• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why I Carry A Gun, by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,263
Reaction score
54
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
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 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.)

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

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
His last sentence which says" where all citizens are equally armed" requires some thought doesn't it??
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TSR said:
His last sentence which says" where all citizens are equally armed" requires some thought doesn't it??

Yep- especially when you know the number of former mental hospital patients that are out there walking the streets and only not taking a couple of pills away from flipping out...
Thats one of the places where I and the puritan 2nd Amendment folks disagree....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
No one has problems with mental patients not having guns................

Nor ex-felons........

So why do so many scream and whine about the waiting period to buy a gun- which was set up to do just that- keep guns out of the hands of mental patients and ex-felons :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
1
Location
Montgomery, Al
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
No one has problems with mental patients not having guns................

Nor ex-felons........

So why do so many scream and whine about the waiting period to buy a gun- which was set up to do just that- keep guns out of the hands of mental patients and ex-felons :???:

I personally don't hear people screaming about it..............

Laws imposing waiting periods require that a specified number of days elapse between
the time a firearm is purchased and it is physically transferred to the purchaser. The
purpose of a waiting period is to: (1) give law enforcement officials sufficient time to
perform a background check; and (2) provide a "cooling off" period to help guard against
impulsive acts of violence.
Summary of Federal Law
There is no federal waiting period. Under the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS), a dealer may transfer a firearm to a prospective purchaser as soon
as he or she passes a background check.1 If the FBI is unable to complete a background
check within three business days, the dealer may complete the transfer by default.

The original intent of the waiting period was for cooling off. Some were skeptical of a cooling off by Fed of which the FBI could have made them wait for months if they wanted to.

Are you really as stupid as you seem?
 

smalltime

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
600
Reaction score
0
Location
SD
I believe thats the same argument the Irainians have for aquiring nuclear weapons.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
smalltime said:
I believe thats the same argument the Irainians have for aquiring nuclear weapons.

Since people with mental issues shouldn't play with guns doesn't that mean a country with a lunitic for a leader shouldn't play with a nukes?

The Iranian cooling off period for having a nuke should be FOREVER for the safety of the rest of the world.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,163
Reaction score
33
Location
BC
Tam said:
smalltime said:
I believe thats the same argument the Irainians have for aquiring nuclear weapons.

Since people with mental issues shouldn't play with guns doesn't that mean a country with a lunitic for a leader shouldn't play with a nukes?

The Iranian cooling off period for having a nuke should be FOREVER for the safety of the rest of the world.

What about the lunatic in charge of the US of A? :???: :shock:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Silver said:
Tam said:
smalltime said:
I believe thats the same argument the Irainians have for aquiring nuclear weapons.

Since people with mental issues shouldn't play with guns doesn't that mean a country with a lunitic for a leader shouldn't play with a nukes?

The Iranian cooling off period for having a nuke should be FOREVER for the safety of the rest of the world.

What about the lunatic in charge of the US of A? :???: :shock:

Has anyone in the US of A claimed they want to wipe a complete country off the map like the lunitic in Iran said about Israel? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Silver said:
Tam said:
Since people with mental issues shouldn't play with guns doesn't that mean a country with a lunitic for a leader shouldn't play with a nukes?

The Iranian cooling off period for having a nuke should be FOREVER for the safety of the rest of the world.

What about the lunatic in charge of the US of A? :???: :shock:

Has anyone in the US of A claimed they want to wipe a complete country off the map like the lunitic in Iran said about Israel? :roll:

You forget the campaign song of the last election "BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB iRAN".. :wink:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
No one has problems with mental patients not having guns................

Nor ex-felons........

So why do so many scream and whine about the waiting period to buy a gun- which was set up to do just that- keep guns out of the hands of mental patients and ex-felons :???:

the feds have no constitutional authority- it should be up to each state how their citizens are armed or disarmed because the arms are there for the state and peoples protection.
" A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."


"shall not be infringed"= hands off feds

if each state was different, as originally intended, people could migrate to where they felt most comfortable.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
No one has problems with mental patients not having guns................

Nor ex-felons........

So why do so many scream and whine about the waiting period to buy a gun- which was set up to do just that- keep guns out of the hands of mental patients and ex-felons :???:

the feds have no constitutional authority- it should be up to each state how their citizens are armed or disarmed because the arms are there for the state and peoples protection.
" A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."


"shall not be infringed"= hands off feds

if each state was different, as originally intended, people could migrate to where they felt most comfortable.

Well- send all the nutcases that think ex-felons and the mental patients should be allowed to pack guns to Texas- good place for them... :wink: :lol:
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,163
Reaction score
33
Location
BC
Tam said:
Silver said:
Tam said:
Since people with mental issues shouldn't play with guns doesn't that mean a country with a lunitic for a leader shouldn't play with a nukes?

The Iranian cooling off period for having a nuke should be FOREVER for the safety of the rest of the world.

What about the lunatic in charge of the US of A? :???: :shock:

Has anyone in the US of A claimed they want to wipe a complete country off the map like the lunitic in Iran said about Israel? :roll:

So now it's "My lunatic is better than your lunatic"! Too funny.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Silver said:
Tam said:
Silver said:
What about the lunatic in charge of the US of A? :???: :shock:

Has anyone in the US of A claimed they want to wipe a complete country off the map like the lunitic in Iran said about Israel? :roll:

So now it's "My lunatic is better than your lunatic"! Too funny.
:roll:
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
4,716
Reaction score
1
Location
NW Panhandle Texas
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
So why do so many scream and whine about the waiting period to buy a gun- which was set up to do just that- keep guns out of the hands of mental patients and ex-felons :???:

the feds have no constitutional authority- it should be up to each state how their citizens are armed or disarmed because the arms are there for the state and peoples protection.
" A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."


"shall not be infringed"= hands off feds

if each state was different, as originally intended, people could migrate to where they felt most comfortable.

Well- send all the nutcases that think ex-felons and the mental patients should be allowed to pack guns to Texas- good place for them... :wink: :lol:
Send them here we do have the death penalty and majority do carry some type of weapon on themselves or in their truck. Thank God Texas has better quality Judges than Montana....oh wait its just that one county that has issues. :p
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Silver said:
What about the lunatic in charge of the US of A? :???: :shock:

Has anyone in the US of A claimed they want to wipe a complete country off the map like the lunitic in Iran said about Israel? :roll:

You forget the campaign song of the last election "BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB iRAN".. :wink:


You are so full of it oldtimer!!!! Care to show us where that was really part of the campaign, actually it was used by YOUR sainted group in a derogatory way!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Latest posts

Top