the munchkin wrangler.

Excellent post.

Marko,

I have never heard a more eloquent argument for second amendment rights.

Ever thought about running for NRA president?

Thank you.

Jesper

Strong, strong words Marko.

Again, have you ever considered public office? If an Austrian can take California, after all...

Well said, and hear hear.

Outstanding. I don't often comment on blogs, but I can't let this go without praise.

Well said!

I agree with the sentiment you’re eluding to.

An armed society is a polite society.

Long time lurker, first time poster. One of the most eloquently written persuasions I’ve ever had the privilege of reading. I’ve always used the argument that guns are the great equalizer to an otherwise unequal fight, but you have done so clearly, calmly, and effectively. Bravo.

Excellent post. My thoughts exactly. Too bad we can't get the whining liberals to understand that.

The Tube is Civiliation!

Superb post. I agree completely.

One of the more eye-opening experiences I've had was the feeling of peace when I strapped some metal to my belt. The amount of crap I was willing to let go and walk away from went up dramatically. When you've got the means to end a person's life at your immediate disposal, you realize that unless it's worth drawing your piece over, it's not worth getting worked up over.

Found this article via LawDog. I'm definitely bookmarking it & recommending it as a "must read" to others.

Bravo.

That may be the best thing I've ever read, Marko, and I'm not being facetious or hyperbolic. That's phenomenal, sir. It's the heart of the viewpoint, and I've never heard it said better.

ColtCCO

I agree with most of the above - this piece is worthy of inclusion in civics textbooks, were there still such things - will be forwarding it to others as well as linking, if I can just figure out how *grin*

An armed society is a polite society.

Devil's advocate here. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but there are several glaring exceptions that tend to change this maxim to an oxymoron:

Palestine: Every faction has guns and uses them on every other faction. Not a polite OR safe society.

Communist Russia, Viet Nam, North Korea: In their heyday, not even remotely polite societies, and not safe for the political opposition.

Sudan: See Palestine.

Nazi Germany: Not polite to neighboring armed countries.

There are more examples. What I'd like to know is how the above phrase can be changed to accomodate these exceptions and still remain more than wishful thinking.

Devil's advocate:

All the examples you named are not societies where the average citizen is armed as a matter of course, but rather places where the bullies (state-sponsored or freelance) have a monopoly on personal weaponry while denying it to potential opponents and the average guy on the street.

Like Mao said, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." In a repressive totalitarian system, the folks who hold power always make sure that they're the only ones who can bear arms. They do this so they don't have to bother with reason when convincing everyone to get along with the program, skipping straight to force. (People who don't have reason on their side always favor force, of course.)

That's probably a big subconscious factor in why so many Leftists are against guns in the hands of the citizenry (and not a small number of right-wingers as well, although they tend to deny the RKBA to specific undesirable groups, not everyone.)

Lawdog sent me over, and I'm so glad he did. Yours is an exceptionally well-stated argument, and your response to Devil's Advocate reinforces your point. Thanks!

Marko, I would like your permission to use this article in my sociology class if it's ok with you. To credit the author I would say it was proudly stolen from the Munchkin Wrangler blog.

Illogical argument! "My gun is bigger than yours" force equal force-nobody wins or survives. I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-stupidity.

Raven, would you like to explain yourself fully? In the short burst you typed you claim illogical argument, but you show no reasons for the claim. Is this just a knee-jerk reaction, or do you actually have a reasoned argument for your statement?

Raven,

Did you actually read the post, or are you just guessing as to the content?

Occam's Razor - the simplest explanations are usually the best.

This post is one of the most eloquent I have ever seen.

Thanks for that.

Also sent over by LawDog, and am I glad.

Very well reasoned essay and clear explanation of the RKBA that the Founding Fathers envisioned.(Even if Raven and Devil's Advocate missed the point altogether.)

That was an amazing explanation of human civilization.

Could you explain how something like trickery plays in here? The good ole carrot on a stick. Deceit and deception. Would that fit under reason, since it seems reasonable to the sucker?

Raven, you really should reexamine the idea of logic. And obviously you've never seen WarGames. If everybody has a relatively equal chance to kill everyone else, the only way to win(I.E. continue to live) is not to play, thus reducing a remotely rational persons options solely to persuasion.

Great essay.

Damn fine words.

No offense, but it's a shame you're not over here in Britain. We need reasonable guys like you.

Another one sent here by Law Dog but with writing like this I will be back.

Marko,

Interesting that you actually note a keen distinction between the ability to use force and the actual application of said force. Most of the gun-nuts (whom I tend to shy away from now-a-days) seem to have lost grasp on what this means.

"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" type of jibber-jabber really permeates the culture, I personally think it breeds more ignorance than actual grass roots support. It's refreshing to hear someone speak both coherently and eloquently on the topic.

Cheers man!

"God created man, but Colonel Colt made them equal."

As a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, I read this with interest. However, as much I agree with your intent and with several of your points, there are others which seem half-baked.

"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." This strikes me as simplistic. We do things out of love, for example. We do things to avoid being irritated by other people. As a married man I can think of a few other ways I can be made to do something.

Then, at the crux of your argument, is this statement: "When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force." Huh? Of course people can still deal with you by force. You may have some chance of holding your own, but that's it. The police deal with armed people all the time, and they don't necessarily reason with them.

Ah but here is the rub so to speak. A person who would chose to use force rather then reason is not reasonable at all and it can be assumed that they would not stop at a severe beating but try and kill you with fists or whatever. I chose to place myself on equal footing and should that person chose to use force over reason, I will not be fighting an uphill battle.

Later,
Scott
(also from lawdog and amazing writing MW)

What would happen to your theory if the 19 year old gangbanger and the car full of drunks with baseball bats all carried firearms too?

"What would happen to your theory if the 19 year old gangbanger and the car full of drunks with baseball bats all carried firearms too?"

That's the problem monti; they already do go armed because they don't obey the law. Why shouldn't their potential victims be able to defend themselves?

So Marko, it would reason from your post that we can only have a civilized world by permitting each and every nation to proliferate nuclear arms.

"Very well reasoned essay and clear explanation of the RKBA that the Founding Fathers envisioned."

The Founding Fathers did not author the 2nd Amendment as a mean of people being on equal footing with other. The authored the 2nd Amendment because if a government takes arms away from the people, the people remove one of their most valuable checks on the government, the power to revolt.

Marko, you may be interested in what this man writes: http://www.progunprogressive.com/

Oh, and to the person who left the comment about liberals, I'm a pro-gunrights liberal and the man's blog I linked to above (Sebastian) is as liberal as one can be. Not all of us liberals are hoplophobes or hypocrits when it comes to the right to be able to defend one's life with the best tool available.

Mark

Hear! Hear!

I am SO plagiarizing you.

Sir, this post is a gem. Consider it printed for future reference.

Actually, in Palestine and Afghanistan, pretty much everyone ahs access to a gun if they can afford one. Also, Congo, Sudan and other 'hot spots' in Africa. They're not fascist nations, they're areas in which mob rule is the defacto government.

Reminds me of The Art of War, Chapter 8, p 11. The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.

I agree with the heart of your post. But being the disagreeable bugger I am, I will point out that it's not "reason vs. force," it's "persuasion vs. force."

Reason is often a factor in persuasion, but people can be just as moved to action by an emotional appeal that has little or no rational/reasonable component. (We usually call those people "liberals.) ;)

Marko, good stuff.

The only nit I have to pick is the reason & force bit.

Basic economics (exchange of goods and services, transfer of money, etc.) is one way people have of dealing with one another.

Though you could probably consider economics a subset of rational interaction.

To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death.
How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.

To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead.

No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em

StLfireman...

Well-said! I've reposted (with credit and a bit of commentary) over at my blog, hope you don't mind:

http://www.laurelzimmer.com/2007/03/26/an-excellent-argument-for-the-armed-citizen/#respond

Thanks for being an advocate for our rights.

Laurel
www.laurelzimmer.com

a compelling, and well-written argument for 2nd amendment rights.

I bet you're a Heinlein reader (or LNSmith...) great essay. JD Sparks passed it to 2ndamendmentrightsAtyahoog.... where someone commented that it would be nice to see in schools. It would be. Where I live in Washington that has no chance of happening but there will be two school teachers and a principal who read it to day.

Very well put! This is so getting linked in my blog.

Sir,

You make some excellent points. However, I feel obligated to point out some of the flaws.

The first is that a gun completely levels the field between a 75-year-old retiree and a 19-year-old gangbanger.

This assumes that both of them either start with weapons drawn -- unlikely -- or that both of them can go from "weapon holstered" to "bullet fired" in the same amount of time -- also unlikely. If the attacker (of whatever description) begins the attack scenario with his gun in his hand, then the defender is completely screwed. Unless the defender can draw, aim, and fire more quickly than the attacker can pull the trigger, the defender loses.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that we have armed the entire populace. Every man, woman, and child now carries a sidearm everywhere they go, and have successfully completed a basic marksmanship and gun safety course.

You've now given them the weapon and the ability to use it... but the one thing you cannot give them is the willingness to use it. The simple truth of the matter is that not everyone has it in them to look another human being in the eye and pull the trigger. Without that willingness to fire, the defender actually makes things worse for themselves by drawing the weapon, because the attacker can't afford to wait and see -- now he must shoot the defender in order to prevent being shot himself.

In addition, your comments about the differences when you carry a gun are both incorrect and dangerous.

You say that when you carry a gun, you cannot be dealt with by force.

Wrong, sir!

In addition to the scenario I already described, carrying a gun doesn't protect you against me walking up behind you and putting a knife to your throat, or simply clubbing you over the head.

You also seem to overlooked the fact that you can be disarmed. While there is a significantly smaller portion of the population that knows how to do this, there are those of us out there who will take away your gun and have a bullet in your head before you realize you're not the one holding the weapon any more. Or worse, leave the gun in your own hands but twist you up in such a way that it's now pointing at you, and my finger is now covering yours on the trigger -- I can force you to shoot yourself with your own gun, and my prints never appear on the weapon.

Yes, I'm serious.

Then there's this comment: "I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid."

Sir, if you need a gun in order to not be afraid, there is something seriously wrong. At the very least, you are ignoring your brain's signals that you are in an unsafe area and should get out as quickly as possible.

Linus carried a fuzzy blue blanket, not a sidearm. You seem to have confused the two.

Don't get me wrong, I frequently carry both a gun and a knife, and I am all in favor of an armed populace -- provided the portion of the populace that takes up arms does so with their eyes open, and with a willingness to use the weapon when (and only when) it is appropriate.

Sincerely,

Clifton Bullard
www.sakarikempo.com

Manual Trackback™

Oustanding post, Marko.

Should I take your silence to mean that you do think that all nations should be permitted to have nuclear weapons?

Chris,

the issue of nuclear arms is separate from the issue of personal self-defense weapons. In a nutshell, the gun can be targeted at a specific aggressor, the nuclear device cannot.

Your query deserves a more detailed response, so look for a separate blog post later today.

Nice and to the point, but as I read the "2" methods of dealing with people being force and persuation, I realized there are 2 (at least) other methods which 'head-in-the-sand' gun-grabbing libs employ which makes them feel good in there little world of self-ignorance. Those two other methods would be to ignore the other person entirely and act like the problem doesn't exist, or deny the realities of various facors of influence in the upcoming discussion in order to better pigeon hole their own world view. This way, they think they are right and never have to confront reality as it actually is in 'imprimis.'

i largely agree, but not entirely. i don't think the old chestnut about armed societies is entirely true --- it is part of the truth, but not the whole truth.

the naysayers like to point to chaotic, anarchic regions like the middle east (most of it, really, if we're not being diplomatic) and much of africa as counterexamples. and they are, as far as they go. they're societies, even if perhaps sociologically primitive (tribalistic) ones; they're armed; and they're horrible hellholes to be stuck in. but that doesn't mean each and every armed society necessarily devolves into such.

i like to refer, too, to Eric Raymond's famous essay about "ethics from the barrel of a gun". he, i think, is still not telling the whole truth, but he makes some of the same points you do while pointing (i think) in the general direction of the rest of the secret.

the point, i believe, is that a community (society) of individuals needs some vague and hard to nail down kind of civilization before weapons begin to act as stabilizers instead of destabilizers. citizens need to view their neighbors and fellow citizens as worthwhile human beings, with whom peace is valuable and important, before they can wield arms in defense of such peace. if the "society" consists of a bunch of competing, warlike tribes --- if we're dealing with a bunch of barbarians, to put it very crudely --- who don't see much value in cooperating peacefully, then no, arming that society won't produce politeness.

but, as mr. Raymond pointed out (and as others have hinted at in this thread), a more peacefully oriented group of perfect strangers may strap on pistols and experience the exact opposite, desireable, effect. it's not due to the guns, though, at least not entirely; it's due to them having a fundamentally peaceful, cooperative approach to one another. the guns merely enable them to defend that against all comers.

If you want a clear case of what happens when a society is disarmed look at the UK. Crime is getting worse and worse but the individual has no way of defending him or herself. (Of course, the hard core criminals now have automatic weapons.)

Good piece.

Over all, I'll commend Marko on an excellent post. I read it more as a Principle – that is, more philosophy than immediate tactics. In a short post it’s extremely difficult do justice to even one, much less both. The old quote “If I’d had more time, I’d have written you a shorter letter.” comes to mind.

What I will recommend is Col. Jeff Cooper’s Principles of Personal Defense.
You can find it at amazon.com.

Sensei Bullard makes some important points. I understand where he’s coming from, I got my first black belt in 1966, and I’m still learning this stuff. I’ve spent over 40 years exposed to a great many different martial arts, and whether you’re called Sensei, Seifu, Guru, or whatever – personally, I prefer the Bahasa term “Pak,” or “Uncle – you can be no more succinct than Col. Cooper:

“You are no more armed because you are wearing a pistol than you are a musician because you own a guitar.”

That means training and practice. Like other martial arts, with the handgun, you’re never finished learning. That’s a good thing, even the most accomplished person can make a mistake. Training and practice give you a better chance of overcoming the mistakes you make, and take advantage of your opponents’ mistakes.

Thank you Marko, for an excellent post. As I tell folks, I learned the martial arts, carry multiple knives, and handguns, so I don’t have to fight. All of these are my tools for social interaction. But my most valuable tool is a trained mind. Col. Cooper’s book is an excellent start.

Kudos.

This is my first visit to your site, but will definitely not be my last. I found a link to your blog at Ambulance Driver's site.

That was an EXCELLENT post! I wish more people thought like you.

I would like to add a link to your blog if that is ok.

~Sandy G.

carolinadrifter,

Wish we could get this read to Congress.

+1

Very well put. I see myself steeling some lines from this when talking about the need to own firearms.

I logical and reasoned argument.

Unfortunatly, letting those who are not armed with either trait own guns does not make life any safer for the rest of us (no matter what arsenal we happen to own).

Some people will parse content to the point of irrationality. The writer's point pretty much holds true; you will do things either because you do so willingly, or because you are forced to do so against your *will* -- which is the basis of his treatise. Sure someone may attack you with force, and sure that person might have a gun, and sure you might get hurt or worse, killed -- but his point is that if you are armed and in a position to defend your rights, you cannot be *forced* against your *will* to the attacker's *will* -- the field will be leveled at the point you *choose* to draw your weapon and take a stand for yourself.

I refuse to be a victim. I get it. Great article!

Actually, there were lotsa guns in Soviet Russia, but you didn't dare use one for the risk of a hundred brainwashed Gammas dragging you off to reeducation camp out in the fostier bits of Siberia.

Dear Marko,
excellent post. If only the State of California thought the same for me July 4, 2005. I was accosted by 3 Latinos and drew my weapon for them to stand down and for me to get away. I was arrested and charged with a felony that has nearly ruined my life.

Very good post. Well put.

The only thing banning guns would accomplish is disarming the innocent. The "bad guys" will still get their guns on the Black Market. While I may not want to carry a gun every where I go, I still want my right to do so!

I'm still opposed to having everybody carry a firearm around (but then again, I grew up in a very different society). However, I must praise this posting as well: It makes my opinion a lot harder to justify.

Marko,

First, another voice of thanks for your well-spoken post.

Second, I think the resulting discussion is one of the few intelligent ones I've seen on this topic. Seriously, I am amazed at the low level of quality, intelligence, and respect in discussions on most gun-oriented sites.
The gent who mentioned the 12-6 quote captured that well, along with all the gratuitious "molon labe!" sigs.

Anyway, back on track: I think your argument also depends a bit on a modestly rational society where things work well enough that people aren't desperate. What I mean by this is that there are places in the world where people have very little to lose, and only to gain, from confrontation... I.e. poverty, civic disorder, etc. In many of these places violence is a way of life and having everyone armed is maybe still more fair, but certainly not peaceful. Thankfully, this is not true in the U.S. Just a minor point since that is implicitly the country and culture about which we are talking.

As to Devil's Advocate (anonymous): Many of the countries he listed do not permit private ownership of guns ("diffuse distribution of the control over force"). This had been pointed out. Moreover, I've heard it said (haven't verified it absolutely) that gun control in modern times started in Nazi Germany. Food for thought.

As to "whiny liberals": I'm sick of the culture war that's been cooking up over the last 5-10yrs. Most gun nuts would probably call me a "liberal" because I'm not a Christian, pro-Patriot Act, pro-Bush, etc. flag-waving zealot. However, I am a gun nut and solidly pro-2nd amendment. I just want the rest of the internet gun community to take the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments, and habeas corpus, a bit more seriously when they rant about "rights". I'm amazed that people worried about the Clinton administration kicking down their doors, but give the Bush administration a blank check.

I'm trying to convert more progressives to support of 2nd amendment rights. Nuts from either wing don't help much...

Cheers.

Not true. If I interacted with you violently, the interaction would be brief and violent for at least one of us. But it would still be an interaction. And hopefully set a good example for society that initiating force is permanently counterproductive.

Action has consequence, words less so.

Anonymous said...
"An armed society is a polite society.
Devil's advocate here. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but there are several glaring exceptions that tend to change this maxim to an oxymoron:

Palestine: Every faction has guns and uses them on every other faction. Not a polite OR safe society.

Communist Russia, Viet Nam, North Korea: In their heyday, not even remotely polite societies, and not safe for the political opposition.

Sudan: See Palestine.

Nazi Germany: Not polite to neighboring armed countries.

There are more examples. What I'd like to know is how the above phrase can be changed to [sic] accomodate these exceptions and still remain more than wishful thinking."

Anon,

The word “society” is what you have failed to correctly interpret in Heinlein's maxim, "An armed society is a polite society."

First, don’t look at the word “society” the way in which the quasi-formalized pseudo-science of "sociology" has “taught” modern man to look at the word (and the world).

Look at the original Latin meaning.

SOCIUS, the origin of the word “society,” means "friend" or "ally," with the implication that a “society” is a group of people whose acceptance of certain broad, overarching organizing principles tends to make them like-minded--not clones, merely like-minded on the issues of reason, force, and non-coercive persuasion.

However, reasonable men can disagree, especially when reasoning from the general to the particular (or from the particular to the general, for that matter)—such is the role played by the factors of self-interest and subjectivity.

Self-interest and subjectivity cause the disagreements (along with the other usual suspects: greed, wrath, sloth, avarice, etc.).

But let's get back to the concept of a "polite society," a phrase which is actually redundant when understood in its original and true sense.

To see my point, especially with reference to the examples of "societies" which you have cited--places we hardly call friendly to reason or freedom!--do a little "thought experiment."

Substitute the words "dictatorship, tyranny, totalitarian state, terrorist organization, or police state," for the word "society" in Robert Heinlein’s maxim, and you will see where you went wrong.

Only when you use the fake constructs of modern sociology is it possible to interpret Heinlein's maxim as you have, albeit in the role of Devil's Advocate, to mean "An armed dictatorship (or tyranny or totalitarian state or terrorist organization or police state) is a polite dictatorship (or tyranny or totalitarian state or terrorist organization or police state)."

I think you see what I mean.

Much of contemporary discourse on politics, ethics, religion, and morality is clouded by the allegedly "value free" terms we tend to uncritically absorb from the modern so-called "sciences" of man (sociology, psychology, economics, etc.).

If you steadfastly refuse to buy into the "value free" vocabulary of the so-called "human sciences" which were forged AFTER our Founding Fathers articulated the basis of our freedom, you will find that the basis of that freedom is quite difficult to conceptually pick apart.

But continue to try anyway--it's good for the mind.

~ASMS

I would prefer neither to be carried by 6 nor tried by 12. I try to live in such a way as not to be faced by such a choice, but living in the city I may not be able to. The record shows that 99 percent of the time, when a gun prevents a crime, not even the perpetrator is carried by 6, and I would hope that for myself, as for the woman I married, and others I've known, that would be the case.

I am a lifelong Heinlein fan, and in your post you have nailed the essence of RAH, and the outlook that imbues all his work. A very eloquent and irrefutable defence of the second amendment. A negation of force from all enemies. Very well stated, thank you.
Dana

This was written by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret). Would have been nice to have given him credit when you posted it.

Anonymous,

I'm going to assume you're trying for tongue-in-cheek humor here.

"This was written by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret). Would have been nice to have given him credit when you posted it."

It'd be nice if someone would scare up this 'Maj. Caudill, USMC (Ret.)'

F$cking 'net plagiarists, like the moron who grabbed this and spam mailed it with the "Major"'s name attached, make me sick.

PS: In case you're wondering where your anonymous Enrico Fermi came from, here you go.

Bravo! An absolutely superb post!

I had to repost.

Well said, sir.

RIGHT ON BROTHER !!!!

I AM ALWAYS ENVIOUS WHEN SOMEONE CAN PUT INTO WORDS SO WELL SOMETHING THAT HAS FLITTED AROUND IN MY SMALL - BRAIN !!!!

well written, very well thought out, my compliments and congratulations !!!! mad coyote

Force IS an Arguement. And Arguements are made with Force, moral, economic, bullets, whatever, one way or another. The distiniction is false.

He who has, does, or can, at any rate. Nations "permitted" to have nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons create their own permits, believe you me, please.

The whole logic of thinking in political terms is backwards and upside-down. Life is not a mass debate, the real vote is in the will to power- which comes from harmony with natural law. Birds fly because they can, with or without 'permission'.

Perhaps humans are the only creature that can self-delude like this; it never ceases to astound.

Came here via Kim du Toit's site. Good post. Agree with the concepts of force vs reason as to why we do things. This includes how we are governed. With the government it is always force, never reason. Or the implication of force. Much of what we do is based soley on that nowdays.

Looks to me like you have more that 3 readers now.

Good thought.

You are so right! Same reasons I carry here. You got yourself some traffic here, with a little help from KDT, but mostly for the good ideas you have. I'm adding you to my favorites.

"Allow" people to have guns? I thought this was America. A lot of the comments here disturb me greatly. I guess I see how we got here from where the founders dropped us off. If people who call themselves supporters of the Constitution can still use a phrase like "allow certain people to have guns" or "prevent certain people from having guns" then we don't have the same understanding of the Constitution.

This is a very good post. Referred by theothersideofkim dot com

Well done,sir.
Thank you.
Got here from Kim du Toit's site.
I'll be back for more.

Excellent, Marko. I was directed here via a Kim du Toit post.

And now, for some anecdotal reinforcment:

My dad was a cop, once upon a time. When I was about 3 months old, he & mom loaded me into the car for a day trip to the mountains, the 1st time they’d gone anywhere together since the birth.

