230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Well, it's making the rounds again. The very excellent blog by Marko Kloos, the Munchkin Wrangler, on "Why A Gun Is Civilization" has been hitting the e-mail circuit and is AGAIN being attributed to a "Maj. L Caudill USMC (Ret)."
This is an incorrect attribution. SInce I'm sensitive to intellectual property credits, I'd like to point this out once again. See, for only one example,
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/05/the_mythical_ma.php
When this first started appearing as written by the Major, I did a little research on how this mis-attribution came to be, and APPARENTLY, although I'm not 100% sure, somebody copied the original to his clergyman, and that clergyman, thinking it was a great essay, forwarded to all his e-contacts, believing that the Major himself had written it.
But it was actually written by Kloos.
Mr. Kloos has had a lot of trouble trying to re-establish his authorship to this piece.
I re-post that essay here WITH PROPER ACCREDITATION, for your information and benefit and (hopefully) as a help to Mr. Kloos.
QUOTE:
-------------------------
"The Gun Is Civilization" by MARKO KLOOS, THE MUNCHKIN WRANGLER.
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 MARKO KLOOS, THE MUNCHKIN WRANGLER.
-------------------
CLOSE QUOTE
(I may have screwed up the word-wrapping and hence the paragraphing here and there.)
Terry, 230RN
This is an incorrect attribution. SInce I'm sensitive to intellectual property credits, I'd like to point this out once again. See, for only one example,
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/05/the_mythical_ma.php
When this first started appearing as written by the Major, I did a little research on how this mis-attribution came to be, and APPARENTLY, although I'm not 100% sure, somebody copied the original to his clergyman, and that clergyman, thinking it was a great essay, forwarded to all his e-contacts, believing that the Major himself had written it.
But it was actually written by Kloos.
Mr. Kloos has had a lot of trouble trying to re-establish his authorship to this piece.
I re-post that essay here WITH PROPER ACCREDITATION, for your information and benefit and (hopefully) as a help to Mr. Kloos.
QUOTE:
-------------------------
"The Gun Is Civilization" by MARKO KLOOS, THE MUNCHKIN WRANGLER.
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 MARKO KLOOS, THE MUNCHKIN WRANGLER.
-------------------
CLOSE QUOTE
(I may have screwed up the word-wrapping and hence the paragraphing here and there.)
Terry, 230RN
