Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

What do you think ..agree?

I absolutely love this article and think it is really spot on.Now I want to say that of course it isn't in the best intrest of all to own a gun for example those who are afraid of them..those who do not know how to shoot effectively..
Anyway just wanted to share ths peice and get your thoughts..

 
tnmomofive

Asked by tnmomofive at 8:05 AM on Oct. 29, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 32 (56,190 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (16)
  • GREAT article, tnm. And, yeah, I agree with it.
    jaycietaylorgma

    Answer by jaycietaylorgma at 9:59 AM on Oct. 29, 2010

  • Excellent article! I agree with it. We can even use it when looking at history..the gun simply changes to another weapon such as a spear or bow/arrows.

    Thanks! :)
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 10:03 AM on Oct. 29, 2010

  • weren't there great civilizations in existence before guns were even an idea? I think so.
    Zoeyis

    Answer by Zoeyis at 8:41 AM on Oct. 29, 2010

  • "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. 
     

    tnmomofive

    Comment by tnmomofive (original poster) at 8:06 AM on Oct. 29, 2010

  • 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. 
     

    tnmomofive

    Comment by tnmomofive (original poster) at 8:07 AM on Oct. 29, 2010

  • 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. 
     

    tnmomofive

    Comment by tnmomofive (original poster) at 8:07 AM on Oct. 29, 2010

  • 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. 
     

    tnmomofive

    Comment by tnmomofive (original poster) at 8:08 AM on Oct. 29, 2010

  • 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.

    tnmomofive

    Comment by tnmomofive (original poster) at 8:11 AM on Oct. 29, 2010

  • 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.

    tnmomofive

    Comment by tnmomofive (original poster) at 8:11 AM on Oct. 29, 2010

  • So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.


    The greatest civilization would be not needing to be armed


    and BTW, should that apply to other countries as well? So are you advocating we all get the SAME weapons to make all things equal? So should we give Iran, China , Japan....Nuke capabilities...so we can have a GREAT civilization??

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 8:33 AM on Oct. 29, 2010

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN