This has been around for a while, so you may have already read it. If not, it definitely is worth a look. It was written by Marko Kloos, and titled "Why the gun is civilization"
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 gangbanger, and a single gay 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 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 weightlifter. 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.
Subscribe
3 comments:
I promise not to kill anyone until you come to get my
guns. Then I'll be forced to kill as many of you as
possible, who participate in trying to take my guns
from me! As Charlton Heston put it, "Out of my cold
dead hands!" Would you personally want to be the one
to take Charton's gun....out of his cold dead hands?
Why? What was it that, your fellow American, Charlton
ever personally did to you that he would deserve this?
My "unalienable" and "individual" right means just
that! I don't care what you say and watch what you do
say. Because, as angry as I am when foreign enemies
attack the very freedoms my troops are dying for and
trying to preserve, I'm equally angry when those
freedoms come under attack by those within my own
borders! You can't alienate "my" right by "your"
voting it away or dismissing it! That is what
"unalienable" has always meant! Make no mistake! Do
not pretend "you" have the right to redefine this for
someone else. It would be un-American for you to try!
If some of you tried to take this right away, that
would be a "Mob Rules" environment and that's d**n
sure not what America is or was ever meant to become!
When we do become a "Mob Rules" society please see
"The Declaration of Independance"
This right has been recognized in this country, as
fact, for 230+ years. Hmm, that long. I'd say that
shows our founding fathers intent has been acknowleged
from the beginning and till the present. Don't think
you'll keep getting away with trying to redefine this
like seemingly has been done to much of the rest of
the "Bill of Rights."
The first legal document was the "Declaration of
Independence" which actually tells us when and why
it's "our duty" to use our guns. As an American
citizen I have had a duty to bear arms since the
Declaration of Independence was written. It wouldn't
be our proudest holiday, if this wasn't so. We
wouldn't be here without it! Without it we couldn't
promise our children and their children a future of
freedom either. History and just plain common sense
should show you that.
And you do realize that our founding fathers are
currently rolling over in their graves right now at
the liberties being taken, not at the consent of the
governed, but by the government anyway. I would
suspect that only a government deserving of being
replaced would allow for the promotion of giving up
this right! Ya think? Or do you even think at all?
You folks better stop soon before you start biting a
mouthful of something you don't want to be chewing!
Gun owners are serious lot about this right. Don't
create more harm then good. People are keeping this
right sacred, just in case the government gets a
little too abusive. A little too free with their own
liberties and a little oppressive with the citizen's
liberties. But we can all tell that's not happening
and there is no need for that. Right? Our government
is nothing but honorable? One of our presidential
hopefuls just publically reiterated the point that
"gun rights are to keep the government in check."
So you see, there is nothing to fret about. Lawful gun
owners are not a threat to you or you family. Don't be
a threat to me and mine!
Gun crime "prevention" and crime "prevention" in
general are unattainable ideals! This has been true
since the beginning of time. You can't make laws that
"prevent" this. You can only make laws as punishment
to deter crime. You lose your freedom in an
environment where your government becomes so
irresponsible that it starts letting victims write the
laws! As sad as being a victim of a serious crime can
be, when you let victims write "prevention laws" is
when you and "me" lose our rights. If your not
concerned with your rights fine. But, "me", I love
"my" individual, unalienable rights. My other duty is
to keep these rights so my kid can have them also.
I take it back, I guess you can prevent all crime, all
at once, if you passed a law that made everybody stay
in their houses twenty four seven. Or maybe prison
camps? That would prevent crime. But that would be
ridiculous and not very free for law abiding
individuals. Would it? Or you could do the same thing
slowly one law at a time. But that's not freedom
either and us gun owners will be watching so that
someday it doesn't become, not just our right, but our
duty to bear arms.
Yours truly
Bob Striffler
That's Marko Kloos, though I don't doubt that he owns an Enfield... :)
Thanks for the correction Andrew. I've corrected my post.
Post a Comment