We stopped at one of their favorite spots. As some point during our stay, a couple of bikers rolled in. Dad could tell they were trouble, so he loaded wife & issue into the car. One of the bikers encouraged him to hand over “summa that gook tail” (mom was Asian). The loudmouthed biker pulled his bike behind the car, blocking its exit. He walked up to the driver’s door, snarling all the way, leaned in, and found himself looking down the barrel of dad’s off-duty revolver (.357 Colt Python).

Dad says it was like flipping a switch. Loudmouth cut himself off in mid-snarl, and backed away. He saddled up, and he & his compadre skedaddled.

No altercation, no shots fired, nobody hurt. Just a big stick on display, without comment or bluster.

I've forwarded your post to everyone in my address book. Thanks again, and I look forward to returning on a regular basis.

Sep

I too was referred by the other side of kim.

Good post.

I'll check back.

Well said sir. I viewed your essay at Second City Cop and felt it necessary to publish on my blog.

Excellent! I will link to this for my July 09 issue of "The Price of Liberty" http://www.thepriceofliberty.org

I'm a Second Amendment Sister, and open carry full time as an ambassador for the rational human right of self defense.

MamaLiberty

I agree 100% Great article! Check out this related quote from George Washington:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself! They are the American people's Liberty Teeth and keystone under Independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere, restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good!" President George Washington, in a speech to Congress. 7 January, 1790

Also check out this great spoof on gun free zones: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bGqiULYbt5Y

An excellent and well-reasoned post. Thanks!!!!

Mike
http://fingolfen.blogspot.com

Marko, great post. I identify with you not only because I too am a student and a kinda stay at home dad and student at the moment, but because I too carry a weapon on a daily basis. I do wish to know, however, how this philosophy translates into your view of foreign policy.

I will assume, until you set me straight, that you believe that those who are muggers, rapists, and murderers relinquish their rights to such a means of defense because their first purpose for such an implement is offense. Taking it further, if someone brandishes a weapon, denounces your existence, and promises to use it on you, do you have a right to defend yourself by striking the first blow as an act of defense? Why wouldn't this schema, if you swallow it feathers and all, work in the realm of national defense?

This is my first time reading your blog so please forgive me for asking a stupid question. Also, you might enjoy a site called Warrior Talk Forums. www.warriortalk.com. I think you just might fit right the hell in. I'll check back to see if you've found my inquiry worthy of a response. Thanks.

K

Marko,

Excellent essay! (I came here by way of Kim du Toit's blog)

I hope you don't mind that I published a link to this post?

Thank you for setting this into print!

Addendum to the above:

I misspoke about the origin of my referral to this post. It was not, in fact, Kim.
It was CabinBoy at the WesternRifleShooters blog.

My apologies for the error.

Nicely done

Thank you for a level headed post on the subject.

Several years ago I voted emphatically against the introduction of concealed carry in Ohio. Fortunately I was in the minority. I have since changed my tune and proudly carry just about anywhere I legally can.

I think the real tipping point for me was the shootings at Virginia Tech. Someone... someone... on campus should have been armed and prepared to deal with a murderous situation. It really can happen.

I think that you mean well, but I have to point out that you don't truly understand the situation that you are speaking about...

I think the article is a very nice bit of reasoning.

It is not reasonable to require that every encounter with force be exactly equal. I don't think that is what the piece says. If people are rational, it is only necessary for a predator to face a high probability of lethal consequences.

Most of us are guided by conscience. Those who are not are kept in check by the possibility of consequences such as arrest, conviction, or being shot in self defense.

Marko,
You argument is predicated on your first statement, which is easily refutable. There is at least one other mode of human interaction that involves neither reason nor force. That mode is emotional persuasion which is distinct and irreducible to the other two modes.

Since your premise is false, everything that follows from it is also false.

In fact, you contradict yourself in the second paragraph, where you state that "in a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion." Since you have just stated that human beings can only interact through reason or force, this implies that humans are not civilized. That is a conclusion that I would tend to agree with.

You go on to state that "force has no place as a valid method of social interaction" and that the firearm is the only thing that removes force from the menu. This is also false: the firearm is just another means of force, either expressed or implied. Therefore, firearms, according to you, are not a valid method of social interaction.

Firearms are certainly useful in some situations, and you describe several. All of the scenarios in which it would be helpful to be armed occur in non-civilized societes, i.e., societies in which people use force on each other. As you have already stated, force is not present in civilized society.

The actual logical conclusion of your essay is that guns are NOT civilization, which is inconsistent with the title of your essay.

Since you clearly don't have a grasp of logic or expository writing above the 6th grade level, why don't you just be honest and say...

"I like guns."

It's more defensible, and heck you won't embarass yourself so much.

PS, according to Alberto Gonzales, there is no express right to bear arms in the constitution, because it only says that right cannot be infringed....ohhhh whaddya think about that you conservative morons????

Anonymous,

you could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just saying, "I don't like guns."

By the way, that essay was published, and read by a few ten thousand people outside of the Internet as well. I got paid a tidy sum for the publication, too. But with your superior grasp of logic and composition, I'm sure you have me beat there.

Oh, and I'm not a Conservative. If you'd read through my blog for just five minutes before straining your noggin for a "biting" response, you'd have known that.

Marko,
I notice you made no attempt to rebut my incisive critique of your little essay. Your only repartee is to mention that your essay made you some money. That is irrelevant to the issue of the logical consistency of your arguments. People buy all kinds of junk that is illogical and poorly constructed.

Whether or not I like guns is immaterial and I have presented no information that would allow you to draw any inference on that question.

I encourage you to be honest and say what you really feel and not try to rationalize it with some fancy argument that falls apart upon the slightest scrutiny. I like pornography but would never argue that pornography is the foundation of civilization.

Yes I have read through your blog and question why it exists. My little jab at "conservatives" was more directed at your little circle jerk of commenters who agree with you and praise you for your reasoning power.

I think you should stick to packing bullets and shooting guns and leave the reasoning to the big guys who can think straight.

Such as yourself, presumably?

Look, I don't feel the need to defend my argument to an anonymous poster in the comments section of my own blog. If you'd like to engage in a debate on the logic of my argument, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you via email. (You misunderstand the premise of the essay, for starters.)

That, however, would require you to give up both your anonymity, and the audience.

Markos,
Sure we can debate by email.
Mine is burch@hawaii.edu
I only posted anonymously because it is convenient and I didn't want my inbox filling up with hate mail from a bunch of wingnuts, which is what happened when someone posted one of my articles on the Free Republic.

If I have misunderstood the premise of your argument, by all means set me straight.

I am basically saying that the necessity for guns is an indication of barbarism, not civilization. The more guns are necessary to protect yourself, the more barbaric a society is, not more civilized.

I listed the URL for one of my essays which you are free to critique.

Mr. Burch,

Allow me to quote you:
ohhhh whaddya think about that you conservative morons????

Why on earth would anyone interact with you at all? You're clearly a fanatic, not to mention rude and an ass. Marko makes a mistake in entertaining your behavior in the least. You should troll elsewhere.

I agree that some of the claims in the article are rhetorically over-the-top. When I wear a gun, I still *can* be dealt with by force; by surprise, by a tank, by a bomb, etc. Nor do I feel equal to a car full of people with baseball bats when I have one handgun and a couple of spare mags on me (sure, I'm *much* better off than without the gun). This degree of exaggeration is, I think, obvious to most readers, and is rhetorically devastating to the overall piece.

I think the real effect works like this: predators, whether human or animal, commit frequent attacks, either to live (animals hunting, people who really make their living from crime) or just because that's how they get their kicks (psychos). Any serious injury is likely to end their career (with animal predators, by death; with humans, by death or else being reported by the hospital and identified conclusively by the injury). Changing the odds from 100:1 for the predator down to a mere 10:1 for the predator is going to take that predator out of the population fairly quickly. And that's what arming the "good guys" does, and why increasing the number of armed good guys makes the whole population safer. (Those exact numbers are of course pulled from a convenient orifice.)

