I have never posted an off topic post, IIRC. This is one that I think is important enough to do so. I would like to see a valid/rational argument against this, I of course don't believe that is possible without sophistry.
ca
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Washington
> DC Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter that
> places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized > society.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 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 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)