Stefanko.com

SMILE!

It Could Change Your Life forever!!

		

 


 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Hosted By:

Tim & Peg Stefanko
Wellsboro, Pennsylvania 
Phone: 570-724-2096 

tim@stefanko.com

 

SMILE