THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ

As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban,

this man offered you another stellar example of a letter (written by Marko Kloos),

that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Interesting take and one you don't hear much. . . . . .

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the
last paragraph of the letter....

Time for a C-Gar!

"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.

Comments

[Ann]

Sadly common sense and logic seem to be sadly lacking from those who are doing social engineering...Hopefully more folks will wake up...before it is too late...

[Kelli]

This is a great piece, buddy! I'm definitely sharing it. I hear way too much whining about gun control and those people need to see this.

[Mike P]

"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". Brilliant. Semper Fi.

[texasdillo]

Great explanation. Thank you for sharing.

Rod.

[MINDY1]

:) Well put

[Richard Morris]

The founding fathers of this country warned us that there would come a day that the very government they created would try to take our gun rights away, and that at all costs we should prevent this. That day or days have come. If they succeed it will not be the people around us that pose the biggest threat, it will be our own government that we should fear the most. God help us

[Dick Pilz]

This is a great essay, but Major Caudill did not write it. It was written by MunchkinWrangler http://www.munchkinwrangler.com/ aka Marko Kloos, a naturalized citizen from Germany.

[Maj Pain]

Thanks Gang for the comments. It really helps others "get involved" if comments are placed. I believe your right DP, I think Mark Kloos was the first to write this. I changed it on the post!

[Aaron]

"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. "

it's really nice that you have the word "fallacious" in your vocabulary, but it's been repeatedly shown with hard evidence that guns turns non-lethal situations into lethal ones. That this may be true does NOT inherently mean the government needs to ban guns. But it is a scientific statement about facts that can be tested, and it has been tested, and what you're saying just literally doesn't fit with reality. My guess is that this soldier hasn't done the research to understand to understand these basic facts about reality.

[Cindy L.]

Aron-
I wouldn't say your exactly accurate with your statement either as it hasn't been proven guns always escalate situations. More so, without the reduction of guns in the US crime throughout America has actually dropped

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrTsK5AKbmY&feature=youtu.be

[Aaron]

Guns do not ALWAYS escalate non-violent situation into violent ones. They statistically increase them. This is like saying not wearing a seatbelt ALWAYS leads to your death when you get in a crash. No it doesn't, it statistically raises the chances. This fact has been shown several times in legitimate studies. 5 minutes on google and you will find them (you probably won't have full access to the original articles since you need university access to get to them, but you can find summaries)

Again, even if true, it is important to remember that this fact alone does not inherently tell us whether the government should have tighter gun control laws or not. This is a separate question, one about how much risk society is willing to accept for a perceived freedom. Usually to make a meaningful decision about this type of question, however, we have to start with facts about reality. And to say that guns don't escalate non-lethal situations into lethal ones just doesn't fit with reality. It's sad and frustrating that someone so brave like a soldier doesn't have the patient or knowledge to go and do 10 minutes of actual research instead of just making up arguments that sound good in a 300 word essay

[Patrick Cullinane]

Dear People of America and Others,

"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" - EXACTLY.

As We the People in the UK were conned into handing over our GUNS by the British Government; there is now NO justice in our Courts and the complaint systems in the UK, as they are all COLLUDING to pervert the course of natural justice for their OWN ends. We now have the Rule of Judges operating Kangaroo Courts in the UK: - And NOT the Rule of Law: -

As an immigrant Irishman in the UK, I have already been ROBBED of EVERYTHING by thirteen (13) High Court Judges, who were COLLUDING with HMRC (IRS), the Police and KPMG my Trustee in Bankruptcy, and operating outside of their oath and the law, which you can see here: -

On 6th December 1996, I was unlawfully bankrupted by a single Registrar in Chambers: = behind closed doors. There was NO record made of this sham hearing, as there is NO transcript available for this FRAME-UP. Also there was NO independent witnesses allowed in the room. I was bankrupted for £68,831.31 and HMRC (IRS) had NO proof of debt whatsoever. My house was worth £230,000 and I had a £26,000 mortgage. Therefore, I should never have been bankrupted. It was ALL FRAUD and CORRUPTION: -

Report by Phillip Inman of The Guardian, Jobs & Money, Saturday May 10, 2003:
This man was right all along
Patrick Cullinane has fought a running battle with the Inland Revenue (IRS) since the day he was accused of not paying income tax. And the taxman fought dirty - so dirty he lost his home and nearly lost his sanity. Now, a batch of confidential documents reveal fatal weaknesses in the Revenue's case. Phillip Inman reports
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2003/may/10/tax.scamsandfraud

Report by Phillip Inman of The Guardian, Financial Section, Monday 25 August 2008
Evidence put to the high court shows that Cullinane, far from owing tax, was due a rebate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/aug/25/tax.taxandspending1

Magna Carta (1215) reads: “No free man shall be taken indeed imprisoned, either dispossessed, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, nor pass over him, nor send over him, except by means of the legal judgment of his own equals (Trial by Jury) indeed the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay Right or Justice.”
http://www.tpuc.org/magna-carta-1215/

Trial by Jury is democracy and Trials by Judges, Police & Local Governments is TREASON.