Great article, great summary of the essence of civilization: be civilized, or die.

To address quickly a few of the detractors:

"What if the truckload of drunks have guns? they outnumber the lone armed gay!" - The 'truckload of drunks' is a bunch of individuals that, faced with an armed victim, must come to grips with the fact that by attacking, they themselves may soon be dead. The victim may lose, but by taking some with him the survivors may reconsider repeating the act.

"But all these violent uncivilized countries are awash in guns!" - So were most other countries (whatever the popular weapon of the time was), until someone with a vision of civilization put so much hurt on so many thugs that people started deciding that acting civilized would be better for their individual survival.

"But what about nukes/WMDs/etc.?" - You go there, we take you out. See? all civilized again. (And that's exactly what Iran is facing, and presumably what Israel just did to Syria.)

Perhaps it's already been said, but I think the brilliance in this argument is its connection with reality:

"In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion."

Because the reality is that we do not live in a completely moral world, but rather a fallen one. And that means that to ensure your survival and that of others, sometimes you have to fight, because there really is evil out there.

I think the basic premise behind the Liberal argument for gun control relies, instead, on the illusion of a perfectly moral world, and so it falls apart.

Hi Marko

I couldn't find a way of contacting you directly, hence this comment.

I've been stealing some of your stuff and putting it up at http://www.gunownerssa.org. If this bothers you, please let me know (I'm the admin over there).

Thanks!

Wouter

Nice essay, Marko.

Thought you should know that the Boortz radio show misquoted your essay and attributed it to the Major. He got an email from me to correctly attribute the source to you.

Why do I like your essay? Not the subject of it (with which I completely agree,) nor with the subsequent tone of the comments. Simply stated, you state your position immediately, then use the eight Generals and six Sergeants to flesh out your position and defend it.

Oh...the Eight Generals; Research, Reason, Relate, Record, Reflect, Choice, Commitment, and Consequence.

The Six Sergeants (who do all the work, anyway;) who, what, where, when, why, and how.

Why do I mention these? With only a few notable exceptions, all of those posting comments followed them, also. This is a blog where repliers think and use their head for something other than a hat rack.

Many years ago, when I was a cadet at VMI, one of my Brother Rats had a bumper sticker that read: God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal!

Quite good and clear.

To Mr. Burch who wrote "You argument is predicated on your first statement, which is easily refutable. There is at least one other mode of human interaction that involves neither reason nor force. That mode is emotional persuasion which is distinct and irreducible to the other two modes."

Actually, emotional persuasion is a form of force where you use emotion to make me do something I don't want to do. It is not brute physical force like brandishing a baseball bat, but it is a form of force nevertheless.

Formal and informal organizations use shame or dishonor as a method of forcing people to not act outside defined norms. Some enhance life, such as taboos against murder or incest, while others make life more difficult, such as the vagaries of teenage girls.

The writer's initial logic stands unrefuted.

The apparently in-between category several commenters seem to be grasping for is "fraud", which might be characterized as achieving the ends of force by perverting persuasion, appeals to reason, thru deception.

This blog entry is single greatest encapsulation of my own beliefs that I've ever read. Now please get out of my head and stop reading my thoughts. :-)

Bravo, sir.

And this is why I tend to gravitate towards the pro-gun position.

As always, it makes the most sense and there is logical explanation, not to mention unbiased evidence, to validate them all.

I read anti-gun objections and I just have to stop reading in the middle for sanity's sake. Most, if not all, anti-gun blogs are lots of declarations, no logical explanations, no evidence that can be confirmed as unbiased, and a lot of appeals to "emotional logic," as much of a contradiction as that phrase is. - Reinhart

Dude, that was so good it's second only to Ayn Rand and frankly, as far as layman's terms go, it's second to nothing. I don't often add new blogs as Instapundit seems to give me everything I need...but I am adding you after reading that masterpiece.

Came across this by way of Instapundit.

Excellent, well written piece. I'm currently in the process of printing off several copies to distribute to both my friends with concealed carry and my acquaintances who disparage all gun ownership as barbaric and uncivilized. Thank you for stating our collective argument in such an eloquent and poignant way.

It must be nice to live in your world, where the bad guys wear black hats so that they're easily identified. And they respect the rules of chivalry, of course; they'd never shoot you in the back, and they always announce their intent to cause harm. And, of course, they start their approach from a hundred yards away, in a brightly-lit area clear of obstacles and civilians, giving you plenty of time to ready your weapon and aim properly. And your shots always hit, and always incapacitate.

It's funny to see people talk about how they "need" a gun for "self-defense", when they have no idea of what it actually means to use a gun to kill another person in combat. Oh, sure, you can threaten someone; using a gun the way an ape uses a stick, to thrash about and make a scene and show that you're bigger and stronger and scarier than all the other apes. The difference between posturing and combat, though, is the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.

A short and to the point rationale for the owning of a personal firearm...

Good stuff!

Hmm..I'm worried about Anonymous. Not Anonymous numbers eleven, twenty-one and forty-two, but numbers eight, thirty-three and fifty-nine. Unless these are different anonymi from that other anonymous with the multiple personality uhh...dificulties.

As a citizen of Canada let me say that I agree with your post.It's just to dam bad we have so many in this country who have no backbone. A large number of them sit in our federal government.c.j.g.of eroticalee

That's as good an argument for carry rights as I've ever read. Good thinking.

Nor do I feel equal to a car full of people with baseball bats when I have one handgun and a couple of spare mags on me

Actually, you should feel superior ... even without the spare mags ... even with only one bullet.

In a car full of this kind of people, very very rarely there may turn out to be one who is willing to challenge your intention and capability to use your weapon.

There will never be a second. (At least "never" in the sense of "you will never be struck by lightning and win the lottery on the same day"...)

Force or Reason?

No, there are many more ways to "move" someone.

EMOTION: People act out of love, fear, anger, greed, etc. If someone can elicit emotion from me and then direct that motion as they wish, they have moved me using neither reason nor force.

GUILT: This is my favorite (although I guess you could call it an emotion). Why rob someone if you can make them feel so guilty that they GIVE you their money? Show them a starving child. Talk about people without health care. Chastise them for contributing to global warming. Create guilt, and then offer your idea as a absolution to that guilt and you have moved them with neither force nor reason.

Having a gun may protect you from being moved by force, but you must be mentally vigilant against emotion-based assaults. Brains, not guns, will defend you from those.

Brains and guns: Through legislation and public schools, the government is intent on taking away both.

Excellent. I've linked to this.

What's going on here? This is the third time I've tried to post this.

Muggers keep robbing until they have enough money for their immediate needs. If they average $10 per victim and they need $100 for a daily fix, they will rob an average of 10 victims a night.

Assuming a mugger has a 1/4 chance of being neutralized (crippled, killed, taken prisoner) in any confrontation, he has less than a 10% chance of being able to rob 10 people and less than a half percent chance of robbing 20.

(Spreadsheet: "100" in A1, "=A1-(A1*.25)" in A2, copy formula relativistic in cells below.)

A 25% failure rate seems dramatic, but not only does the mugger become more skilled, his prey become warier, and more inclined to move in groups. A predator has a lot of trouble with tunnel vision, and the tunnel vision gets worse as the predator gets tenser, so a bystander has a fair chance of blind siding him with a bullet, and a harmless appearing cripple, or a 10yr old great, great, grand daughter, can pull a trigger.

Make that a 10% failure rate, and he has a 0.07% chance of lasting one week.

The mugger will be more inclined to seek his drug money elsewhere, if he believes all the grannies in a particular neighborhood are armed.

Phillep

What a fine essay this is. I came here with the Instalanche.

In response to halojones fan:

"It's funny to see people talk about how they "need" a gun for "self-defense", when they have no idea of what it actually means to use a gun to kill another person in combat. Oh, sure, you can threaten someone; using a gun the way an ape uses a stick, to thrash about and make a scene and show that you're bigger and stronger and scarier than all the other apes."

