Posted on 06/14/2007 9:11:34 AM PDT by InfantryMarine
Edited on 06/18/2007 4:54:56 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Why The Gun In 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 gay 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.
See reply #27 for an update on the source of this article
The same logic applies to nations as well.
"SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM." (If you wish for peace, prepare for war)
If you doubt this or lack the power to accept it, or it offends your idea of the way things "ought" to be, even for a moment, you do not even deserve freedom and you are not worthy of peace.
OUT F***ing STANDING, Marine. The Major is spot on!!! Thanks for this!
Great essay Marine. Are you the author?
Negative ... I ain’t THAT smart!
lol!
“God created man, Sam Colt made them equal”
I can think of another...bribery. Bribery could be considered a form of “convincing via argument”, however. Or, from a capitalist’s point of view you could consider it nothing more than fair purchase at a mutually agreed upon price.
Then there is blackmail. Blackmail I suppose is a form of force, but not physical force. And the victim must be a willing accomplice. You can’t force someone to give in to blackmail. Well, unless you are actually using physical force or the threat of it as your method of blackmail.
But otherwise I agree with this article. Firearms aren’t called “THE GREAT EQUALIZER” for nothing. People should realize though that firearms can’t protect from everything. Crooked courts and rigged juries are one. Various predations inflicted by mega rich are another. Once the rule of law becomes corrupted to the point that armed resistance is necessary, you run the risk of total anarchy and destruction. How do you quell the violence after the rebels have disposed of the tyrants? Sometimes it isn’t so easy. Sometimes a purging of tyrants accomplishes nothing more than to make way for another gang of tyrants.
I don’t want anyone knowing I have a firearm, and I don’t wan’t to ever have to use it. It’s my ace in the hole, and part of it’s value is knowing that it will be completely unsuspected when it is called upon for use. You have a totally new perspective and priorities when you know that an argument can potentially escalate to the taking of a life. Suddenly posturing and machismo is irrelevant, foolhardy, and even irresponsible. The fore-brain must prevail.
This article was written by Marko Kloos.
Please see the links below to his blog:
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/06/on-plagiarism.html
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html
Bang! Excellent article.
ping
Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.” (A sword is never a killer, it’s a tool in the killer’s hands.) - Lucius Annaeus Seneca “the Younger” (ca. 4 BC-65 AD)
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one. - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist 1764.
Gun control laws increase the power of government and the criminal element over the average citizen and serve no other purpose. - Robert E. Lee
A goverment that fears arms in the hands of it people should also fear ROPE! - Nathan Bedford Forrest about 1845
It is hard to oppress a population equipped to hunt animals the size of a man. — L. Neil Smith, Pallas (New York: Tor, 1993), p. 380
Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power. - Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author commenting on the lack of protest with which Japanese tolerated governmental corruption, Los Angeles Times, 10/15/92
The most important freedom of all is the freedom to defend freedom.- Kevin McGehee
Gun control, the opiate of the intellectuals: covert elitism laced with self-righteousness.
Here’s the video of Suzanne Hupp testifying before congress.
http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/23/35/
Just one final statement.
I’ve been sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these, pieces of machinery, having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose, people, that is not the point of the second amendment!
The second amendment is not about duck hunting, and I know I’m not going to make very many friends saying this, but it’s about our right, all of our right to be able to protect our selves from all of you guys up there.
And nobody’s talked about that.
Dr. Suzanna Gratia, Killeen massacre survivor who watched as her parents were murdered because she obeyed Texas law and left her handgun locked in her car. Appearing before Rep Schumer’s committee hearings on the assault weapons ban
The problem with irrational/emotional appeal is that those who emply such arguments are willing to improve your judgement with their gun - although in the case of liberals, it’s a government gun, not one of their own. It would be too much to expect a lib to live the courage of their ‘convictions’.
In any case, libs always prefer to have someone else do their dirty work. That way, they can avoid any responsibility for their actions.
Sure is good to be packing a pistol in FL, compared to packing a little folding knife in Cali.
Excellent post!
Dead on.
Got me a 16” Bushie M-forgery too.
Try THAT in Cali!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.