America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

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 would not 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 !!

Remember freedom is not free.


Film at 11.....

Wow, what an intelligent well thought out piece about the positive aspects of gun ownership. The only way you could disagree with this is if you are an arrogant idiot. Drafter, thanks for posting this.

So... if you guys are done stroking each other you can look at all the holes in his argument.

***standard preface - I think guns are fun and don't actually want to limit your right to own them - feel free to buy a tank for all I f'ing care***

A gun levels the playing ground between the weak and the strong, but it also turns the outcome of a conflict into primarily depending on who shoots first. If no one is armed, then a person doesn't constitute an immediate threat until they're within arms reach (or stick or knife), and even then the threat could be mitigated if you're physically fit. If a stranger is carrying a gun, in the open, they are a potential threat to me from across the room, or further (if they have a long-arm). I don't know who they are, and I have no reason to believe they aren't intending to use that weapon. Additionally, since guns are reasonably lethal devices, I know that if they choose to use this weapon, I will most likely die. Even if they don't kill me the first shot, they'll have plenty of time to shoot again.

If I'm carrying a gun as well, the ONLY way to make sure that my weapon can be used defensively is to make sure I shoot them before they shoot me. A gun does me absolutely no good if I'm laying on the ground bleeding out of a gut wound while it's still in its holster. I'm not a quick-draw... that means I need to have my gun out and pointing at any armed person before they pull their gun out and point it at me. That way I can simply pull the trigger while they're still unholstering their gun (keep in mind, anyone is going to pull out their gun if someone is pointing a weapon at them)....

So, in a situation where we're all walking around armed and I have to assume any of the sketchy looking people around me could be the next workplace/walmart/highscool shooter, I have to start shooting everyone before they shoot me.

Yeah... real civilized.

RAM has a

I'm pretty sure that Jesus would disagree with you and the Maj. He completely dismisses Love which is not always reasonable.

The problem is with threat identification, plain and simple.
Again, I don't have a problem with you owning a tank. Hell, buy a nuke.

However, if I see someone I don't know walk into a public space with a weapon, how do I decide whether they're a threat or not? And I'm not talking a "threaten with a gun to get all your money" type of threat. We have a lot of angry, unintelligent people running around this country (like TCBY) who aren't actually looking to threaten anyone with a weapon, they are looking to pull it out and shoot someone.

If you're walking into a public space with a gun, how do I have any assurance you aren't doing so to shoot as many people as you can until the cops take you out? I don't have that assurance.

My options upon seeing an unstable hick with a gun strapped to his side are either 1 - shoot him first; or 2 - get behind a counter and then wait to shoot him first.

I find concealed-carry more appropriate. I feel like the psychopaths are less likely to bother trying to wear their guns inconspicuously when they're planning their "blaze of glory"/.

Your such a toolbag, how in Gawds creation do YOU know that you can trust LE? I mean we've never seen " Bad Cops" have we? Your a puss in boots looking for someone else to " protect you" from perceived threats from folks who would NEVER do what you accuse them of. Your Folks have got to be SO proud

So using your reasoning:
If Your @ a all U can eat food bar ( right after ) " Pounding your buddy.....how do WE have any assurance that your not covered in " open sores" from Aids and are going to affect whoever touches anything you did? See by my way of living I constantly have small little cuts etc from day to day employment, why should I or anyone be subject to that " possibility" ???

Yeah... tell me the last completely random mass shooting performed by a law enforcement official in uniform.

You can not trust the police all you want. And you can have fantasies of me having gay sex all you want... I don't give a rats ass.

But I sure as hell wouldn't trust someone like you in public with loaded guns.

But feel free to have them in your home, doesn't endanger me or anyone I care about.

That's where I disagree with you DMV. Yes it becomes a great equalizer, but it doesn't become a deterrent of escalation. It would only be a deterrent of escalation if the individuals knew and had a vague trust that the other person isn't planning on killing them.

Let me put it this way, DMV... if you were standing in a 7-11 and a crack addict walked in with a gun holstered on his hip, would you feel safer?

quote=victor809]Yeah... tell me the last completely random mass shooting performed by a law enforcement official in uniform.

You can not trust the police all you want. And you can have fantasies of me having gay sex all you want... I don't mind a little rats ass.

But I sure as hell wouldn't trust someone like you in public with loaded guns.

But feel free to have them in your home, doesn't endanger me or anyone I care about.[/quote]


No sir....You show the rest of US the stats on mentally balanced law abiding citizens who did what you seem to think I'm capable of, simply because I disagree with you on this matter.....well and "pounding ":-"

would prolly be wearing an Obama shirt or hat....

The point... which you missed... is there isn't any instance of a LE in uniform shooting up a movie theater or school or whatever.

And no, I don't think you're going to shoot up city hall because you "disagree with me on this matter"... I think you're one chain email away from shooting up a public place based on the sum of all your rants across this board.

Hell... half the people who've gone on these shootings claim they're "law abiding citizens".

Again, would you show me your facts to back what your saying? Are some or all of these demented people on record somewhere stating that they're law abiding citizens? ALL if I'm not mistaken had documented mental issues and somehow were still able to get their hands on guns. And folks like me appear to " rant " as you put it BECAUSE pussies like yourself who are afraid of guns simply don't want anyone else to have one.

Hey Pounder......please re- read #13 and comment...@ least if a person has a gun " showing " on their hip, I KNOW they have it, in my opinion that's better than some thumper concealing it until he's ready to harm someone with it.
Funny how our minds work SO much differently....by your own admission, somehow you equate that it's " Automatic " that if it's wearing a uniform and yet still carries an open carry gun....they are above snapping and shooting the Hell out of a bunch of people? I.....see

http://www.youtube.com/embed/cHH9YwIZJt8?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Did you want to see one?

The only problem I see in your logic is your ASSUMING that because you " willingly " hand over your wallet or HIDE. That you will escape the situation unharmed as though you KNOW he/ she won't kill you anyway.....

there's always mace or a stun gun....

Drafter:

Or boob flashing. Stops a man dead in his tracks.


Just sayin.......

Folks in Thailand would prolly disagree with you right now.

A Thai coup has nothing to do with usefulness in a day-to-day robbery.

If you want a gun to be able to shoot the loyal (or rebel) military in the event that the US goes through a rebellion, feel free. Again, I've never said I wanted to stop you.

You aren't going to find the next military coup in the local waffle house though. And if I see a person walk into a random restaurant/store/bar with a gun in open carry my first thought is not going to be "Oh, he's trying to protect us from an oppressive government which is trying to take over this here WalMart"... it's going to be "Great, another nut looking to kill a bunch of people before the cops shoot him."

If we had more government revolutions taking place in waffle houses, and fewer mass shootings in them, maybe I'd have different expectations. But that's simply not the case.

+1,000,000!

You're just visiting the wrong places. Most of them occur at pancake houses. Didn't you get the memo?

what about Taco Bell..??

so, people that eat Tacos can't afford guns..??