You sure do a lot of assuming.

My intent in going armed has never been to posture or scare. I don't carry two extra clips because they will strengthen an argument, or illuminate points in a debate.

On the flip side of my situation are the "monkeys" you describe (by accident, certainly) so well: the predators who show you the knife or the firearm, or the gang that beats you down in your own hallway, elevator, or car stopped at the light...

An armed law abiding citizen will never need a weapon in his normal daily travels as long as he/she doesn't encounter a predator. But when that moment comes there won't be any other option except for force, and for a free citizen to willfully abandon the most personal, most honorable duty of a citizen - their own defense - is tantamount to a crime all by itself.

I'm not a victim. Won't be a helpless victim if I can help it.


Your use of the word "incapacitate" speaks a shelf load toward your preconceptions, misconceptions, and delusions where armed citizenry is concerned. The Zimbabwe Drill isn't intended to incapacitate.
Any adult should understand that employing a firearm is deadly force or they shouldn't carry one. Pulling a weapon where it isn't called for isn't just stupid, hal, it rises to criminal pretty quick... which is why the tens of thousands of permit holders who carry every day somehow escape the notice of the news media - why there aren't "rivers of blood" in the streets.

Well, okay, there is D.C., but NOBODY has a legal firearm there, right?

You would be surprised how many people kill on Monday and go to PTA on Tuesday, hal. Can't say the same for those who die, though. Not quite as easy a trick. I don't plan to have to figure that one out.

Outstanding read! Very well put!

A third method of neutralizing the gun issue is the use of psychotropic drugs and psychotherapy, however, the false science of the mental health and counseling industry with reliance to mind drugs has gone astray with their experiments on society for control and actually created the violence and the guns are being blamed for drug induced thoughts and idologies of psychiatry.

I liked the piece so much I copied it straight to my blog along with one of the comments, I hope its ok.

I added a like to your site as well.

Great piece, well done.
http://lfbuk.blogspot.com/2007/11/right-to-bear-arms-valid-reason.html

Sorry added a "link" not a like lol

ctdonath:
"But what about nukes/WMDs/etc.?" - You go there, we take you out. See? all civilized again. (And that's exactly what Iran is facing, and presumably what Israel just did to Syria.)

Agreed.

Mere ownership of a nuke is exactly equal to pointing a loaded gun at the heads of everyone within 20 miles ... an act of aggression that should cost the perp his life. When some second amendment hating troll hauls out the nuclear strawman, he has auto-failed, and done the equivalent of "godwin"-ing himself.

I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/11/re-why-gun-is-civilization.html

Sensei, I was once able to do all you've described. However, time has taken it's toll on this old body. Until the last decade, I never felt the need for a sidearm, as my skills were adequate. You are right about what you posted. However, the amount of people out there that ARE able to disarm another person are pretty few, comparatively. However, the one thing I think that you've omitted is the fact that most martial arts folks have the mentality to do what's right. That doesn't usually include making the other person shoot themselves.

Your point about the willingness to pull the trigger is a valid one. It has been a source of discussion between a friend and myself. Many people that WE know who carry just don't seem to have what it takes to look another in the eyes and take their life. That is a mentality that people have to develop or convince themselves.

The other thing you omitted was the "Tueller Drill". Some folks that carry a sidearm practice that, a LOT. Situational awareness seems to be a LOT higher in those that carry, too.

Marko, with few exceptions (wording), I think you presented a very valid argument for those of us that carry.

Great post, I totally agree with your points.

This short piece is the intellectual equal of Francisco D'Anconia's "Money is Civilization" speech in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Money and guns are a liberal's enemies because they are afraid of power in another's hands. What they don't realize is that every able-minded adult (and many children) have CHOICE, free will, the most deadly power of all... and that America is built around accommodating freedom, not crushing it.

Very good.

So, it semms that God may have made man but Sam Colt made them equal!

"the naysayers like to point to chaotic, anarchic regions like the middle east (most of it, really, if we're not being diplomatic) and much of africa as counterexamples. and they are, as far as they go. they're societies, even if perhaps sociologically primitive (tribalistic) ones; they're armed; and they're horrible hellholes to be stuck in. but that doesn't mean each and every armed society necessarily devolves into such."

Perhaps it is not the violence of these societies that is the problem. If you look at the core of these societies, they treat certain individuals, minorities or subgroups as "less than human" and discriminate against them. Without firearms as a force equalizer, the societies would likly be much more peacefull. Largely because many of the minority groups in those regions would have ceased to exist (having been exterminated).

The violence in these areas is a testement to firearms as force equalizers, not a condemation of them. Contrary to popular opinion, war (and violence) does serve a usefull purpose. It is the end result when one groups refuses to respect the rights of another group (that has the ability to defend itself).

Marko.. I have NO idea how to leave a link back to this, but I have just used this on my blog... full credit to you of course;-)

Thanks!

As good a writing on this topic as I have ever seen.
I include in that, the writings of Jeff Snyder whose essays I hold in the highest regard.
This will stand the test of time like so few others.

Actually, Hamas is a polite society.
That may sound absurd, however, as a previous poster pointed out about the true latin translation of the word society, Hamas would be a society. The threat Hamas poses is not to it's members (Except for the recruitment of homicide bombers, thru persuasion not force.)
What we see in Africa and other places are merely clashes between societies with different values and an inability to reason or persuade the other society in any manner except by force. Hutu's have no need to fear fellow Hutu's.

Conflicts between societies are traditionally referred to as wars, civil or not so civil, and usually end with the society that is clearly the strongest surviving and dominating or extinguishing the weaker.

When logic and reason fail there can only be the application of controlled violence.


Marko, enjoyed your post. Very well written and thought out.

a new view for us por gun folks, great.
Religion without freedom is Islamic Fundamentalism;
Freedom without religion is Chaos

I would like permission to quote your blog "why the gun is civilization" in our gun club newsletter (print only--not online--although we can include a link to your blog on our Links or Pistol pages as well), and if given, how you would like the citation to be worded.

Thank you!
posted by memerider, memerider@hotmail.com, at the request of my DH, Rob Weaver,
Secretary,
Twelfth Precinct Pistol Club,
www.twelfthprecinct.org

Great article! As my father always said, "I'd rather have a gun and not need one, than need a gun and not have one"!

I'm not a woman, but for women, does carrying a gun actually decrease the chance of being raped and/or being killed while being raped? I wonder because while in theory the gun is the great equalizer, in practice if a rapist grapples with a woman, then he may be stronger than her, and it may be difficult for her to draw so he winds up dead and not her.

Sometimes I wish I were a woman, so I could go walking around bad neighborhoods while armed to the teeth, with a bulletproof vest. The fewer rapists, the better.

I find that if everyone carries guns it might cause an escalation of violence. If I were a crook and all of a sudden everyone is armed, that's not going to stop me from robbing someone. That's just going to make me kill them first. It's the same thing I always say about gangs, drivebys are stupid. If I wanted to kill them, I'd sit down the road somewhere with a high powered rifle and pick them off. Less danger to myself, but the same effect. The other problem is that some people might be more willing to use their gun than others. They may be equal in a physical capacity now, but they probably aren't equal in a mental capacity. Of course I might be the only person who thinks this way...

There's a third reason people choose to go along: ambivalent self-interest. And I'd say it's much more prevalent in civil society than either force or logic.

Excellent essay. I agree 100%.

This article is incredibly well written. I was preparing to write something similar to express the idea that guns are an expression of and means of ensuring civilization, but now I think I'll just link to this article. I only wish I had known about this article when I was debating this very point with co-workers today.

Excellently stated. I referenced you on my own blog:
http://barleywind.blogspot.com/

Well said! I am a divorced female. and all I see is women being attacked even at walmart.I went through the class and did all the things you have to do to carry a handgun. now i never leave home without it....

Excellent Marko. I'll offer this, and I hope that the credit is corret.

Driller


ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D., author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24,
1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.


Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.


Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.


I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, And someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.


"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.


"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed


Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.


But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.


The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.


Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."


Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.


Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?


Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.


Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.


There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.


There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.


Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.


Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.


There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.


If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.


For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.


I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"


Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.


Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"


It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.


Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.


Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."


Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.


And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.


If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa."


This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.


Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

THIS IS A GREAT BLOG!!! CHECK IT OUT!!!
http://conservativechatroom.blogspot.com/

What your essay, and the vast majority of pro-gun essays and arguments always fail to take into consideration are facts. Cold hard facts.

One must compare the US to other first world western nation (ie. Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand).

http://www.nationmaster.com/statistics

On every single violent crime statistic, countries with arms control record less violence than the US. Conversely countries with gun control in some instances also have greater rates of crime.

However on all the gun and murder related statistics, the US is right up there, leading the way.

What does this tell us? Two things.

1. People are going to commit crime, regardless of whether or not the populace is armed, and even if they are armed it doesn't seem to greatly reduce the crimes committed.

2. An armed populace statistically has a much higher rate of murders/manslaughters than that of a non-armed populace.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/enx48

Simple statistics time and again prove beyond a doubt that far from preventing crime, an armed populace encourages crime.

And for what it's worth, I don't believe guns should be illegal at all, but I firmly don't believe that weapons should be allowed and carried in public.

Best article on the subject.

Read the second best at:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55266

The very best article regarding the "Right to Bear Arms" that I have read to date. What I do not understand is the inability of both the masses-r-asses and all forms of government with regard to the phrase in the Bill of Rights, to wit: "SHALL NOT INFRINGE".

Amen!

http://www.humanityovercomes.blogspot.com

I understand the gun furvour however without guns we will/can be free

"without guns we will/can be free"??
In what sense am I free when I have given up self defense? Free to die?
David,
You believe guns should be legal but not legal to use? And you did not explain this obvious contradiction. Statistics show the opposite of what you claim. Did you notice that your points 1 & 2 contradict? Get sober before you post!

Whoa!

Ideally, a gun would put people on equal standing; however, if one person holding the gun is unwilling to use the weapon, it can be taken from them and used against them. In other words, if I were holding a gun on an attacker, I would be handing over my gun to the attacker. I won't use a gun unless it is absolutely life or death.

An Octogenarian with a gun? Oops there goes poor fluffy! OK, that's not fair, but what about the nonagenarian or centenarian with a gun? What about the mentally ill with a gun? What about children with guns? At what age do you start giving out guns, and at what age do you stop?

What test should you give to ensure that the person is mentally competent to handle a gun? Or, that they will only use it in defense? Create a competency test for gun handling and I might be willing to agree with these statements.

Can you see any problems with this scenario now?

It doesn't really eliminate the use of force, it just changes the rules of engagement. No one can just beat you up and take your lunch money. Now they have to shoot you. It eliminates nuisance abuse, but not abuse. Civilization depends on other things.

As to reason vs. force, there are many other channels of human interaction. How about emotion? Trickery? Peer pressure? Disrespect?

I got this brilliant essay un-credited in an email. I published it in my blog as "author unknown". But one of my wonderful readers recognized it as your work. I immediately updated it with a link to your original here.

However, I did leave the original post as, is—full text included. If this is unacceptable to you, please let me know, and I will remove it.

Your post translated to Polish. Good stuff!

WWW.OPENCARRY.ORG

Although you make a good argument for why reasonable people should have guns, you say nothing about unreasonable people with guns.

These are the people that gun control laws are targeting. Unfortunately, reasonable gun owners get caught in the crossfire.

Wow,
I never knew that the only way I could be safe is with a gun by my side. I lived in Europe and no one there walked around with guns. I wonder how they do it. They must be awfully afraid.
I better go down to the local gun shop and start buying the biggest and baddest weapons out there and arm myself to the max. If a .22 caliber gun will make me feel safe, a .44 magnum will make me really safe. How about a machine gun?? That's gotta be super safe.
I don't see how the rest of the world can live so peacefully without all of its citizens having guns on them. Countries like, Norway, Denmark, France, Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Chile, Costa Rica, Switzerland.
Can you believe it?? Switzerland has a policy whereby all its military (all male adults there) must own a gun BUT when they show up for service every year (mandatory 3 weeks per year) they better have that gun in pristine condition and all the bullets that were originally issued. If they're missing one bullet, it's jail time. How can they feel safe if they can't even use their own gun??
I'll go down right now and buy a bunch of guns so that I can feel real safe like all the other countries that don't allow guns.

hmmmmm.... nutcase comes to mind. How bout no guns meaning you dont have to suffer from that small penis problem

Dear Marko,
Your "why the gun is civilization." point of Friday, March 23, 2007 is well argued. I would like to post it to an editorial page.

Thank you

It is our responsibilities, not ourselves, that we should take seriously.
- Peter Ustinov

Marko:
Simply BRILLIANT!

A fantastic post/opinion/essay...you NAME it.

Nice to know there are a lot of us who understand the responsibility attached to owning and carrying a firearm.


Thank you.

B.G.
(Ft Wayne, Indiana)

Response to the Devils Advocate,
you said -
Palestine: Every faction has guns and uses them on every other faction. Not a polite OR safe society.
I say, That if one of the factions did not posess guns they would be obliterated, therefor posessing guns make them equal, Being equal in this situation has consequences, but being unequal would have alot worse and severe consequences, Ty Jack Riley

haha he said, "or a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats." too funny. great points, and i agree, but no matter how many arguments we come up with, the liberals want to take our guns from us because they know that's the ONLY way the can enact full despotism. and that's what they want. LOCK AND LOAD BABY- LOCK AND LOAD.

that david and the others who contradict themselves are simply hysterical bitch liberals with no understanding of anything really. How can people be so stupid as to not be able to understand the single-sentence long second amendment, and then try to imply that they have wisdom to impart to us? Disarming innocent victims makes them susceptible to murder, ergo, gun control is murder, in addition to treason against the constitution. You cannot say you are a patriotic American, then spew garbage about how we really can disarm people. The people who are the problem, are the ones who trample on the rights of others. That means ciminals. The other word for criminals,is democrats. Blago is but one example.... hypocrite who disarms his subjects, while packing heat. HE matters more than those of us who are in fact, equal under the law to him.... Hose all the criminals down with napalm, ignite. Problems solved.

Very Well Said.
Bravo!!!

It is a very eloquent speach, indeed. I was taught at an early age how, properly to handle guns. I shot my first limit of Dove at the age of 7. I shot competition Skeet at 17 and am pretty fair with rifles and pistols, as well. I have never even pointed a real gun at a human, not even unloaded, or jokingly. That is the way I was raised and taught.

I do not think giving everybody the right to bare arms is the right thing to do. There needs to be a certain level of gun control. Those who exhibit the inability to use or carry a firearm responsibly should not be allowed, period. If I carry a firearm, it doesn't stop someone from force. Because I can carry that firearm does not give me the right to shoot a guy in the leg if he raises his fists toward me or threatens me with force. Granted, chances are that in a perfect world that drunk guy would leave me alone, but not necessarily.

What we need is a viable way to keep the guns out of the hands of those who will and intend to use them as and for force. I want to maintain the right to hunt for food responsibly and defend myself and my family against those who mean harm.

