• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

An Armed Society...

S

SHOOTER13

Guest
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 an 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.

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

Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
 
I hope this isn't a hijack, but does reinforce much of the point of the OP

 
NJ mom busting some balls:

http://freedomslighthouse.net/2013/05/2 ... elf-video/

“I’m a mom, and there’s only one thing that I’m afraid of – and that’s the people in elected office taking away my rights. I’m not afraid of the crook that’s going to come to my door, because if my dogs don’t get him – I will, and it’s my job to defend myself! It’s not your job to protect me. It’s not your job to defend me. It’s your job to protect the Constitution and protect my rights to defend MYSELF!”
 
The Swiss have a really good militia system. That is what the National Guard should be like.

Of course the character of Swiss politics is also very different. They are much more of a Direct Democracy as opposed to our system which is kind of light on Direct Democracy and heavy on the Representative Republic.
 
Two news articles that came out about gun control and gun ownership:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres- ... -grabbers/

A little heralded Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study holds some devastating news for those who are trying to take guns from America’s population.

Here are the facts the study found:

The overall message of the report is that nations with private gun ownership have less crime.

---------------
Then you have Chicago:

6 Dead, 27 Wounded in Chicago Weekend Shootings

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Co ... z2eCfslJNR
 
Book Used By Schools Changes Meaning Of Second Amendment
9 hours ago | Politics, US | Posted by Michael Lotfi September 17, 2013

Photographs recently started circulating of a page from a textbook that students in Denton, Texas are suppose to use for advanced placement examination in US History. The controversy around the book is its summation of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. It should be noted that all 10 amendments are summarized in the text. However, the summary of the other nine amendments does not change their meaning as it does with the Second Amendment.

The book titled, United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination, summarizes the Second Amendment as so: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.”

Upon interpretation of this version of the Second Amendment one would certainly deduce that an individual only has a right to keep and bear arms in if they are in a state militia. The summary also leaves out the most crucial words of the Second Amendment- Shall Not Be Infringed.

Hundreds of individuals have taken to the book’s amazon page in fury. Comments read:


-WARNING: DON’T BUY THIS BOOK! It contains so called “history” that is inaccurate and untrue. Please ask that Amazon remove it

-This book is complete propaganda that is not based in fact.

-The next edition will probably wipe out the Constitution of the US entirely and replace it with Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. I imagine the progressive college professors are giddy with excitement knowing that their agenda is sanctified by the Dept of Ed and spoon fed to young, impressionable minds.

-This text book should stay on the shelves and rot. Don’t even consider buying it to educate your children if you’re interested in historical facts.



One wonders how students can be placed in advanced classes when actually learning incorrect material. According to Jason Howerton with The Blaze, parents in the district are furious. Howerton reached out to the Denton Independent School District regarding the text book and received the following statement from Director of Communications and Community Relations Sharon Cox:


“The main history book that is utilized in the Advanced Placement U.S. History class for juniors in Denton ISD is titled: American Pageant. This is a history book that has had a strong reputation for historical facts for many years. The American Pageant, the official textbook, gives the exact Bill of Rights.”

Cox goes on to ensure that the material is only supplemental and not approved for the classroom. The book is also used in Washington, Georgia, California and possibly others.
 

Attachments

  • 2ndA.jpg
    2ndA.jpg
    121.1 KB · Views: 211
Back
Top