[sparkscoffee] Re: A rational gun argument
- From: Sblumen123@xxxxxxx
- To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:13:06 -0500 (EST)
Hey Shmuck, Shmuck, Shmuck
1.Do you think 5 & 6 year olds walking to school should
have guns? How about 7 to to 18 years have guns?
If a good guy and a bad guy have guns and there is a shoot
out between them how do you know the good guy will always
win? Have you heard of car accidents, road rage, bar fights?
2. If everybody had guns then why would we need a police force,
labs, lawyers, trials, juries, laws, etc? What an example for
the rest of the world, especially terrorists.
3. If you were a policeman how would you feel knowing every SOB
has a gun? You would make nbr 1 in your pants giving out traffic
tickets, investigating a simple complaint or whatever policeman
do. How about asking cops what do they think of your BEST
WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT YOU HAVE EVER READ?
4. Think, Think, Think before you post, dummy.
Comrade Blumenthal
A non gun owning octogenarian
In a message dated 1/25/2013 9:45:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
schalestock@xxxxxxxx writes:
THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ
Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .
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.
Share this!
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · See Friendship
Write a comment...
____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2
Other related posts:
