Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BCW

I would like to add:

If the elected leadership of this nation really cared about the Citizen, then they would be working for towards stopping abortion, which estimates that over 1 million babies are killed yearly just in the US alone. The leadership would be working on stopping illegal foreigners from entering the US to commit crimes, evade taxes, and culminate operations that lead to what occurred on 11 SEP 2001. The elected leadership does not care about the freedoms of the average US Citizen, but what can be used to achieve their end desires. This recent proposal from Feinstein is an attempt to wane down the “Day of Reckoning” that will happen once the “Big One” hits the US economic sectors and releases a tidal wave of destruction into the societal and political realms. Having an unarmed populace makes life easier for the elected leadership, but not for those of us working for our families future and livelihood. To counter a tyrant, the citizen must be armed or closely armed, like the military that protects such treasonous leaders.

Also;

Teachers that are currently armed, as in a particular school in Texas, do not have loners, groups, or other deranged nutcases showing up at their school. Schools that have armed police and security have the same results. We do not need to disarm – but arm ourselves with the correct information and weapon coupled with the responsibility and training to safeguard our own communities, churches, and schools.


8 posted on 12/30/2012 8:03:36 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: BCW

This was sent to me via a brother in arms serving OCONUS:

“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.

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.


11 posted on 12/30/2012 10:46:51 AM PST by BCW (http://babylonscovertwar.com/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson