• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Written By a Marine

quailman

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
13
Location
Antelope, California, USA
I just got this sent me in an email and thought I would pass it on. the first lines explain human nature the rest of it we all get. If we can get the anti-s to understand that the first lines are undisputable it makes the rest a no brainer. Here it is; Titled " 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 the threat of force. Every human action falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or Force, thats 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 reasonand try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of froce. 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 wuth 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 froce 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 banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young,the strong, and the many, and thats 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 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 phsically 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 to many 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 a 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 dont do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I am 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. So the Greatest Civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced. The Marine who wrote this did not give his name.
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
That was very good.

Philosophocally, it is right-on. By force or by persuasion.

markm
 

xnetc9

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
104
Location
Orange County, CA
i have always thought about the same idea by myself. society is ok with a big strong 200 lbs man, who can potentially kill you with one punch, walking around. society isn't happy when a small 90lb girl carries a gun that can take down said man. go figure...

police is ok as long as you carry a gun smaller than them but take out the swat if you happen to carry a stronger weapon than them.
 

quailman

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
13
Location
Antelope, California, USA
Paragraphs are nice!

Sorry for not getting that into Paragraphs. I am better with Guns then computers and words. When this was sent to me I found it so profound that I had to share it because I know it is going to help me in the Battle of Words with the Anti-Gun Crowd and I hope it will help others. I think it defines the 2nd Amendment and holds true as much today as it did when 2A was written. If the guy who wrote this is not a true Marine then I will forgive him or maybe someone just said that and started passing it on. My Dad was a Marine on Iwo Jima but never talked about it much either.
 
Top