Weatherby 08

thre is a 3rd option for dealing with situations, but this 3rd option will negate the purpose of social interaction.
you can leave. it eliminates the interaction and therefore the problem. however, if you leave, where is the civilization?
thank you so much marko. thank you very very much for your blog.
and nay sayers, please consider fully what you are posting and why. there really are only 2 ways of dealing with people. you are for them or you are against them. the manifestations of how you take action on this idea are varied, but as marko pointed out still limited by what we call civilization.
aka, do you like living here?.... do you like living at all?
thank you again marko

Having lived in a society with very few guns (the UK), and a society where every household had a weapon (post war Iraq), my feeling is that more guns do not make for a better society, certainly not a safer society. Weapons may make for a more polite society in areas where violent criminals are in a tiny minority (the US for example) but remove the social compliance to obey the rules most of us are brought up with, and weapons make a bad situation worse.
While I would not argue that an armed populace makes it far harder for a government to abuse a section of the population (as in the WWII German Government oppressing the Jews), more people armed means more arguments settled with weapons, more deaths, more feuds, which leads to more killing. And on, and on and on.
Being armed doesn't stop you from getting shot.
This reminds me of a shooting that happened near my house in Baghdad. A child had been excluded from school because of failing grades, the head teacher talked with the parents, but had the security guard remove the father when he became angry. The father returned later with an AK, killed the security guard (who was armed), and tried to kill the head teacher, who ran away. Now the security guard's family are hunting the killer's family and the school is without a head teacher. Result: one murder, one feud, one person in fear of their life.
Ironically the ongoing violence in Iraq is as a result of the coalition’s failure to disarm the country in the early days
That kind of violence would just not happen in an unarmed society. Being armed didn't stop the security guard getting killed, the playing field was as level as it could get. I think weapons give people a false sense of security, because it doesn't matter how many guns you have if a mugger steps out of the shadows and puts a gun to your head, or you get caught in the crossfire from someone else’s violence.

Absolutely true. The right to bear arms! Even the threat of a concelled finger in a pocket is enough for a mugger to take pause.
I too believe that everyone should have a gun. We should be issued a gun at birth. If we loose it or it accidently goes off in our trembling hands or God forbide it gets stolen, then we are responsible for it. Target practice should be a class requirement in school.
What the hay, lets even give the police a gun, oh yes, and our servicemen, who's job it is to protect and serve.
What about the private citizen taking responsibility of their actions and be aware of risky behavior? Like being out after dark and drinking till all hours and getting mugged in the parking lot? wouldn't that be a clean sweep, drunk or drugged whealding a gun. Yup, sounds like a room sweeper to me. Are we living in the Wild west? Hasn't civilization progressed any in the last 100 years? When adrenalin is pumping thru your veins and your alpha endorphins are screaming run or shoot, what are you going to do? Sure I believe in the right to own as many guns as you want, but shoot appropriately, at the bad guys. Not even our trained law enforcement are accurate 100% of the time and they go to the firing range regularly. We need bigger prizons not bigger guns.
Thanks for letting me say what I have to say, and please remove that nozzle from my nose for annoying some.
Annie Oakley

Very well-put and well-thought. I would like to add two points of my own:

1. Laws don't protect people, people protect people.

2. The only way to be totally "safe" is to live in a completely closed and totally controlled environment, and even then, someone else would dictate to all of us just what the word "safe" means.

Thanks for reading,
Clint C.

Marko, I'm a proud left of center Progressive. And I have to admit, until the advent of Bush, Cheney, and a couple of wholesale stolen national elections, I never thought I'd want to have a gun, but now I get it.

For the first time in my over 60 years I was very concerned about my country's overall direction. I still worry about corporate/military power, even with Obama, but it was BushCo who showed how easily our principals, Constitution and Bill of Rights can be eroded and lost. Now, as a result I will always make sure I can have something squirreled away... not to protect me from the small punks you fear, as much as the big ones. Because I understand that the odds are still in the people's favor as long as we all have the right to keep and bear arms.

Even so, I must add that your well written but simplistic idea of letting everyone wear a gun on city streets just kicks it all up a notch because now you're basically saying "It's everyone for himself." You're letting society and our elected officials off the hook.

Bush has shown us that self policing and "less government" is not the answer. We see that on the streets and in corporate America. Yet after years of seeing how clumsy and or how bad "big" government can be, I still say wiser government (not bigger!) is part of the answer.

Once the basics of food, shelter, healthcare and training/schooling are available, as in Japan and most of Europe, carrying guns will not seem necessary.

Allowing escape from ignorance and basic want goes a long way toward dealing with most of society's problems. And only good and wise government can make that happen.

We moved closer to those goals in the 2008 elections.

The writer of the post forgot a few other ways to get people to do your bidding.

So, his argument fails - and reason or force is definitely not it.

There is for example, seduction, inspiration, hypnotism, all which deal directly with emotion that transcend reason and force together. Who hasn't been seduced by an idea or a feeling and has stood against any threat or any reasoned argument with that feeling? We all have. In fact, those who are motivated soley the threat of violence or reasonableness might be considered inhumanely narrow in their ability to make meaningful life decisions. The fact is, people who live without guns, and are happy at times to be totally irrational - are the people that live life fully and show us all that true civility is not lived at the end of a gun or by threat of physical violence

haha - another comment. Children who are disrespected AS children, inevitably grow into adults who stick at nothing to gain respect from others. As a result, thse adults are fascinated with power, money, violence and death - as these are seen the means to gain the respect they seek. It is so blatantly obvious to me that this post, and those who think this post beautiful somehow, are just such adults who were disrespected as children. I want to reach out to all of you and hug you and tell you you do not need a gun to be respected you do not need to be powerful to be happy, you do not need to fear others or worry so much about who has power and who does not. There are other things to do with you life than worry about such things. Enjoying a fine meal, good company - these things make life worth living and power money prestige phantasmagorical fears of things that do not exist - like the God figure you needlessly fear that is really all the things you wished your father would be but wasn't - haha - you don't need this God and you don't need that gun - and you don't need reason either if truth be told. You need something more something that has been missing from your life from its very beginning - and you don't even know you need it. Here's hoping you find it.

Cheers

Agreeing with the rest of your commenteers - but ready to think here, this topic has been through the finest brains - many many of them - arduously, and these same points will have been considered. Your argument is entirely persuasive - except bearing in mind the absence of including into your equation of human society the spontaneous irrationality of all human beings - now scientific fact. I know that on occasion i will have shot down people in ways they'd never had been prepared to defend against - even if they did have a gun in their holster, and I am a respected - self-respecting human in one of the best Civilizations on Earth. The opening to your argument about two ways to interact between people is also enormously presumptive and arguably an entirely false premise. These important two points aside . . . - Yes very well articulated : )

Marko,

I came back to read this - a refresher.

I also read all the comments for the first time.

I'm simply horrified by the people who want to remake our great Republic in the image of "Japan".

JAPAN?

Those who say such idiotic things clearly have no concept of History.

How did Japan get to be the nation it is today?

Let me keep it simple for you simple people who fear others being armed: YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ARMED.

I have disclosed that I ALWAYS carry to a select few people, and only after knowing them for a long time. Without fail, they've been utterly shocked. They sat beside me for months, rode thousands of miles right beside me in my car... None had ANY idea I was carrying until I chose to tell them.

All the nit-pickers debating "reason" vs. "persuasion" (or worse yet, trying to come up with some other "example" which ultimately - at its' core, is just another form of persuasion) are engaging in the ultimate straw-man: You cannot debate the premise on its merits so resort to minutia to attempt to make yourself feel superior to the author. It's just another form of ad-hominem.

9/11 - and they hysteria which followed - resulted in a big erosion of our rights. I protested them when they happened. Still, we have EVER so much more to fear from Dear Leader and his syncophants than we ever could from "Dubya". This current administration is infinitely more threatening because of its utter disdain for our Constitution.

You who claim otherwise are as blind as those "rabid Bush Supporters" who you disdain.

God help us...

When the Wow Gold wolf finally found the wow gold cheap hole in the chimney he crawled cheap wow gold down and KERSPLASH right into that kettle of water and that was cheapest wow gold the end of his troubles with the big bad wolf.

game4power.
The next day the Buy Wow Goldlittle pig invited hisbuy gold wow mother over . She said "You see it is just as Cheapest wow goldI told you. The way to get along in the world is to do world of warcraft gold things as well as you can." Fortunately for that little pig, he buy cheap wow gold learned that lesson. And he just wow gold lived happily ever after!.

Sorry about this folks, and no offense meant to the original poster, but I don't think the OP is the original author of this essay. I have seen this essay before, long before it was posted here.

"Dave",

I am trying to think of a polite way to say "bullshit", but I'm having trouble.

-T.