Why the Gun is Civilization

[austinphish]

I am pro-gun, and I own several although no hand guns.

My response is:
1. Not everyone's pysche allows them to use a gun, or at least effecitively. Therefore, weak minded individuals or possibly pacifist leaning folks are at a disadvantage to the testosterone ladden male.
2. There are other options that can level the playing field against force besides guns. Tazers and pepper spray.

However what negates my points above, is that IMO the #1 reason we should own guns is a detterent of government oppresion. I hope it never comes to this point, but I am ready if we ever to rise up against tyranny.

[austinphish]

weird, how did my post become post #1?

[SeekLiberty]

Perhaps this is the best, simple explanation of why we have the inalienable, common law, natural right to bear arms.

- SL

why the gun is civilization.
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

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 gangbanger, 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 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 weightlifter. 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.

[Brandybuck]

Therefore, weak minded individuals or possibly pacifist leaning folks are at a disadvantage to the testosterone ladden male.
That's a way off base.

People who are not familiar with guns will be wary of guns. They're noisy, many have a painful kick if you're not used to it, and are very dangerous. It has nothing to do with weak wills or lack of testosterone. And even pacifists can use guns (for hunting, not defense).

[SeekLiberty]

"I am pro-gun, and I own several although no hand guns."

"IMO the #1 reason we should own guns is a detterent of government oppresion. I hope it never comes to this point, but I am ready if we never to rise up against tyranny."

You're absolutely correct on that. Reason or Force apply to ANYBODY including and especially tyranny.

- SL

[SeekLiberty]

That's a way off base.

People who are not familiar with guns will be wary of guns. They're noisy, many have a painful kick if you're not used to it, and are very dangerous. It has nothing to do with weak wills or lack of testosterone. And even pacifists can use guns (for hunting, not defense).

Brandybuck,

Do you believe in Americans' natural, inalienable right to bear arms?

And if so, do you believe that American inalienable right should NOT be infringed upon or abridged?

And if so, do you believe it's our federal governments' DUTY to safeguard that American inalienable right?

- SL

[thuja]

so, is it a good idea to keep a carry permit, or just let it go, due to bigbrother?

[SeekLiberty]

so, is it a good idea to keep a carry permit, or just let it go, due to bigbrother?

Maybe the answer is in the questions: :)

What American needs a permit to carry out their natural, God-given, inalienable RIGHTS?

Aren't government permits an infringement on our natural RIGHTS, and an abridgement of the Second Amendment?

Do we need a permit for our First Amendment RIGHTS? Why would we need one for our Second Amendment RIGHTS?

A government "right" granted can also be taken away. Our Founders knew this.

In America, our public government servants cannot grant RIGHTS to individual private citizens. (Though they may fool some people into thinking they can. But it's unConstitutional. Our Rights existed BEFORE our federal Constitution.)

I hope that clarifies. Now it's up to brave Americans to invoke their RIGHTS.

- SL

[thuja]

thanks for the reminder. it did seem silly.

[Brandybuck]

Do you believe in Americans' natural, inalienable right to bear arms?
Of course I do! Don't be a frickin idiot!

I was merely saying that people who are not familiar with guns tend to be wary of guns. It was nothing to do with their weak will or lack of testosterone. The converse is equally true. I know lots of testosterone-free females who are expert marksmen and not the least bit afraid of guns.

[Mattsa]

Perhaps this is the best, simple explanation of why we have the inalienable, common law, natural right to bear arms.

- SL

why the gun is civilization.
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

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 gangbanger, 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 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 weightlifter. 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.

We have a pretty different attitude to firearms in the UK

Personally, I would never want to carry a firarm and fortunately, the chances that you'd actually need to use one here are pretty rare. There's a lot of petty crime here, burglary, theft etc. It's bad but not worth killing someone for.

But the reason why I don't agree with a total ban on firearms is that it is a last resort if your government tries to steal your liberty and freedom

So there are compelling reasons to resist attempts by any US governement to remove the right to bear arms and right now I wish I did have a gun cos I'd cap a few of the assholes running this place!

[SeekLiberty]

Of course I do! Don't be a frickin idiot!

I was merely saying that people who are not familiar with guns tend to be wary of guns. It was nothing to do with their weak will or lack of testosterone. The converse is equally true. I know lots of testosterone-free females who are expert marksmen and not the least bit afraid of guns.

How am I a "frickin idiot" for not assuming what your views are? lol. I just asked you some questions and you emotionally come off on me and call me names. Relax. :D

There's another poster here awhile back that supported gun control. It's ironic because he said he is voting for Ron Paul because he likes Ron's "liberal" stance on Freedom, yet he is for gun control. Obviously, Freedom and gun control do not mix. It's like oil and water. But I'm hoping he'll come around as soon as he understands the full implications of Freedom.

I just like to be clear on where others stand on an issue if I haven't seen them make it clear and so I simply asked you.