People of the US of A, do NOT be FOOLED, hang on to your GUNS, or round up like We the People in the UK: ENSLAVED with no RIGHTS whatsoever. You must join FORCES as the TRATORS who want to remove your GUNS are COLLUDING against you for their OWN interests.

God save We the People. BUT, WE THE PEOPLE MUST DO OUR BIT! Amen.

Yours truthfully,

Patrick Cullinane.

[Hogan]

Though well written and passionate, this article is almost meaningless - No one in the white house or congress is proposing a ban on the right of people to bear arms.

They want to 1) restrict access of assault weaposn and high count magainze clips and 2) make it a huge pain in the ass to acquire a gun in hopes that only people who should own a gun (responsible, law-abiding, non-ill people), can get a gun.

So to write an article about how you need a gun to protect yourself...what are you even talking about? Do you even know the tiniest bit about what people in government are actually proposing when it comes to gun control laws?

[Hogan]

and the recent court appeals in chicago is about concealed carry laws, NOT the right to own a gun. Seriously, who ever wrote this article, do yourself and spend some more time reading about things

[Cindy L.]

1) (Aron) a gun in a situation increases the risk (only if its the bad guy who has the gun) if a lil old lady has a gun and a robber brakes into her house and he has or does not have a gun, the fields are now at least even and the lil old lady has a chance. If she didnt have a gun then your right, the use of a gun would increase.

2) (Hogan) You are a sheep. You voted for obama (how do you like those tax hikes), believe everything you read in the media/internet and you think the Gov is going to take care of you because that's how you have lived. This is only the first step to continued and increased gun control and more so your rights (2nd Amend) but you are a sheep and don't even see the whool being pulled over your eyes. You think this all about guns. obamas entire effort is based on that "automatic" weapons (which you have no idea what that even means) have been the major factor in this nations crime (wrong) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrTsK5AKbmY&feature=youtu.be

Pls surrender your gun and put your address here in the comments section if your that confident so those would be robbers know you are a sheep and are confident the Gov will protect you. I bet you wont. Baaaa

[Jimmy]

Nice Cindy!!

Arron & Hogan - your argument is already lost from stories like this http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/the-theater-shooting-the-main-stream-media-didnt-focus-on-why/

.....as Cindy said, you are sheep.

[Aaron]

Cindy - the problem here is you haven't really thought about the situation past a very 7th or 8th grade level. I encourage you to try and think a little deeper and to do so I will try and make it easy. Also keep in mind I'm not actually arguing for or against tighter gun controls laws, only the facts about the risks of gun ownership and gun use in confrontation

In a more technical sense, your problem is that you take only a fraction of the possible outcomes into consideration. You assume that everytime a robber breaks into an old women's house and the old women gets a gun the only person that gets hurt is the robber. This is the way a child thinks about the situation. In reality (and what the data show) is that it's not certain this actually makes the old women safer. The reason this is so is because there is some probability that a robber who would have no incentive to hurt the old later, now has an incentive to protect himself against the armed home owner by using a weapon of his own. Of course this does not happen every time. But it happens some % of the time. This is how reality works.

Again, this does NOT mean we shouldn't be allowed to own guns and use them in our house. It does mean that pointing to individual cases where someone used a gun to fend off a robber is ONLY taking into account a portion of all the outcomes that happens when a gun is used in such a confrontation.

[Leon S Kennedy]

If America is ever to confront its obsession with guns, that time is now. America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s and six times higher than Germany’s. Only an idiot, or an anti-American bigot prepared to maintain that Americans are four times more murderous than Britons, could possibly pretend that no connection exists between those figures and the fact that 300m guns are “out there” in the United States, more than one for every adult.

[Jimmy]

So why take the guns away from those protecting themselves? Read this: http://www.onemarinesview.com/one_marines_view/2012/12/isreal-gets-it-why-doesnt-america.html

[Ken]

Hey Leon, And all like yourself that like to take statistics out of contexts. You can't compare apples with oranges and get a fair comparison. These other countries don't have the same population. I haven't done the math but it's fair to say the countries you mention aren't as populated as the US.

[John Kuchac]

im am writing a argument paper for school on pro guns and why the AR15 should not be taken away i woul dlove to have some help or some sites to go to that are very resoursceful.

