This is quite a message

Dwight55 · July 25, 2007, 08:11 PM

A friend sent me this, . . . thought I would share.

**WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION**

by Marko Kloos

**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 gay 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.**

May God bless,
Dwight

C Philip · July 25, 2007, 08:25 PM

A very interesting read, thank you. I will show this to some anti-gun people I know and ask them what they think. I would love to have something like this read to the presidential candidates and have them each make a reaction to it.

j-framer · July 26, 2007, 09:05 PM

Eloquent and compelling. Many thanks, Dwight.

It is immensely satisfying to see what a powerful tool language can be when skillfully employed in the service of right.

A combination of clear thinking and the ability to concisely express such thoughts verbally is our biggest weapon in the fight for our, and others', rights. When you think about it, that is what it all comes down to--effectively communicating the truth, and then demonstrating its validity in practice through good example.

rednecker92 · July 26, 2007, 11:10 PM

"quote"**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.**

if only anti gun peaple would read and understand this i think it would be a little easier for us gun enthusiast's to enjoy shooting and be able to carry concealed without being badgerd about how theyre is no need to carry a gun

Marko Kloos · July 27, 2007, 10:23 AM

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com...ilization.html

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com...lagiarism.html

This may look like I'm patting my own shoulder here, but that essay ain't Major Caudill's.

The Tourist · July 27, 2007, 11:11 AM

"I'm looking to be left alone...if only anti gun peaple would read and understand this"

My problem with liberals is that they truly believe 'their way' is the ultimate model for a civilization. Now granted, there are lots of Democrats who favor firearms, but a true liberal is more akin to a socialist. Any man who has the capacity to resist is a threat to this model.

When we use the phrase "left alone," it implies to a liberal that even their most scalding application of law and conformity cannot be implemented. They cannot make you do what they feel is your civic duty. They cannot disarm you without the very real possibility of injury, and you refuse to disarm yourself.

I often show this example. During the late 1960's (during the war protest years), I was a student at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. I wore my cycle club colors to class every day, and never once hid my beliefs or intentions in formal classroom debates or in private discussions.

Despite being out-numbered 40,000 to one, not once was I injured, jumped, slapped, pushed or threatened. Just hated.

If the liberals would have had any real power, they would have brought it to bear. After all, they were big talkers in the street. However, with the threat of actual personal injury, nothing happened.

In our present society, we don't see any vast societal opposition with a family man and a small gun collection. To a socialist, he is an ulimate threat.

He can defend his ideals.

July 25, 2007, 08:11 PM	#1
Dwight55 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 2,568	This is quite a message A friend sent me this, . . . thought I would share. WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION by Marko Kloos 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 gay 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. May God bless, Dwight __________________ www.dwightsgunleather.com If you can breathe, . . . thank God! If you can read, . . . thank a teacher! If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran! Last edited by pax; December 17, 2007 at 09:58 PM. Reason: fixed the attribution

July 27, 2007, 10:23 AM	#5
Marko Kloos Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2000 Location: Enfield, NH Posts: 5,521	http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com...ilization.html http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com...lagiarism.html This may look like I'm patting my own shoulder here, but that essay ain't Major Caudill's. __________________ "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." --A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapon Shops of Isher the munchkin wrangler.

July 25, 2007, 08:25 PM	#2
C Philip Senior Member Join Date: January 9, 2005 Location: USA Posts: 784	A very interesting read, thank you. I will show this to some anti-gun people I know and ask them what they think. I would love to have something like this read to the presidential candidates and have them each make a reaction to it.

July 26, 2007, 09:05 PM	#3
j-framer Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2006 Posts: 375	Eloquent and compelling. Many thanks, Dwight. It is immensely satisfying to see what a powerful tool language can be when skillfully employed in the service of right. A combination of clear thinking and the ability to concisely express such thoughts verbally is our biggest weapon in the fight for our, and others', rights. When you think about it, that is what it all comes down to--effectively communicating the truth, and then demonstrating its validity in practice through good example.

July 26, 2007, 11:10 PM	#4
rednecker92 Member Join Date: February 10, 2007 Posts: 45	"quote"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. if only anti gun peaple would read and understand this i think it would be a little easier for us gun enthusiast's to enjoy shooting and be able to carry concealed without being badgerd about how theyre is no need to carry a gun

July 27, 2007, 11:11 AM	#6
The Tourist Junior member Join Date: June 20, 2005 Posts: 2,348	"I'm looking to be left alone...if only anti gun peaple would read and understand this" My problem with liberals is that they truly believe 'their way' is the ultimate model for a civilization. Now granted, there are lots of Democrats who favor firearms, but a true liberal is more akin to a socialist. Any man who has the capacity to resist is a threat to this model. When we use the phrase "left alone," it implies to a liberal that even their most scalding application of law and conformity cannot be implemented. They cannot make you do what they feel is your civic duty. They cannot disarm you without the very real possibility of injury, and you refuse to disarm yourself. I often show this example. During the late 1960's (during the war protest years), I was a student at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. I wore my cycle club colors to class every day, and never once hid my beliefs or intentions in formal classroom debates or in private discussions. Despite being out-numbered 40,000 to one, not once was I injured, jumped, slapped, pushed or threatened. Just hated. If the liberals would have had any real power, they would have brought it to bear. After all, they were big talkers in the street. However, with the threat of actual personal injury, nothing happened. In our present society, we don't see any vast societal opposition with a family man and a small gun collection. To a socialist, he is an ulimate threat. He can defend his ideals.