Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

This is a great letter for all to read.
Semper Fi!
Bill




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I offer you a stellar example of a letter (written by a Retired Marine) that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

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


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.

Makes good sense to me - even if it was written by a Marine

Sure , I am going to get some lip from a SWAB JOCKEY. LOL
Bill

allingeneral wrote:Makes good sense to me - even if it was written by a Marine

First time Iv'e ever seen Marine and good sense used in the same sentence.

I admit I tried to join the Marines but couldn't pass the test. No matter how hard I tried I couldn't get my head in the jar.

There is a saying that those of us who were Infantry ground pounders had -- there are those who will come get you and there those who won't. Every Marine I ever knew would come get you.

I also remember a sign in a restroom near Twenty-nine Palms, CA above a urinal that said; "Marines, don't eat the big white mints."

First time Iv'e ever seen Marine and good sense used in the same sentence.

I admit I tried to join the Marines but couldn't pass the test. No matter how hard I tried I couldn't get my head in the jar.


Yep, and now your belly won't even fit in a wash tub oh large round one!

Bill

Chasbo00 wrote:There is a saying that those of us who were Infantry ground pounders had -- there are those who will come get you and there those who won't. Every Marine I ever knew would come get you.

However, I also remember a sign in a restroom near Twenty-nine Palms, CA above a urinal that said; "Marines, don't eat the big white mints."

Yep, I remember that bar at 29 palm's and I also remember that whoever put that sign there did not have the ball's to tell ANY Marine that he did it.
Bill

SgtBill wrote:

Chasbo00 wrote:There is a saying that those of us who were Infantry ground pounders had -- there are those who will come get you and there those who won't. Every Marine I ever knew would come get you.

However, I also remember a sign in a restroom near Twenty-nine Palms, CA above a urinal that said; "Marines, don't eat the big white mints."

Yep, I remember that bar at 29 palm's and I also remember that whoever put that sign there did not have the ball's to tell ANY Marine that he did it.
Bill

I would have bragged about it if I had done it. I did help with the Marine Corps organization transformation effort though. Resulted in a new three-man fire team -- had one shootin, one lootin, and one taking pictures.

Thanks for sharing Bill. I've seen it before, but it is always a good read.

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

So how does one reconcile this with government? That is an interesting question I'll leave everyone to ponder.

This is the reason government is suppose to be limited. It can only do things by force.

To provide healthcare it must force those who are already paying (directly or indirectly through employer supplied healthcare) to pay for those who aren't. To force some to pay for others requires no competition, no alternatives for those stuck with the bill, otherwise, it would simply be avoided. To ensure no competition and no alternatives the government must drive all others out of business or co-op them in such a way that they become "private" agents of the state (like the Federal Reserve). All of that force encourages people to find any way to skirt the system. Thus, more force, in fact a huge extension of the enforcement branches, is needed to find and catch them.

Finally, all of this force is not free, it must consume resources. People who could have worked creating more products, better products, etc. are now employed simply enforcing the "rules." Since resources are limited, these resources must come from somewhere...generally, they come from a lot of things (a little bit from entertainment, a little from healthcare, a little from transportation, etc.) so the effects of this huge overhead are hardly noticed at first. In time, the overhead will grow until it is obvious. The quality, quantity and timeliness of healthcare will have diminished, but by then the people will know no other way.

They will ask: "How can I pay for my own healthcare when I barely make due with what I am given for free?" Of course they can't pay for it because the state must first take everytihng it "gives." Even inflation, the creation of money, simply devalues the other outstanding monetary units. That bridge the state built was not free when it was financed through inflation. Before the bridge could be built, the money must be "printed" (old phrase, they are much more slick about it today, but the effects are the same) and once it is printed, the money that would have bought two loafes of bread, now only buys one. Wealth can not be created out of nothing; if it ever could, the worries of mankind would simply disappear.

How can you go back? It was easy to get here, where the state provides everything, but in the process of getting here we destroyed the very system which sustained the state takeover while it was happening. It must be rebuilt before it can be transitioned too again. The state runs the education system and it has virtually destroyed the old system. Simply not taking the peoples money does not overnight recreate the classical system that was pervasive before it (the same system that created the geniuses we call the founders I should note). it will take blood, sweat and tears to recreate it. It will also take time and capital. Returning to liberty is never an easy proposition.

Such is the course of all things the state touches which it should not. Before deciding if the state should do something, ask yourself: "Is force the best way to accomplish this?" The state knows nothing else but force and will destroy anything it touches if it does not require force. Persuasion is always more efficient than force. Engineers live better than robbers. Sales people live better than muggers. In every reasonable case, generally, persuasion always yields more and better results than force. Force is a last resort and should be used very cautiously.

This was the reason our liberty based society became so wealthy while others merely hung on to our tailcoats. The use of force in society, for socialism or otherwise, always yields less. It consumes resources for creation and for enforcement, it promotes laziness and inefficiencies (why work two jobs if you don't keep what you make?). All of those resources are being consumed by overhead rather than directed to the problem.

True greed isn't wanting more because you earned it, but rather wanting more for the same or less or nothing in exhange. To become wealthy you must offer up goods and services that others desire in exahnge for thier money. Do this better than others and you will do well.

Do not give into force because it is the easy path, for it will lead you to ruin.

It's an excellent piece, but it was written by a blogger:

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2 ... ilization/


His take on his piece being taken by other people:

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2 ... -big-time/

"why I carry a gun".....


because its my birthright. .....and it really, really pisses off the euro-trash.