The Munchkin Wrangler - Why the Gun is Civilization

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Hoosier8

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   1
    Jul 3, 2008
    4,961
    113
    Indianapolis
    I found this and thought I would share it.

    Clicky----> the munchkin wrangler.: why the gun is civilization.

    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 gangbanger, and a single gay 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 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 weightlifter. 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.
     

    sunspot

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Sep 11, 2008
    53
    6
    Warsaw
    That says it all !!, wish I could come up with something like that when asked the question. Why do you carry a gun ? Now I can, Thanks for posting

    John
     

    DRob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Aug 2, 2008
    5,869
    83
    Southside of Indy
    Miss-attributed

    That's good stuff. It's been going around the internet for a while attributed to a "Maj. L Caudill USMC (Ret)". It was actually written by a blogger named Marko Kloos, I believe. For a reason only the great gods of the internet know, somebody apparently made up Major Caudill. It must have sounded better than Marko Kloos. Even Ted Nugent is reported to have used the article and attributed it to Caudill until he found Caudill probably doesn't even exist and, if he does, he didn't write the article. Nonetheless, as stated previously, it is good stuff.

    I really don't care who wrote it and only checked because it arrived in my inbox with a disclaimer about the authenticity of the author.
     

    CountryBoy19

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 91.7%
    11   1   0
    Nov 10, 2008
    8,412
    63
    Bedford, IN
    I read this on another site and was going to post it, but found this old thread. It is worth a little necromancy.

    :patriot: :ingo:
    Normally I bust the chops of people that bump old threads (this one is 1 1/2 years old) but this is a very good thread and that was a very good bump. Rep to you sir!
     
    Top Bottom