"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!
  • AllenM

    Diamond Collision Inc. Avon.
    Industry Partner
    Rating - 100%
    132   0   0
    Apr 20, 2008
    10,387
    113
    Avon
    I received this in an email today and I had not heard it before so I hope others will appreciate it as I did.

    "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)
     

    ATF Consumer

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 23, 2008
    4,628
    36
    South Side Indy
    I have this printed in which this is part of the info packet we have handed out during the past two Open Carry walks....
    As far as I know Maj. Caudill did not author this.

    whyguniscivil.png
     

    AllenM

    Diamond Collision Inc. Avon.
    Industry Partner
    Rating - 100%
    132   0   0
    Apr 20, 2008
    10,387
    113
    Avon
    yea I didn't verify this before posting I had not seen it and trusted the person who sent it to me. "trust no one" :)
     

    LPPOsecurity

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 19, 2010
    754
    18
    NWI
    Sounds good to me, I need to print that out and give that to a few ppl, I ran into a
    woman here recently that when I showed her state laws that said as long as I have my permit I can carry my gun open or concealed pretty much wherever I want, went on to complain about that being so wrong and how she's gonna write a letter to the congressman, I almost wanted to slap her
     
    Top Bottom