Found this on another site, thought it was worth sharing..
Why the Second Amendment exists....
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 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.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
Why the Second Amendment exists....
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 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.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