[Tara]

Ok, for those of you screaming that we pro-gun folks are not living in reality, are too infantile, and not using facts...Let's break out some facts then, shall we? Let's start with this: the original reason for this national conversation was to curb gun violence, to avoid another mass shooting, correct? What we have now is a national conversation about banning some 150+ guns from use by law-abiding people, both semi-auto rifles and handguns, and high capacity magazines (note to the uninformed--clips and magazines are NOT the same thing). This whole focus on bans is not against criminals at all...and you can't see why legal gun owners have a problem with that? The focus is not about closing the revolving door in the Justice system, not about raising penalties for violent crime as a deterrent, not about enforcement, etc. It's about controlling ALL guns by classifying guns as military, police or civilian use. But if you have any DISCERNMENT, you can see the guns being considered for ban are the only ones that "could" be used against an overbearing government, not the ones that are most often used in gun crimes. How convenient.

Regardless of your opinion of what guns are too scary to allow in a civilized society (assuming we're just throwing the Constitution out the window at this point), would you gun control fanatics mind stating the facts regarding said guns? Here, I'll help you. www.gunpolicy.org, who gets their stats from the CDC--the same agency Obama decreed should track gun statistics, but already does-- shows that Long Gun Homicides...all of them...account for 0.2 per 100,000 of all firearm related homicides. That is ZERO POINT TWO, including both semi-auto rifles and other long guns. Tell me, how is banning those "scary" AR 15 and AK 47 rifles going to make any appreciable difference in gun violence? IT'S NOT. It is about control...not safety.

All gun homicides are 3.6 per 100k. But allowing us the guns of our choice guarantees our rights that NO ONE ELSE IN THE WORLD HAS...so I don't want to hear any more about how violent we are with guns when comparing to other developed countries. There are many, many other things causing violent death other than guns.

And what about defensive gun uses?? By now you should have heard about a guy named Gary Kleck who did a very comprehensive survey showing 2.5 MILLION people use all types of guns for defensive uses EACH YEAR. The Office of Justice defensive gun use survey put it at about 1.5 million. Many of the semi-auto handguns and rifles used for those purposes are on the ban list...so you want to add those law abiding citizens to the victim list of violent crime and homicides because you can't see this unintended consequence through your gun hatred!

Then there is the democide argument see http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM, but because most people live in a normalcy bias bubble, you don't think that could possibly ever happen here....*cough*, Japanese camps, trail of tears, slavery, *cough*...we're too civilized to have to wield effective weapons against an over-stepping government or invading army.

Then finally, there is the argument that IT'S MY PERSONAL PROPERTY and you have no business telling me what I can and can not own to defend myself. You want universal background checks. It is no longer my personal property if I cannot sell to whomever is legally able to own a gun without government interference. Do you realize, that by instituting a government check for approval of a buyer for my personal property is the FIRST step to making my property into government property? Don't believe me huh? Look at Feinstein's bill...she wants to make it possible for the ATF to be able to come into my house at any time to inspect my guns, breaching my fourth amendment rights against illegal search in addition to breaching my second amendment rights. Then you say, well, we allow TSA searches and DUI checkpoints...boys and girls, none of that should be allowed, and yes, I have stood against these too.

The People and the States retain what powers that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal government. That means WE have more power than the government, to self-determination, to protect our life, liberty and property. I, for one, will not give up those rights because some uninformed, frightened, and over-emotional, over-medicated populace refuses to stand like adults who take responsibility for their actions. Back off of the legal citizens, we have the right to defend ourselves by whatever means we ourselves deem necessary. Inflict terrible punishment on criminals so they are deterred. Realize you have NO RIGHT to police protection, and they can't teleport to you when a crime is happening to stop it from happening. You are your only line of defense. But I will disarm to your level of comfort if and only if you can answer these two questions: How does taking away my freedoms make me safer? Can you guarantee there will never, ever be another Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc?

[Tara]

@Aaron: Just to expound on your statistic, it also does not identify who had a firearm or who was killed by the firearm. So really, a statement about how much more lethal situations are with a firearm is irrelevant in the context of determining the level of safety of the masses vs. personal freedoms...similar to what you said about whether a gun control law should be made. But if the person being victimized is the one who has the gun and the bad guy is killed, then that DOES make the would-be victim safer...that is still relevant.

[Sasha]

I'm sorry but the logic of this letter really breaks down under scrutiny. Since I live in America, the only kind of personal interaction I have is unarmed. I never car a gun and I never deal with armed people. If anyone approached me brandishing a weapon I would immediately feel intimidated. I go about my daily business unarmed and have never had a problem. With that in mind, wouldn't it be rational to assume that an armed party is intending harm? Would it be a "civilized act" to carry a gun into a bank or a liquor store?
"When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force" Really?! I can surprise you and have my gun trained on you first. So, unless you are in the habit of carrying a loaded and cocked fire arm with the safety disabled (is that the behavior of a responsible gun owner?) then you gun is useless. Or I can plan to accost you and have a friend, or come at you from behind.
Sorry but the logic expressed has nothing to do with how I or anybody in a civilized society lives.

[Kevin]

The people against guns are scared, the people with guns are not. If you dont like living in a country built by and defended by GUNS!!!!, then LEAVE and see what it is like in those countries that dont have guns