Right on!
THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ.
"The Gun Is Civilization"
Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago , IL
Gun Ban,
I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine)
that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized
society.
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the
last paragraph of the letter....
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
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 gang banger, and a single 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 [armed] 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 weight lifter.
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.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed
and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago , IL
Gun Ban,
I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine)
that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized
society.
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the
last paragraph of the letter....
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
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 gang banger, and a single 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 [armed] 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 weight lifter.
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.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed
and can only be persuaded, never forced.
***********************************
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible
and exercise power from behind the scenes."
-- Justice Felix Frankfurter
"The ruling class has the schools and press "The real rulers in Washington are invisible
and exercise power from behind the scenes."
-- Justice Felix Frankfurter
under its thumb. This enables it to sway the
emotions of the masses."
-- Albert Einstein
***********************************
No comments:
Post a Comment