Admin Edit-
This has floated around email chains for a couple of years now.
It is COPYRIGHTED.
This link will tell you the true story and lead you to the text:
major caudill hits the big time. the munchkin wrangler
______________________________________________________

Admin Edit #2-
See Posts 13 & 14
______________________________________________________
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.

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter....

"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, 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.

yes indeed...well stated

__________________
SWCA#2208
KK4EMO

Couldn't agree more!

Rob, excellant post - thanks. I can't find anything in it that I would argue with.

Great essay, wrong attribution.

major caudill hits the big time. the munchkin wrangler

__________________
Marty 4513TSW 13-1 642 60-10

There are two types of people who want to disarm law abiding citizens.
1. Those who lack power of reason.
2. Scumbag criminals.
All anti gun advocates fall into one of those two catagories.

__________________
sticks-n-stones&hollowpoints

The first is the more dangerous of the two. There are many of them in a position of power, and they're resolute in thier beliefs. In their hearts, they're convinced that if they could remove all guns from society (a completely impossible task) that the world would be a much safer place to live.

They never for a moment think about the laws they write to try and remove guns only remove them from people that abide by the law. It never enters their minds that when there's a shooting that maybe if the victims had been armed that it could have been stopped.

The Tools on the hill are blaming the tools used by the criminals, not the criminals themselves.

Men that intend to do evil have been around since the dawn of time. All removing one class of weapons from society means is that you now have to be larger, stronger, or faster to do harm or protect yourself. Giving the disparity of force to the bad guys is bad juju, and exactly what they (the bad guys) would like to see.

If the atom bomb were never invented or used, WWIII would have happend a long time ago.

What a great article. I forwarded it to several friends.

__________________
Minnesota, USA

Love reading this!

kudos !!!!

So well thought out and written - hats off to you Rob - a job well done.

It is well stated, but really just an expansion of a simple truth put forth well over one and a half centuries ago-

God only created man.
Sam Colt made 'em equal.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Thanks for correcting the attribution. I have no problem with non-commercial sharing of the article, so feel free to post it again in full, if you'd like.

Thank YOU!
My pleasure in correcting the attribution.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Happy to make the correction!

When I read the original 1st post it struck a memory cell, a rare occurrence these days. I didn't recall exactly when I read your essay earlier this year, or why. I have a lot of friends who send me email 'stuff' asking if it is true, could be one of those requests was your essay.

I did a quick Google check after I read the original 1st post the other day and there you were again, along with Maj. Caudill...


Do you still have your Model 13? I have the 4" one, and you are right, it IS a great carry.

__________________
Marty 4513TSW 13-1 642 60-10

Indeed!
Thanks, Marty, for first making me aware of Marko, the real author. I failed to acknowledge that.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Oops, sorry, didn't mean to step on your toes, boss. You're welcome. I saw Marko's post and hit reply, didn't see yours till now.

__________________
Marty 4513TSW 13-1 642 60-10

You did not step on my toes.
I should have acknowledged you in the beginning.
Your first post got us to here.
Thanks.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

(I the Jury -- no wait -- I THE PROSECUTOR)

Speaking for the State of New York (hypothetically) there are obvious changes that need to be made.

The Marine Corp does not charge the enemy alone. Taking a beach head or a mountain even in WWII they had thousands of marines involved. Therefore there is no reason for a magazine bigger that 7 rounds.

Lets be logical. 1,000 marines with magazine capacity of 7 rounds means 7,000 rounds to fire at the enemy. And these guys are trained marksmen. A great many of them can shoot a coke bottle at 300 yards with iron sights.

We have already set an example by requiring full jacketed bullets. Lets show the world we are the good logical people we claim to be.

And bayonets are still a bit long. 4 inches would be every bit as effective as five.

I see no reason why we should be influenced by a professional Marine. They train running through swamps or deserts with full packs. Some even train in snow with full packs. The majority of people who join the military do not join the Marine Corp for a very good reason. Civilized people do not carry pounds and pounds of extra bullets when traveling on foot.

(And if you have ever boxed against their boxing team the whole base shows up in dress uniforms with a full band playing bull fighter music? Scary people).

(I probably just broke some rule, oops -- I give this one a minute and a half)

Close. Actually, some anti-gun advocates fall into two of those two categories. Perhaps you knew that, but didn't want to mention it because it came too close to discussing politics.