A Marines Explanation Why A Civilized Society Should Be Armed

Discussion in 'Community Forum' started by Davidlondon4, Feb 6, 2012.

  1. Davidlondon4

    Davidlondon4 12 pointer

    2,023
    31
    Dec 2, 2004
    Laurel County
    I borrowed this from another persons post on another forum.Never heard it explained like this before but it makes a lot of sense.



    "As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago gun ban, this Marine offered a letter that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society. 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.... ------------------ 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 weapon, 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 weapon 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 drunken 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 weapon 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 an [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 weapon 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 firearm, 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. This is worth printing and sharing with others!
     
  2. The Lawn Man

    The Lawn Man 6 pointer

    238
    0
    Dec 7, 2011
    Ky
    Could not have said it better
     
  3. rock802

    rock802 10 pointer

    1,237
    0
    Dec 13, 2005
    primrose ky.
    I am stealing this....
     
  4. Davidlondon4

    Davidlondon4 12 pointer

    2,023
    31
    Dec 2, 2004
    Laurel County
    Go ahead as I swiped it from a friends FB page.Its the best explanation I have ever read for legally qualified citizens having the right to arm themselves for protection.
     
  5. Manzanita

    Manzanita 12 pointer

    2,486
    65
    Apr 16, 2006
    Telecheck 018
    The good Major Caudill has risen from the internet grave to make another appearance! If you're going to steal it, at least give credit to the actual author.

    This essay was originally posted in 2007 by an internet blogger named Marko Kloos. Somehow on the interwebz this became an essay written by a Major Caudill, USMC. Marko has taken it all with amusement. Ted Nugent even included it in one of his books and erroneously attributed it to the major.

    I think this may be the first time that "Major Caudill" has ever given this speech to the supreme court, though. That's a good one.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2012
  6. Davidlondon4

    Davidlondon4 12 pointer

    2,023
    31
    Dec 2, 2004
    Laurel County
    Thanks for revealing where the essay really came from.It does a great way of explaining things in a way that anyone should be able to understand and the more it gets passed around the better.I am sure people that support the right of qualified individuals having the right to keep and bear arms will feel the same way.
     

Share This Page