THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT

[papajohn1964]

I received this in a e-mail yesterday and thought I would share it!!!

THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ.
Very good article, and of course, from a Marine!!!!

As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....

"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 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.)

So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

This is worth printing and sharing with others!

[Middle Age Russ]

Simply outstanding.

[Heartland Patriot]

I received this in a e-mail yesterday and thought I would share it!!!

THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ.
Very good article, and of course, from a Marine!!!!

As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....

"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 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.)

So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

This is worth printing and sharing with others!

I've thought about this sort of thing quite a bit. And I came to a similar conclusion as the author of that piece. I think in a society that had generally armed and responsible citizens, that it would cut the number of criminals down dramatically. All those that were into crime because it presented an easy "line of work" would probably think about doing something else with their lives. The remainder would be the worst of the worst, BUT there would be such a smaller number that law enforcement could actually have success against them. There is a certain political ideology that has made things WAY too easy for the bad guys. I'm not sure what it would take to actually get us past that ideology, but I agree with the writer that an unarmed citizenry is an easy target. Good posting.

[papajohn1964]

Slight correction - that was actually written by Marko Kloos, aka the Munchkin Wrangler: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2 ... ilization/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let's give credit where credit is due

I just pasted from an email. Whoever the author definately deserves the credit! (and a amen or two)

[The Annoyed Man]

Slight correction - that was actually written by Marko Kloos, aka the Munchkin Wrangler: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2 ... ilization/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let's give credit where credit is due

Beat me to it. This story makes the rounds about every 6 months, and every 6 months on various forums I find myself trying to make sure Marko (a passing online acquaintance of mine) gets credit for his work.

...edited to correct a misspelling...

[thatguy]

+1 I also have seen this a few times but it is still an excellent piece.

[texanron]

Outstanding!

[papajohn1964]

Reply sent to the buddy of mine who emailed it to me with the link to the correct author.