In a way, I'm kinda glad you responded that way (lol), because ALL Americans should feel a righteous indignation about their Rights.

So now I know where you stand on gun control ... you don't want it!

Thanks! :)

- SL

"There's no evidence which debunks the CONTRADICTIONS of our federal servants'
official propagandized version of the September 11th family tragedy." - SeekLiberty

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2602704786128880796

[SeekLiberty]

But the reason why I don't agree with a total ban on firearms is that it is a last resort if your government tries to steal your liberty and freedom

So there are compelling reasons to resist attempts by any US governement to remove the right to bear arms and right now I wish I did have a gun cos I'd cap a few of the assholes running this place!

Exactly. Thomas Jefferson may have said it best when he said ...

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." And, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

Here's a few question to ask ourselves;

Is our government fearing The People now? Or is it the other way around? And if it's the other way around, what does that mean?

- SL

[Ponce]

I believe in the gun only for defence and not for offence, unless you want what someone else has....... look at Iraq, we want their oil and they are defending their land.

A gun is only as good as the man behind it.

I really don't know that much about Ron Paul......only what he tell us.....but, I do know the rest of the politicians so that I think that we should give Ron Paul a chance.

Better to trust an officer for the man that he is rather than the rank that he holds.

[Revolution9]

There's a lot of petty crime here, burglary, theft etc. It's bad but not worth killing someone for.


Ah.. But you do not have to shoot to kill. You can shoot to scare and watch them run with thier drawers falling around their ankles. You can shoot in the kneecap so they can no longer be a cat burglar. You can shoot in the foot so they cannot get very far while the police track and capture them..

Some clown breaks in the house to steal and terrorize..they get met with a firearm wielding granny from the Beverly Hillbillies. She makes him get on his knees and beg forgiveness from his momma and maker for his transgressions.. calls the cops and he gets hauled off. priceless.

No need to kill.. Just whatever it takes to stop the agressive self centered behavior infringing on an individuals right to peace and privacy.

Best Regards
randy

[AZ Libertarian]

Loved the article - thanks for posting it - I will send it around, that's for sure!

Great 2nd amendment defensive posts also - keep plugging away at them goldurned gun-grabbers!

Great Freedom quotes too - always love seeing the Wisdom of TJ being remembered.

I am ALWAYS armed.

An uninfringed right to keep and bear arms by the people are a part of the necessities for the security of a free state:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
__________________________________________________ ___________

"Your rights are like muscles; you must exercise them to keep them fit, or they atrophy and die."
Ed in Phoenix

[SeekLiberty]

I believe in the gun only for defence and not for offence, unless you want what someone else has....... look at Iraq, we want their oil and they are defending their land.

A gun is only as good as the man behind it.

I really don't know that much about Ron Paul......only what he tell us.....but, I do know the rest of the politicians so that I think that we should give Ron Paul a chance.

Better to trust an officer for the man that he is rather than the rank that he holds.

Of course, defence is the ONLY justifiable reason to use force. The initiation of force is what's evil.

I'll quote from this page ... http://capitalism.org/tour/preamble6.htm

"In a political context, freedom has only one meaning -- freedom from the initiation of force by other men.

Only by the initiation of force can a man be: prevented from speaking, or robbed of his possessions, or brutally murdered. Only by the initiation of force can a man's rights be violated. Only the initiation of force against a man can stop his mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival.

It is for this reason -- that force renders a man's mind useless -- that every man has the right to self-defense -- the right to use force to retaliate against those who first start the use of force, but never may one morally initiate it.

The use of force, in and of itself, is not evil; but, to initiate (start) force is evil. To use force in retaliation -- in self- defense against those who initiate it -- is not a moral option, but a moral requirement. A moral man has nothing to gain when a man tries to kill him, but he has much to lose if he does not defend himself. For this reason it is right, just, and proper to use force in retaliation and self-defense. Contrary to the vile doctrines of the pacifists, force used in self-defense is a species of the good."

This is one of the principles of a capitalist society in a broader philosophical sense.

For more information, here's an interesting link for The Capitalism Tour ...

http://capitalism.org/tour/index.htm

- SL

[LibertyBelle]

Ah.. But you do not have to shoot to kill. You can shoot to scare and watch them run with thier drawers falling around their ankles. You can shoot in the kneecap so they can no longer be a cat burglar. You can shoot in the foot so they cannot get very far while the police track and capture them..

Some clown breaks in the house to steal and terrorize..they get met with a firearm wielding granny from the Beverly Hillbillies. She makes him get on his knees and beg forgiveness from his momma and maker for his transgressions.. calls the cops and he gets hauled off. priceless.

No need to kill.. Just whatever it takes to stop the agressive self centered behavior infringing on an individuals right to peace and privacy.

Best Regards
randy

Priceless Randy! Effin hilarious. Firearm wielding granny..... my comic relief for the day. I can just see my 84 yr old grandma now.
SeekLiberty, great post! Guns and gold, a girl's best friends.

