"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 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.
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.
7 comments:
For those who are a bit more....thoughtful, Ghandi never carried a gun, Jesus of Nazareth did not carry a big stick, the Dalai Lama does not carry a gun or a big stick. Therefore, in a world where individuals display ignorance, avarice, hate, and bigotry on a daily basis, does it make sense to legally arm the same. I'm just saying.
Do you own a gun, Gus?
Ray, yes. I've had guns since I was 12. I was taught responsible gun handling. I understand the laws.
And I understand the Illinois law that allows me to carry a gun (in a container; "container" is not defined in the statutes). What is a container? Could be almost anything - a backpack, a fannypack, a lunchbox, a briefcase, a DayTimer-type zipper binder, a suitcase, a toolbox, a purse, a handbag. Maybe even a paper bag.
Should a person do so, he or she probably risks arrest, because the police generally don't understand and accept that statute.
I'll be applying for a concealed carry permit on the first day that applications are accepted.
You might wish to check that statute again. I seem to recall reading that after a case was tossed in court due to the ambiguity of the statute regarding "container" the legislature cleared that up. I might be wrong but I think you'll find that the unlocked console compartment or glove box doesn't cut the mustard any longer. Not sure about the Day-Timer though. Why don't you give it a shot and see who has the clearer understanding of the law? You or the police.
It'll take a judge to decide, and probably an appellate judge or the Ill. Supreme Court.
Not sure where the court case was that the guy with fanny pack prevailed. DuPage County? Only, I'm sure, because he had plenty of money to stay in the fight.
I hadn't heard that the console case was overturned, if it was. Will see what I can learn next week.
It was the Illinois Supreme Court that decided on the car console "case" issue in 2009: http://isra.org/alerts/alert_10092009_diggins.shtml
Very good, Gus. You confirmed what I said about the court tossing the case. Now see if you can find where the IL legislature - while taking the time out from pissing away all our money - went in and wrote remedial legislation/language to clarify what is and what is not a "container" suitable for transporting a firearm. I think you'll find that they made the correction and that it will withstand any court test so long as IL is allowed to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons.
Post a Comment