A guy who understands the Second Amendment

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
7,401
3,736
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#1
"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 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 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.)
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
7,401
3,736
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#3
What prompted the resurgence of this 5-year old essay that "Maj L. Caudill USMC (Ret)" didn't write?

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/major-caudill-hits-the-big-time/
Try if you can force yourself to focus on the inherent truth of the subject matter. I have edited the essay to make it more pallitable for you......enjoy!

"The Gun Is Civilization"

By "Some Dude with a Clue"

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 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 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 "Some Dude with a Clue"
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,994
17,629
1,743
#7
Does what bother me?
"I just wondered what prompted its resurgence now."

That it resurfaced? Why is it a concern?

How many new members to OP have we had in the last two years? How many people didn't see it two years ago?
 
Dec 6, 2011
1,099
447
213
#8
"I just wondered what prompted its resurgence now."

That it resurfaced? Why is it a concern?

How many new members to OP have we had in the last two years? How many people didn't see it two years ago?
Me for one, and I agree wholeheartedly!
 

McalPoke

Territorial Marshal
Nov 12, 2006
6,194
1,625
1,743
McAlester, OK
#10
"I just wondered what prompted its resurgence now."

That it resurfaced? Why is it a concern?

How many new members to OP have we had in the last two years? How many people didn't see it two years ago?
Thats a ridiculous argument. Should we repost every thread from two years ago? After all, how many people didn't see all those two years ago.

What bothers me is posting something without ensuring that its properly credited. It would have taken all of 30 seconds to find out it wasn't written by "Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)" and properly credited the real author.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,994
17,629
1,743
#11
Thats a ridiculous argument. Should we repost every thread from two years ago? After all, how many people didn't see all those two years ago.

What bothers me is posting something without ensuring that its properly credited. It would have taken all of 30 seconds to find out it wasn't written by "Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)" and properly credited the real author.
Or you could just ignore it. Up to my post here there were 10 posts and 40% of them were yours.
 
#12
I see a flawed assumption that personal firearms would prevent mugging. If muggers have the element of surprise, and they are also armed, than they still have a viable business model.

Not only that, but it assumes rational behavior. As long as alcohol is legal, I would prefer not to have a large population with concealed firearms.
 

Jostate

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
16,114
12,597
1,743
#13
Slightly old numbers because it's the first one's I found:

US population 275 million. Gun deaths in 2000 - 10,800
EU population 376 million. Gun deaths in 2000 - 1,260

Just think how civilized they'd be in Europe if only they had more guns!
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,994
17,629
1,743
#14
Slightly old numbers because it's the first one's I found:

US population 275 million. Gun deaths in 2000 - 10,800
EU population 376 million. Gun deaths in 2000 - 1,260

Just think how civilized they'd be in Europe if only they had more guns!
Didn't we rescue EU?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,994
17,629
1,743
#15
What prompted the resurgence of this 5-year old essay that "Maj L. Caudill USMC (Ret)" didn't write?

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/major-caudill-hits-the-big-time/
Seems to be going around (in this case didn't write or say).

President Obama fired an apparently unwarranted shot at one of his Republican predecessors Thursday, telling a Maryland audience that the country's 19th president failed to make it onto Mount Rushmore because of his aversion to technology.
"One of my predecessors, President Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone: 'It's a great invention but who would ever want to use one?'" Obama said during a speech about energy. "That's why he's not on Mount Rushmore."
Hayes, a Republican, served as president from 1877 to 1881 and did not seek a second term.
"He's looking backwards," Obama continued. "He's not looking forward. He's explaining why we can't do something instead of why we can do something."
However, the president's attack may have been off base.
New York magazine reported that, according to the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center in Fremont, Ohio, Hayes never uttered the remark.
"I've heard that before, and no one ever knows where it came from," Nan Card, the center's curator of manuscripts, told the magazine. "But people just keep repeating it and repeating it, so it's out there."
Hayes actually loved the telephone, Card said, citing a newspaper article from June 29, 1877, that detailed Hayes' excitement at first experiencing the new device: "A gradually increasing smile wreathe[d] his lips and wonder shone in his eyes more and more."
Card noted that Hayes was not anti-technology at all. He was the first president to have a telephone in the White House.
"I think he was pretty much cutting edge," Card told New York magazine. "Maybe just the opposite of what President Obama had to say there."
 

Jostate

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
16,114
12,597
1,743
#16
Didn't we rescue EU?
Sure but that had nothing to do with the number of guns or gun deaths in the country. Unless you believe they accumulated all that debt because they weren't afraid of the people storming the capital. It's because too many of their people fell in love with the idea the Gubment could give them free stuff. A path we are on too, just not as far down the path.

I'm not in favor of outlawing guns or anything crazy like that. But I do acknowledge an aremed populace does come with a price.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,994
17,629
1,743
#17
Sure but that had nothing to do with the number of guns or gun deaths in the country. Unless you believe they accumulated all that debt because they weren't afraid of the people storming the capital. It's because too many of their people fell in love with the idea the Gubment could give them free stuff. A path we are on too, just not as far down the path.

I'm not in favor of outlawing guns or anything crazy like that. But I do acknowledge an aremed populace does come with a price.
No, what I'm referring to is that many of the countries in the EU could not defend their own country when they needed to. And read up on the gun laws in Germany.
 

PlatypusJojo

Mysterious as the dark side of the moon
A/V Subscriber
May 29, 2010
9,736
11,411
743
27
Boston
#18
Seems to be going around (in this case didn't write or say).

President Obama fired an apparently unwarranted shot at one of his Republican predecessors Thursday, telling a Maryland audience that the country's 19th president failed to make it onto Mount Rushmore because of his aversion to technology.
"One of my predecessors, President Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone: 'It's a great invention but who would ever want to use one?'" Obama said during a speech about energy. "That's why he's not on Mount Rushmore."
Hayes, a Republican, served as president from 1877 to 1881 and did not seek a second term.
"He's looking backwards," Obama continued. "He's not looking forward. He's explaining why we can't do something instead of why we can do something."
However, the president's attack may have been off base.
New York magazine reported that, according to the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center in Fremont, Ohio, Hayes never uttered the remark.
"I've heard that before, and no one ever knows where it came from," Nan Card, the center's curator of manuscripts, told the magazine. "But people just keep repeating it and repeating it, so it's out there."
Hayes actually loved the telephone, Card said, citing a newspaper article from June 29, 1877, that detailed Hayes' excitement at first experiencing the new device: "A gradually increasing smile wreathe[d] his lips and wonder shone in his eyes more and more."
Card noted that Hayes was not anti-technology at all. He was the first president to have a telephone in the White House.
"I think he was pretty much cutting edge," Card told New York magazine. "Maybe just the opposite of what President Obama had to say there."
Oh my. Obama uttered a commonly used quote of a (dead) republican. Off with his head! :rolleyes: What the hell does this have to do with the second amendment?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
50,994
17,629
1,743
#19
Oh my. Obama uttered a commonly used quote of a (dead) republican. Off with his head! :rolleyes: What the hell does this have to do with the second amendment?
Try keeping up.

This seemed to be a hot and important issue with someone other than me....

"that "Maj L. Caudill USMC (Ret)" didn't write?"