why the gun is civilization.

Marko posts a great essay on how the gun is what makes us civilized.
It is very interesting and makes very valid points.

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."
Posted by Marko at 7:06 AM

I Don’t Carry a Gun …

Here is a excellent post, on Front Sight, Press by Sid. It is clear, to the point, and 100% spot on the money. I could not agree more.............

Front Sight, Press
Memories, dreams and reflections on guns, the right to keep and bear arms, M1911 pistols, snubnose revolvers, self defense, gun sports and anything else that comes to mind, by Syd, The author of The Sight M1911:

November 13th, 2007 by Syd
"I don’t carry a gun…
… to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me."

Better off with a DUI than a CCW

I don't know if this is just political correctness run amok or shear stupidity by our legislators. It is obvious that the left leaning Ohio newspapers have pushed for this ability to publish lists of CCW holders for no other reason than to stigmatise the evil gun owners. We all need to contact our congressmen and push to get this fixed. It is an abomination of our privicy rights as well as a down right dangerous practice.

By Chad D. Baus
"....The latest examples of this discrimination against those who choose to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms comes direct from Columbus, Ohio, where Senators continue to allow journalists to access the private information about law-abiding citizens who obtain concealed handgun licenseholders and publish it on the Internet. ...the Ohio Supreme Court recently decided that the names of all Ohioans convicted of drunken driving are off-limits to newspapers..... When Ohio's concealed carry law first was enacted, Republican Governor Bob Taft, long a opponent of the legislation, made news by removing the names of all former prison inmates from the state's Web site so that the convicts would not have to be "stigmatized" - this just a few weeks after he had insisted that the names of CHL-holders be given to journalists, who could then go publish them on the Internet...... Mark Drum, a lobbyist for the Ohio FOP, told the Dispatch that "our major concern is the criminal element that's using the Internet for a number of criminal ventures, one of which is to seek retribution on law enforcement."Indeed, and yet the FOP and Senate have overlooked an equally obvious danger to many of these same public officials who have obtained concealed handgun licenses - if they have a CHL, ..... As Attorney General Marc Dann recently issued an opinion addressing the concealed carry law's media access loophole. Among his findings is that there is nothing in the law prohibiting journalists from publishing a CHL-holders' name, date of birth and county of residence once they are given access to it. So in the name of protecting these public employees (and the rest of us), shouldn't SB6 be amended in the House to close the media access loophole once and for all?"

Chad D. Baus is a the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman and Northwest Ohio Chair.

You can use this link to find your local legislators, if don't already know
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/

Lunacy in Ohio

Right here in good old Midwestern Ohio, we get a taste of big city liberal gun ban lunacy of our very own. This is so typical of how the left will try anything to ban guns. I'm not suprised he is promoting this idea, he has no intention of addressing the real problem that is infecting the city, that of gangs and drugs, these are the root of the vast majority of the crime.

"Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson is attempting to bring big-city, liberal gun control to a town near you. HB354, "..."This Bill has nothing to do with addressing the non-existent problem of juveniles walking around with guns and everything to do with banning guns and holding gun owners liable for the criminal acts of third parties."..." Mayor Jackson lamented “We need action now and we are asking for swift enactment of this legislation so that we can begin to take guns out of the hands of our children and make our community safer."..."As soon as Cleveland lays out the cases where “kids” got guns and the city was powerless to act, and as soon as Cleveland demonstrates that “kids” are somehow getting guns legally under current law, then, perhaps, it will be time to make the case for a new law"..." there are hidden pitfalls in this Bill that no one is talking about. First, and most importantly, this Bill is a gun ban. Right now, under current law, someone 18 or older can possess a rifle or shotgun for home defense, with or without another adult present. HB354 completely bans these people, who may now lawfully own a gun, from buying/owning a gun, and these people may not possess a gun, even a long gun, unless under the direct supervision of an adult age 21 or over"..."This clearly violates the Ohio Constitution."..." In this case, Mayor Jackson has not made any justification of the need for this law, so that should be the death of the measure then and there. Beyond this, a review of the provisions show that this is a gun control measure, and like all gun control measures, will only impact the law-abiding."