Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [infoguys-list] I find this quite compelling

Expand Messages
  • Camm Lounsbury
    Amen!!  I love it!! Camm Lounsbury PA Lic # 90-MD-2006 335 East Main St. Bradford, PA 16701 814-362-3571 camm_lounsbury@yahoo.com ... From: suesarkis@aol.com
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 30, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Amen!!  I love it!!

      Camm Lounsbury
      PA Lic # 90-MD-2006
      335 East Main St.
      Bradford, PA 16701
      814-362-3571
      camm_lounsbury@...

      --- On Tue, 11/30/10, suesarkis@... <suesarkis@...> wrote:


      From: suesarkis@... <suesarkis@...>
      Subject: [infoguys-list] I find this quite compelling
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 11:51 AM


       





      THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ.











      "The Gun Is Civilization!" Interesting take and one you don't hear much.
      . . . . .

      As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun
      Ban, I offer 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.

      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 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.)

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

      Thank You

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.