[SeekLiberty]

Priceless Randy! Effin hilarious. Firearm wielding granny..... my comic relief for the day. I can just see my 84 yr old grandma now.
SeekLiberty, great post! Guns and gold, a girl's best friends.

Yea, Randy cracks me up (in a smart way). Watch this firearm wielding granny here! No kidding. She may be even older than your grandma. lol.

Grandma shooting a FA MP40

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8478238285671811588&q=grandma+with+machine+gun&total=18&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

"I said um, if he's gonna draw on me again ... first again, I'm gonna shoot him in his toodles!" (granny-speak for balls, lol.)

I don't think I'd ever mess with her!

- SL

[SeekLiberty]

Why is the protection of the Right to keep and bear arms so important?

The basic premise of our Constitutional Republic created by the American Founders is this:

The People get their respective Individual Rights from their Creator, and government gets its delegated powers from The People. While government's powers are defined, limited, and revocable, this is not true of Rights – including that to armed self-defense against criminals, both private AND public.

Protecting the Right to keep and bear arms is thus foundational to the preservation of all Individual Liberty, since only a government determined to exceed its proper sphere of delegated power would seek to infringe on that Right.

Questions to think about:

Are our government servants determined to exceed their proper sphere of
delegated power by infringing on and seeking to infringe on our Individual Rights ... right now?

Are our public servants currently serving us by PROTECTING our Individual Inalienable Rights? (their only legitimate purpose for them to to exist)

- SL

[austinphish]

I am post #1 yet I didn't start this thread. My comments were in response to post #2...weird.

[austinphish]

That's a way off base.

People who are not familiar with guns will be wary of guns. They're noisy, many have a painful kick if you're not used to it, and are very dangerous. It has nothing to do with weak wills or lack of testosterone. And even pacifists can use guns (for hunting, not defense).

Prove it.

[austinphish]

Of course I do! Don't be a frickin idiot!

I was merely saying that people who are not familiar with guns tend to be wary of guns. It was nothing to do with their weak will or lack of testosterone. The converse is equally true. I know lots of testosterone-free females who are expert marksmen and not the least bit afraid of guns.

Killing someone is not about being a marksman, it is about pulling the trigger with another human being and the end of your barrel.

[austinphish]

So there are compelling reasons to resist attempts by any US governement to remove the right to bear arms and right now I wish I did have a gun cos I'd cap a few of the assholes running this place!

LOL - exactly

[SeekLiberty]

We have a pretty different attitude to firearms in the UK

There's a lot of petty crime here, burglary, theft etc.

Our Right to defend our persons and our property is held sacred in most places in America.

Those areas where households are usually armed (such as Boise, Idaho) are places where you don't have to lock the door to your front door. (the way it SHOULD be!)

Here, a burglar is likely to be met with a pistol or shotgun. So burglary is very low in residential areas. I never lock the door to my house and worry about not doing so. To a Californian, that may seem insane. But here you don't have to.

When criminals know most private citizens are armed, they seriously hesitate to commit crimes against them. It really works!

BTW, you can even open carry here without any permits ... which, of course, is the way our Forefathers intended. Can you imagine the American colonists even slightly begin to think they needed to get a permit from an authority? NEVER! lol.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." - Robert A. Heinlein

- SL

PS: By the way Mattsa, it's great to see people from around the world posting here! Welcome to the original ideas of the real Americans here, not those of our neocon servants. The world is watching America, and what us private Americans are going to do about it.

[Brandybuck]

Prove it.
WTF? What part of my statement is controversial? That people unfamiliar with a dangerous tool would be wary of such a tool? I can point you to thousands of people that fit that category. That women are just as capable as men to use firearms? I personally know several. That pacifists never hunt? My great uncle was a Quaker pacifist, who frequently hunted.

[SeekLiberty]

WTF? What part of my statement is controversial? That people unfamiliar with a dangerous tool would be wary of such a tool? I can point you to thousands of people that fit that category. That women are just as capable as men to use firearms? I personally know several. That pacifists never hunt? My great uncle was a Quaker pacifist, who frequently hunted.

Do you own a firearm? If so, have you practiced using it?

- SL

[Brandybuck]

Do you own a firearm? If so, have you practiced using it?
Yes. Now you answer me, why do you think females are unable to use firearms?

[SeekLiberty]

Yes. Now you answer me, why do you think females are unable to use firearms?

GOOD! Glad to hear it! :)

Brandybuck wrote: "why do you think females are unable to use firearms?"

Where have I said that? Or are you assuming that I think that? ;)

My girlfriend is very good on the range, and is not afraid to use her handgun for self-defense either.

- SL

"There's no evidence which debunks the CONTRADICTIONS of our federal servants'
official propagandized version of the September 11th family tragedy." - SeekLiberty

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2602704786128880796