Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The gun, in perspective

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463

    The gun, in perspective

    I recieved this in an email today...thought it was very interesting and agree with the author of the letter 100%. Let me be the first to say, Semper Fi!

    "The Gun Is Civilization"
    Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . .. .
    I offer you a stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

    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)

  2. #2
    Activist Member Wolf_shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Accomac, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,213
    I've read this before and agree 100%. The grabbers just don't get though.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Major Caudill plagerized that essay.

    Please give credit to the real author of this essay.

    Marko Kloos wrote it. Some jerk calling himself Major CAudill plagerized it, and even dropped out a few words that change much of the meaning. Ted Nugent got caught in the scam and ended up paying a few dollars to Marko Kloos to fix the oopsie.

    Start here http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20...ythical_ma.php and then do a Google search of "Marko Kloos Major Caudill" if you want more documentation.

    Why am I jumping all over this? Because Marko is a friend and a staunch RKBA supporter who does not deserve to let the plagerizer get credit anywhere.

    But otherwise, yes, it is a great essay - in the original when attributted to the real author.

    stay safe.

  4. #4
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    I agree with most of this. There are only a few things that I would change. See my remarks in red.

    Quote Originally Posted by fully_armed_biker View Post
    I recieved this in an email today...thought it was very interesting and agree with the author of the letter 100%. Let me be the first to say, Semper Fi!

    "The Gun Is Civilization"
    Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . .. .
    I offer you a stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

    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.

    There is also love. It is a human interaction that sometimes goes beyond reason. True love is more than feeling. Passion is not a synonym for love. Love is based on one's action for another, with another, and toward another. Unfortunately in our society true love has been almost replaced by passion. Passion is not a good reason for starting relationships or marriages. Passion will not hold relationships or marriage together. True love will...because it gives rather than takes. True love sacrifices rather than demands. It is the preferable means for society to interact. Reason should flow out of love for one's neighbor.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people should interact through love for one another with persuasion being only one facet of interaction.

    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.


    The firearm should not be thought of as the only means to remove force. Numbers can also be a part of the equation. A person or several persons using force without firearms can be countered with greater numbers of people without firearms. That has been shown repeatedly throughout human history. I am not in disagreement that force may need to be countered at times with a firearm. The major sufficiently gives those times here in his statement. Our problem in America is that we no longer see ourselves as "our brother's keeper." We are a me-ism society.


    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.

    I fully agree. It is unfortunate that the major could not have found a better term than "successful living."

    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)
    Thanks, Major Caudill. And, thank you for your service to and for our country.
    Last edited by CenTex; 12-02-2010 at 05:41 PM.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  5. #5
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Isn't the "feeling of love" ultimately persuasion?

    Just sayin..

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    Isn't the "feeling of love" ultimately persuasion?

    Just sayin..
    NIMHO - it is giving, unconditionally.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    NIMHO - it is giving, unconditionally.
    Did the feeling of love persuade you into giving unconditionally?

    That is more my point. You did not always love that person.. Kinda deal.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    Did the feeling of love persuade you into giving unconditionally?

    That is more my point. You did not always love that person.. Kinda deal.
    That is being self-persuasive, not being persuaded by someone else.

    This philosophical line is OT and not IMO not in keeping w/OCDO in any event.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by fully_armed_biker View Post
    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction...
    Your axiom only holds true if society were comprised solely of honest, law-abiding citizens, in which case, we wouldn't need firearms at all, much less police or military forces.

    Since that's not the case, Force remains a valid method of social interaction, from the President's security detail down to the bouncers at your local bar.

    ...and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
    This statement is about as ass-backwards as it gets. A firearm is a pinnacle of force, and Constitutionally granted as a power extended to each and ever citizen of the United States of America. It doesn't "remove force from the menu." Rather, it enables/empowers each and every citizen of our great nation with the ability to enforce our federal, state, county, and local laws.

    It's what makes our nation strong.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •