The Gun Is Civilization

[moonwhim]

"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 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.)

[Nick@Nite]

As an NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, I love this "argument". I just might start printing it out and give a copy to my students.

[Obiwan]

Wonderful treatise......!

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Another counter measure is unconditional LOVE. There is something that many do also and that is ignore.. fence sitting denial.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I am a gun guy, but honestly "force can never conquer, only subjugate. Love is the only force that can ever truly conquer anyone. That said I'll settle for subjugation when love fails."

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Swiss: I'll cover your back (sixes to a miltary person) :-ss

[Obiwan]

I am a gun guy, but honestly "force can never conquer, only subjugate. Love is the only force that can ever truly conquer anyone. That said I'll settle for subjugation when love fails."

False on your first statement, True on your second.
Force does in fact conquer, and only when it's used according to evil does it subjugate.
When force was used against Japan, did we Conquer or did we Subjugate?
We Conquered, helped them reset up their society, not by force of arms either, and then we left.
Thus, there was no "subjugation" there by the use to force. There are many other examples of this.
Obviously conquering is a momentary form of subjugation, but subjugation usually refers to unrighteous dominion by force of arms, fear, etc., and long term.

Thus, your statement is completely false. Although yes, love does conquer all. Which for example in the Japan example, love by both the conquerer and the conquered allowed Japan to come through and prosper.

[Jason]

LOL....forget the guns! ....little tidbit from last nights reading...

And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.

But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron?

Now therefore thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. And Elijah departed.

And when the messengers turned back unto him, he said unto them, Why are ye now turned back?

And they said unto him, There came a man up to meet us, and said unto us, Go, turn again unto the king that sent you, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that thou sendest to enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? therefore thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.

And he said unto them, What manner of man was he which came up to meet you, and told you these words?

And they answered him, He was an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite.

Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of an hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down.

And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.
And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-kgs/1?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Galticus]

The statement made in the article posted by Moonwhim is completely true. It states the need for the 2nd amendment in everyone's life simply and makes it easy for anyone willing to understand. Thanks for this article, I'll have to send it around too.

[durangout]

The statement made in the article posted by Moonwhim is completely true. It states the need for the 2nd amendment in everyone's life simply and makes it easy for anyone willing to understand. Thanks for this article, I'll have to send it around too.

Spoken like a true Spartan

[KalelIsbell]

MOLON LABE B-)

[wiser2]

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

I think this is quite naive. When I was in high school, I attended a meeting in the Washington state capitol where the state police claimed that the majority of their officers were killed with their own weapons, usually by the victim they were trying to protect. The reality is that carrying a gun is going to force you being dealt with by force, unless reason fully works. You have heard the saying, live by the sword, die by the sword. Choose your weapon, the point is the same.

I very much believe in an armed citizenship, although I believe that today we need arms - smart bombs, planes, tanks, warships, etc. The motivating enemy in the creation of the 2nd amendment was the British government. The point is that if you have a functioning government, it would protect you from the invaders and criminals, but all of the power then sits with the government, and you have nothing to protect you from it (like the British government). Hence, the government becomes the dangerous opponent, unless held in check by a balancing force of an armed milita/citizenry.