Forward; By Mark Shean,
This next article has been floating around the Internet, and so far I have seen it attributed to three different people. I think it strikes a very true chord that reasonable people should all easily understand, what ever side of the fence you may be on. I have decided to post it here for your consideration. At the end I will put the author as ‘Anonymous’, since I am sure three different people did not all write the same thing word for word….. It echo’s what I have been writing about for years concerning the fallacies of the so-called ‘gun control’ crowd and their flawed/dangerous reasoning. MS
Why Carrying A Gun Is A Civilized Act;
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 these 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 one 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 evil deeds. 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 ‘victims’ are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the mob, 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 monopoly on force.
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 far to much TV, where people take beatings and only 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…that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
“The greatest civilization is one where law abiding citizens choose to be armed, they then can only be persuaded, never forced”. Anonymous-
Submitted on this site by Mark Shean, 2-15-2011 Reviews
Mark’s NOTE: Governments around the world, through the U.N. would like to force a total gun ban world wide disarming all civilian populations, (not already disarmed) especially, and most importantly to include citizens of the United States through the up coming so-called ‘Arms Trade Treaty‘ that the Obama Administration said they will gladly sign!! I say let governments lead the way and disarm first, I am sure they would not, saying that to disarm would embolden their enemy’s to attack their homelands. On a smaller scale why should citizens disarm to embolden madmen to invade their homes?
Criminals prefer unarmed victims, Politicians prefer disarmed subjects.
Quotes from two original Patriots;
” Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” –PATRICK HENRY-
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government“. –GEORGE WASHINGTON-