Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Guns Are Integral To Civil Society

This is a great point:

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.

Guns themselves, of course, aren’t civilizing.  But an independent society that embraces the private ownership of guns is civilizing.  Mostly because it’s hard to oppress an armed citizenry, and so things like debate and free speech are a must.

The founders understood this (even if a lot of people today don’t) and thus included the 2nd amendment in the Constitution as a last-ditch defense against tyranny.  If all else went bad and America was to become run by tyrants they figured that the private possession of guns would give citizens a way to win their country back.

We were once a nation of citizen soldiers, and we’ve strayed way too far from that ideal.

Comments

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

There’s a third way—incentive.  A carrot on a stick is neither reason nor force, but the result is the same.

I suppose there could be some gray area here—a starving man can be persuaded to do despicable things for a meal, while at the other end of the spectrum, plenty of fat rich people will do despicable things out of pure greed.

They are both examples of incentive, but the former is certainly a lot closer to force than the latter.


[Feet make good soup!]

Marty on November 18, 2007 at 08:24 am

The other way that people have to deal with each other is to choose not to deal with each other. “The people shall not interfere in the business of others or attempt to restrict individuals as they exercise their free rights” should be in the Bill of Rights.  “Mind your own business” should be a law.

The founders were assuming that the people would come to the aid of their country in a time of need. At the time that the 2nd Amendment was written, the standing army was almost non-existent. The people had just brought their own guns and won the Revolution. They were not envisioning a possible tyranny for the people to rise up against.

“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Read the whole thing.

ews48 on November 18, 2007 at 09:48 am
Avatar for Lestat

We were once a nation of citizen soldiers, and we’ve strayed way too far from that ideal.

Let’s get rid of the standing army than.

Lestat on November 18, 2007 at 10:31 am

Let’s get rid of the standing army than.

A good example of false either/or propositions.

likwidshoe on November 18, 2007 at 10:36 am

ews, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the thinking and rationale of the times in which this country was founded. As for no standing army during the Revolutionary War, you are self delusional if you actually believe that. In the months leading up to the formal declaration of Independence from the Crown of England all of the colonies had begun forming the core of what became the Continental Army. Prior to that the standing army was the Royal Army of the King of England. And that of the Bourbons and the King of Spain.

In codifying the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms the Founding Fathers did INDEED foresee the possibility of the People having to rise and defend themselves against tyranny from their OWN government. As this had, in fact, already happened. Remember? That bit of unpleasantness involving the Crown and Parliament of England?

As to your other point, I am a member of The Militia, being a citizen owning property, registered to vote, and trained in the arts martial, as defined by the writings of Major Robert Rogers, the body of thought upon which the 2nd Amendment is based. 

Please buy a clue, sweety, since you obviously can’t locate one on your own initiative.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on November 18, 2007 at 11:18 am

There’s a third way—incentive.  A carrot on a stick is neither reason nor force, but the result is the same.

Incentive is actually an example of reason.  You want me to do something, you offer to pay me (money or goods it doesn’t matter) for that undefined something.  If I refuse you have two options (aside from trying to get someone else to do it), offer to pay me more, or try to force me to do it.  This shows resoning (offer, counter-offer) or force.

In the end if I accept your offer of more money then we have reasoned with each other, you have purchased a service from me, and I have accepted the job for the said pay, again reason.  I stand to gain the offered pay, and you stand to gain the accomplishment of the task you can not or will not do.

As for second ammendment it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That phrase shows that the citizens have the right to own the guns.

Anthony on November 18, 2007 at 08:41 pm
Proof
Proof
12882 comments
Send a private message

Let’s get rid of the standing army than (sic).

What a maroon!

An armed society is a polite society. -RAH



Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Proof on November 18, 2007 at 10:05 pm

I meant to make that point, Anthony, but ews’s stupidity drove it from my mind.

Marty, the point of the parable of the carrot&stick is that if you do not take the incentive of the carrot you will be beaten with the stick. Reason and force, yin&yang, the 2 faces of the same coin.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on November 19, 2007 at 05:52 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.