Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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 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.
So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed
and can only be persuaded, never forced.
So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
I thought
Oh, an email.
So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
I thought that's what we have laws for...
Oh, an email.
So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
I thought that's what we have laws for...
The idiot thinks a Law is going to protect someone from an armed attacker. How would you defend yourself, kindly Inform a criminal attacking you that they are breaking the Law? Moron.
Oh, an email.
I thought that's what we have laws for...
The idiot thinks a Law is going to protect someone from an armed attacker. How would you defend yourself, kindly Inform a criminal attacking you that they are breaking the Law? Moron.
Pay attention...
The 2nd Amendment is a fossil from another time.
The 2nd Amendment is a fossil from another time.
If you want to be a victim, that's your choice... If I want to preserve the Freedom to defend myself with scary guns, that's my choice. Get it moron?
The 2nd Amendment is a fossil from another time.
If you want to be a victim, that's your choice... If I want to preserve the Freedom to defend myself with scary guns, that's my choice. Get it moron?
It's your "legal" choice until the courts say it isn't...
The 2nd Amendment is a fossil from another time.
If you want to be a victim, that's your choice... If I want to preserve the Freedom to defend myself with scary guns, that's my choice. Get it moron?
It's your "legal" choice until the courts say it isn't...
That is very well written, and 100% true.Received in an email-
THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ
"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 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.
So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed
and can only be persuaded, never forced.
The 2nd Amendment is a fossil from another time.
If arming everyone deters violence why is the south side of Chicago a warzone? They are well armed and the violence hasn't stopped. Why? Because more guns is not the answer.
If arming everyone deters violence why is the south side of Chicago a warzone? They are well armed and the violence hasn't stopped. Why? Because more guns is not the answer.
Yeah all those law abiding people are just killing everyone.
Tell me if criminals have guns how are you safer without a gun?
