Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: A good argument to open carry!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member cgutierrez0688's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bremerton, WA
    Posts
    9

    A good argument to open carry!!

    I was emailed this last night and wanted to share. I don't know if this is already posted anywhere or not. But I think this person makes a good point as to why people should open carry if they can.

    "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 drunken 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 an
    [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.
    Last edited by cgutierrez0688; 02-13-2012 at 08:40 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member O2HeN2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    232
    This is always mis-attributed.

    This is the original blog entry by Marko Kloos.

    It is an awesome document; I find it disappointing that someone along the way (not the OP) "stole" it from the original author by changing the attribution.

    O2

  3. #3
    Regular Member Manzanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Murray, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    37
    In another forum I frequent, just last week someone posted it saying that the good Major Caudill had given that speech to the Supreme Court. The Major definitely gets around. I remember when Marko posted about Ted Nugent even using the essay in one of his books and attributing it to the fictitious Major. Although he seems to take it all some some amusement, Marko was intending to contact the publisher or something about it. Don't know what ever became of that.

  4. #4
    Regular Member cgutierrez0688's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bremerton, WA
    Posts
    9
    Well whomever the original author is I believe that person has it right. You don't want to force someone on equal or higher footing then you, unless you're looking to lose. No criminal wants to face a challenge. A BG can still reason with themselves as to weather or not they want what he or she is after. But it's up to us to only give them a single option and not either option.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    437
    I don't think the author is correct in all their assertions.

    For one thing having a firearm on their person does not give equality, or level the playing field. It gives a very slight edge which might not otherwise exist. It still requires a mindset (to contend) and a sense of awareness, and an understanding of how to fight with a firearm.

    Allowing the weak, vulnerable, aged or disadvantaged to be armed gives them a sense of empowerment, which is really important and which can bleed over into their other attitudes and activities (feeling safer going out at night, even if it is a bit of an illusion). They are -doing- something about their disadvantage IRT the predators out there.

    In addition, if you interview criminals as to what might dissuade them from robbing someone, when shown pictures of various types, they do not hesitate to choose a large formidable looking person. Perhaps they are going on other cues of vulnerability. When they want your money or your life, they become single minded.

    Here's an essay worth reading which describes these things I assert above. Be sure and look through the whole thread as there are other comments which are apropos.

    http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/128...cs.html&page=1
    A firearm is a tool of convenience, not effectiveness - Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

  6. #6
    Regular Member JamesB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    I don't think the author is correct in all their assertions.

    For one thing having a firearm on their person does not give equality, or level the playing field. It gives a very slight edge which might not otherwise exist. It still requires a mindset (to contend) and a sense of awareness, and an understanding of how to fight with a firearm.
    I agree. Having a firearm carried on one's person does not make one armed any more than carring a guitar makes one a musician.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
    Having a firearm carried on one's person does not make one armed any more than carring a guitar makes one a musician.
    You're most certainly armed. What remains to be seen is whether or not you're effective.
    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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
    I agree. Having a firearm carried on one's person does not make one armed any more than carring a guitar makes one a musician.
    Slight correction to add to since9's - it doesn't make you a fighter. It's 'Mindset', 'Tactics' and 'Technique'. If you can operate the firearm you have minimal technique. If you have a desire to protect your loved ones you have Mindset. Technique is learned and must be practiced to be retained.
    A firearm is a tool of convenience, not effectiveness - Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

  9. #9
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    That was the longest paragraph I ever attempted to read.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    That was the longest paragraph I ever attempted to read.


    Agreed!
    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
  •