Philosophy behind our "reason" for having guns - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Philosophy behind our "reason" for having guns

  1. Quote Originally Posted by sailor View Post
    UTdave - not to get cross-wise in this thread - I think it is relevant, but can you give us "shellback gunnies" some idea of where your change of heart comes from? As the OP stated, there is an "inherent right" involved, yet it is not recognized by all too many rational people. If there was some doorway, or concept that was useful to help other "non-believers" of that inherent right to understand it better. I would like to convince some certain folks of what we are talking about, but too many seem to have a closed mind.
    I'm not sure I can help out too much with this. I've never been an "anti" so to speak, I just never had any interest. Plus, while I was on the whole a successful college student, I was definitely not in a good position to own a gun until recently, due to living with different people and general partying and such. Even once I landed a good job after school and lived on my own, I didn't put much thought into buying a gun until I went out shooting with my dad and his friend back home. All the sudden I was taking the time to learn about firearms, and putting thought into the philosophy behind being armed, so in just the course of a month I came to feel pretty strongly about it.

    So my suggestion would be to get as many new people out shooting as you can. It'll do so much more than any talking point or persuasive argument could. A lot of people have been programmed to think that guns are inherently unsafe, and that the people who are into them are nutjobs. They'll see the safety aspect, probably have fun, and also see a whole variety of people at the range that are comfortable with firearms. Hopefully that gets their own thought process in motion.

  3. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    N. Central Indiana
    I think this gent makes a compelling point in favor of CCW.......

    Why The Gun is Civilized
    By Marko Kloos
    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 gay guy on equal footing with a car load 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 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. There 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’m 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 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.

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
    “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Thomas Jefferson
    Only when our arms are sufficient, without doubt, can we be certain, without doubt, that they will never be employed....... John F. Kennedy
    Life Member NRA Life Member Marine Corps League

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts