The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Thought this was well written:

The Gun is Civilization

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.

Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,867 Posts
As a Marine myself, I am always a little skeptical when I see articles written by (RET) Leathernecks...A little research by active Marines and a few others can put things into perspective sometimes...


When an individual puts USMC (RET) or any other branch of service behind their name, they better be able to walk the walk and talk the talk....just sayin. Cuz iffin it aint true, they might find themselves spittin chicklets.


The Mythical Major Caudill

Interesting story here. In 2007, a blogger writes "Why the Gun Is Civilization," an essay that begins "Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force." It argues that weaponry eliminates the ability to use force, requires reasoning, and thus is an underpinning of a civilized society.

By late 2007, the article is on other internet locations, but attributed to an apparently mythical "Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)." How or why it wound up attributed to that name is unknown.

And now, the essay winds up as two pages of Ted Nugent's latest, "Ted, White and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto," and attributed to the mythical Major. If anyone's in touch with Uncle Ted, they might want to give him a heads up to the problem.

The article was written by a Mr. Marko Kloos.

Folks would surprised at just what they can accomplish with a little work...


http://www.governmentattic.org/2docs/FOIA_Logs_HQ-USMC_FY2006-FY2007.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,645 Posts
Guess they thought coming from a Ret. USMC Major gave it a little more creditability.

Logical reasoning only makes sense to normal people. I have run across people that had no business with a library card much less a CCW permit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,867 Posts
Marko Kloos is actually former Bundeswehr (German Federal Defense Force)It's funny how sometimes immigrants understand what America is about better than a lot of folks born here....
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top