Subject: The Gun is civilization Why I will defend our right to own a gun!! 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 whata gun means to a civilized society. Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . . Read thiseloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the lastparagraph 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 andforce. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice ofeither convincing me via argument, or force me to do your biddingunder threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one ofthose two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interactthrough persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of socialinteraction and the only thing that removes force from the menu isthe personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have touse reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negateyour threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound womanon equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retireeon equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a singleguy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseballbats. 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 ofbad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd bemore civilized if all guns were removed from society, because afirearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That,of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostlydisarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validitywhen most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule bythe young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact oppositeof a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only makea successful living in a society where the state has granted hima force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethalthat otherwise would only result in injury. This argument isfallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontationsare won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelminginjury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitutelethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and comeout of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makeslethal 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 anoctogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simplywouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethaland 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 meansthat I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'mafraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limitthe actions of those who would interact with me through reason, onlythe actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force fromthe 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 bepersuaded, never forced.

Yup, read this about 1 year ago, and all I can say is Amen.

Thats one Marine (Ret) whose got his shit together as the saying goes.
Valued and enlightened arguement.
Thanks

Excellent!

I simply cannot argue with one iota of that writing.

Of course, the ANTIs will still argue that guns only breed violence and that all guns should be removed from the community, thereby negating the need for a firearm. But again, of course, they purposely neglect to mention that a baseball bat, a tyre iron, a broken bottle, a fence paling, a hammer et al. are also weapons of force when used by criminals as such.

Cheers, Vince

one very well thought out line of reasoning. I will endevour to remember this.

Reminds me of that often used quote, "God didn't make men equal, Mr. Colt did."

I am that octogenarian, when ask why I carry a gun, I answer, "I'm to old to have the sh#t kicked out of me and I'm still too young to die"

Besides, diesel, I can't run very fast anymore, nor very far.

"An armed society is a courteous society" comes to mind.
There is always the criminal (like happened in a suburb of Seattle, Renton) that attemps to rob a gun store wielding a knife... he was "unsuccessful" shall we say. Not only did the owner carry a gun at all times there was an off-duty police officer in the store at the time.
You can choose to be a victim or be prepared.