Why the Gun is Civilization.

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by tallbump, Jul 24, 2014.

  1. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member

    Found this article this morning. Nothing new to most of us, but I think it is reasonably well explained, and concise.

    First, I found this article

    http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm

    Then it cites this essay

     
  2. I think its a great essay. Im tempted to post it on Facebook, and see how my friends react.
     

  3. if guns were removed from society then we'd be right back to where Moog and Ork were before the weaker one discovered a stick or a rock can help equal age and size disparities.

    Weapons, be they sticks or guns have always made reasoning the best way to sort things out. Of course it takes the potential use of the weapon to make the stronger bigger person realize that.
     
  4. Back2School

    Back2School Member

    1,190
    0
    Now that is the best way I have ever seen that put.
     
  5. Branth

    Branth Member

    6,275
    4
    My one nitpick:

    Bolded part is wrong. You can also provoke emotional responses. You can incite anger against someone else (common enemy), seduce someone into doing what you want, etc. Not really "reason," but not force.

    The rest of the essay is spot on, though.
     
  6. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    35,324
    12,156
    NE Utah
    No, those really are "reason". Poorly considered bad reasoning, most effective on those with a lack of reasoning skills, intelligence, morality or the ability to think a few moments into the future, but reason nonetheless.;)

    From good ol Wiki..."Emotions are a complex state of feeling that results in physical and psychological changes that influence our behaviour. Those acting primarily on emotion may seem as if they are not thinking, but cognition is an important aspect of emotion, particularly the interpretation of events. "
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2014
  7. cktvt

    cktvt Member

    583
    2
    Here’s my impression of this “article”. This is a litmus test designed to intimidate people. If you agree, you’re one of us. But if you disagree, you’re classified as “incurable” which would seem to imply that you are mentally defective. That sort of thinking opens the door to all kinds of things, ranging from mere contempt for those who disagree, to incarceration of those damn lunatics.

    This is precisely the kind of strong-arm tactic that we as a nation, and those of us on this forum who consider ourselves patriots and defenders of the Constitution, must oppose. It is simple-minded, dangerous, and antithetical to real deliberation and discourse. We are a republic where all voices are to be heard, not a totalitarian state where dissention is to be punished.

    In the 1950’s the House Unamerican Activities Committee, egged on by people like Senator Joe McCarthy conducted a witch hunt for “communists” in the US government. People were forced to sign loyalty oaths (not unlike this litmus test) and were investigated for all manner of undefined “suspicious activities”. Eventually, the committee, its members, and “McCarthyism” were discredited but not before a lot of damage had been done to the careers and reputations of innocent people.

    There may be plenty in this article with which to agree, but the foundation of coercion on which it is presented is intolerable. The Founders would be appalled.
     
  8. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    35,324
    12,156
    NE Utah
    Wow!

    My take was, the founders would agree 100%, and to ensure the rights of the people and a continuation of truly representative government of the people, by the people, and for the people, they would place a guarantee in the constitution that would ensure the ability to use force on the government when reason didn't work.

    Oh, wait...they did exactly that!:eek:

    Go figure.:p
     
  9. ArmyScout

    ArmyScout Supporting Member

    3,960
    280
    IL
    The article is good as long as the armed person is a good guy and does not use the gun to initiate his will on someone else. But when the bad guy has a gun and we do not, or it's the law that forces us to do things we don't want, the article is ambiguous .
     
  10. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    35,324
    12,156
    NE Utah
    Sorry Scout, but it's not ambiguous, he addressed that specifically.

    "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."

    So he's saying, if the law forces us to be without a gun, then automatically they are giving the bad guy the upper hand. That is uncivilized.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2014