Taurus Firearm Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

Premium Member
16,956 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL,
Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a
Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a
civilized society.

Interesting take and one you don't hear much... Read this eloquent and

profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the

"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 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. But, 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

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 would
not 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 !!

This is worth printing and sharing with others.......right?

Remember freedom is not free.


1,439 Posts
Great letter.

Catch is the anti firearm crowd do not care. They cannot care because they reject the simple premise the above letter outlined.To a liberal reason must be mandated USING force on the part of the government or all people will use force in their daily lives.

Thus, in order to force collective reason as a tool for dispute resolution force must be removed as an option to the law abiding citizen. This is an impossible goal because force will ALWAYS be the primary option of the criminal regardless of what any government says.Liberals understand that criminals do not care about laws, but to their perspective the deaths of law abiding citizens is an acceptable "price to pay" for removing force as an option for the citizen.

No left leaning person will say that you and I are considered "collateral damage" on the path to Utopia, but that is nevertheless their attitude in practice if not in speech. The Constitution reinforces the right of the individual to choose whether Force or Reason is the best tool to use in their lives.It reinforces it, because one cannot legislate away an innate right any more than a government can ban the sunrise. Such a notion would be absurd to all except the Sun which being a ball of gas could care less what a politican 93 million miles away thinks.

Returning to topic, the Major was right.Carry on.

Premium Member
16,168 Posts
Great post. I will be reposting this.

Super Moderator
21,440 Posts
Thanks for a great post I'll be using it if you don't mind. It may not change anyone but it sure makes a lot of sense.

3,770 Posts
Semper Fi! :thumb:

Premium Member
16,956 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thanks for a great post I'll be using it if you don't mind. It may not change anyone but it sure makes a lot of sense.
Go ahead I sure don't mind and it may open up an eye or two.

Member Emeritus 1946-2018
35,996 Posts
Awesome letter!

Thanks for posting it.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts