Reason and Force

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rmcrob

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 18, 2008
    2,230
    36
    Plainfield
    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 forcing 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 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.

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

    -By Maj. L, Caudill USMC (Ret)

    [reproduced in Ted, White and Blue by Ted Nugent]
     

    esrice

    Certified Regular Guy
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    24,095
    48
    Indy
    I think this is a great piece and wanted to bring it back up to the top another round. I was actually about to post it again, but luckily my INGO search-fu was strong. :D
     

    redneckmedic

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    8,429
    48
    Greenfield
    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.
    This is really All I needed to hear...however the rest is nice also!!!
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    No offense to my fellow INGO members (or Uncle Ted), but this piece was not written by "Major Caudill". It was written by science fiction author named Marko Kloos, a German immigrant (and Bundeswehr veteran, but not a Major) living in New Hampshire. Marko is solidly on our side and should be give proper attribution by those of us in the gun culture that agree with this philosophy.

    Above all, I believe it is important that we at INGO give credit where credit is due.:patriot:

    Marko Kloos: the munchkin wrangler.
     

    rmcrob

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 18, 2008
    2,230
    36
    Plainfield
    Well, Uncle Ted attributes the piece to Major Caudill. Ted's book is copyright 2008. Your fellow posted it in March 2007 with no attribution, therefore I guess he claims to have written it.

    If I was guessing, which I guess I am, I'd say Major Caudill sent the thing to Ted Nugent with or without attribution, and Ted stuck it in his book.

    Of course, there is no intent to deceive anyone about who wrote the piece. And no attempt to deny credit to anyone.

    So, I think it is still just as good, no matter who wrote it.

    Interestingly, I was unable to find anything on your guy's website about the incorrect attribution.
     

    rmcrob

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 18, 2008
    2,230
    36
    Plainfield
    Wow. Bigger deal than I thought. I apologize for not knowing all the circumstances when I posted this thing back in February.

    Marko has written a piece that resonates with me and, apparently, with many others as well.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Randy, you are not alone and that is the problem.:D

    The thorny dilemma for our aspiring sci fi writer is that he must sue to enforce his rights or the courts will deem him to have slept on his rights. Sue now, or forever hold your peace.:D

    So, his options are : sue people he would rather no vs. screw his family out of a solid roof and warm food.
     

    rmcrob

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 18, 2008
    2,230
    36
    Plainfield
    I agree, Kirk. The problem seems to like with someone who styles himself as Major Caudill.

    I wonder if you have seen anything that points to who this person might be. I don't think that Front Sight or Ted Nugent are at fault, though they seem to not have responded in way that shows great integrity.
     

    cce1302

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 26, 2008
    3,397
    48
    Back down south
    Well, there are three Major Caudills, USMC; two are retired, one is in the reserves. My guess is that someone of unknown identity took the essay, and started fowarding it around without attribution, and for some reason when a Major Caudill forwarded it, someone thought that he was the author and continued to forward it with his name on the bottom.
    Either that, or someone made up the name of Maj Caudill, USMC to add legitimacy to the essay. Are you more inclined to put stock in an essay written by some nobody on the internet, or someone with a title and agency by his name?
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Either that, or someone made up the name of Maj Caudill, USMC to add legitimacy to the essay. Are you more inclined to put stock in an essay written by some nobody on the internet, or someone with a title and agency by his name?

    It's a well-known rule that you have to be O-4 or higher to be believed on the Internet.

    What gravitas does Zug Feldwebel carry? Very little at most.:D

    "Hey, Jasper, read these here squiggly lines that forms them letters."

    "Cledus, that boy makes common horse since."

    "Goooolly, Jasper, it's done been written by a zook feltwaybal. What's that?"

    'I don't know but he ain't from around here."

    :D
     

    JosephR

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 12, 2008
    1,466
    36
    NW IN
    Reason and Force are not the only two ways to get things done nor does everything boil down to one or the other.

    You are looking at people as animals without any conscious thought. Think of free will. Take me for instance, I may let you into my lane of traffic because I want to, without any reason or force needing to be applied. I may invite you over for dinner; I may do many things you even WANT me to without being told to (using reason) or force.

    My girlfriend and I do things without having to resort to reason or force.

    You forget, people have a mutual reason for co-existing which precedes this need for reason or force.

    What the author says MAY make perfect sense, it does not apply to 70% of situations and isn't true for everything.
     

    jsgolfman

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 20, 2008
    1,999
    38
    Greenwood
    I think you are creating dissonance where there is none.
    When using free will you are making a decision to either use force or not to accomplish a goal. If you let me into your lane of traffic it is because you have reasoned that is the proper course (opposed to forcing me off the road or me forcing you off the road). Likewise, unless you are forcing me to come to your house for dinner, you have reasoned with me by providing an enticing offer for me to come to your house.
    People may have a mutual reason for co-existing, but the manner by which they achieve this goal is determined by the application of either force or reason/coercion/persuasion.
    If someone performs some act without interaction with another person, that's not germaine to the authors' premise. Although I could argue that it still holds if said action affects another person directly, even minus the knowledge of the first person.
     
    Top Bottom