwise neutral, private acts.

The defensive posture is the common good; the limited scope is forgoing

      deadly force.

But the citizen, too, must maintain a disciplined, armed non-violence,

in case the state (the janjaweed) engages in an unjust, autoimmune

      violence.

Hence, a gun in every home.