“The Gun Is Civilization” – Maj. L. Caudill

This is one of the most original and well-argued articles I’ve seen. Check it out.

“The Gun Is Civilization”
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.  If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Assault Swords


I was teaching bo (a six-foot staff) this morning and mentioned to my students that most of the wooden weapons martial artists train with today were created by ancient people because their governments forbade them from having weapons with sharp points and edges (swords, spears, knives). I then had to reflect on the insanity of some of the arguments I’ve heard over this gun debate.

I’ve heard people say that hundreds of years ago when the constitution was written the guns were muskets. The “assault weapons” we have today were never in the minds of the founding fathers when they wrote the second amendment.

Tell that to the ancient Asian cultures who weren’t allowed to own any swords or knives! Or explain that to the ancient Israelites who weren’t even allowed to have sharp farming implements!

This has nothing to do with how dangerous the weapon is because no weapon is truly harmful in the hands of the right people. The real issue is “Who gets to have the swords?”

Don’t buy into the propaganda that the clip size, children’s safety, or “assault” weapons are the issue. Even when there were no guns on the entire planet, dictatorial governments tried to strip their people of the strongest weapons they had . . . not to protect the people, but to control them.

We’ve seen this trick before. When will we start learning from history?


“To My Gay Angry Friend” – Joe Dallas


In the midst of name calling, chikin dinners, protesters, politicians, waffle fries, and media hype, Joe Dallas has written a beautifully sympathetic letter to a Chick-fil-A protester. In his article he speaks freely of the conversation he wished he could have with the “calm, angry and unfazed” beacon of the gay cause.

What I like most about this letter is he got it right! Mr. Dallas writes,

So put yourself in our shoes. If the owner of a restaurant chain said he favored same sex marriage, and in response a city councilman and two mayors of major metropolitan cities committed themselves to shutting his business down, how would you feel? Wouldn’t you be inclined to say that, wherever a business owner stands on homosexuality, city and state officials have no right trying to shut him down? Wouldn’t you feel you’d just time- warped into some totalitarian regime where the wrong words or beliefs could bring you ruin?

“So would we. I don’t think we turned out by the thousands to support Chick-fil-A just because of its owner’s positions, but because elected officials tried to punish him for those positions. That’s more than disagreement; it smacks of government intrusion. And believe me, if government officials try to shut a business down because of its pro-gay position, I’ll be there for them, too.”

His observations are spot-on and Christ-honoring.

Listen, folks. There are many Christians who are saying that true God-lovers wouldn’t have participated in supporting Chick-fil-A. I disagree with that statement on multiple levels for multiple reasons, but for now all I want to do is agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Dallas. This demonstration was right and good in God’s eyes as long as God’s children did it for the right reasons in the right way.

Thank you, Joe Dallas, for putting it so lovingly.

Indonesian Hatred

Indonesian Hatred

The Code stipulates five years in prison for religious defamation, two-and-a-half years for hate speech, and one year for printing texts liable to criminal charges.”

Indonesia has never been known for its religious freedom. It’s never been known for tolerance. And it’s never been known for being a country with happy, prosperous people. I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush, but none of the above are stereotypical of Indonesia. People don’t leave second world countries and move to Indonesia with dreams of a better life.

So why is America (the greatest country on the planet) so dead-set on becoming like Indonesia in their ridiculous hate-speech legislation?

The above quote levies punishment for speaking against someone’s religion. Historically, hate speech legislation is illegal in America because it infringes on our freedom of speech. Words hurt only when the listener allows them too. Words are not like “sticks and stones.” If my fist hits someone’s face without legal allowances, I have undeniably encroached on their rights. My right to swing my arm ends where their face begins. But words don’t work that way.

Words hurt us because we choose to value them, not because they are inherently hurtful.” Click To Tweet


I must be painfully honest here, and a number of you probably won’t like this, but the truth is that hate speech legislation is for wimps.

Hate speech legislation is for cry-babies.

Hate speech legislation is for people who like being victims.

Someone, please explain to me one good reason to make speaking out against people illegal? If you take “hate speech” to its logical conclusion, then anything that makes anyone feel bad would be hate speech. I can’t tell you I don’t like your shirt. I can’t tell an employee that they’re a poor worker. I can’t tell someone they’re lifestyle is killing them. I can’t tell them their parenting is hurting the family structure. I can’t tell them that smoking is a bad idea. I can’t tell someone they’re a sinner in need of God’s saving love and grace. I can’t tell people the most important things in life simply because they may not like it.

As Americans, we cannot allow our government (or anyone else) to persuade us that speaking out against something we don’t like/believe is wrong. Hate speech legislation is an infringement on our country’s liberty. If someone hates me, they are entitled to post that in the comments. On the same hand, I’m entitled to delete that comment. I’m not going to cry myself to sleep, lose “self-esteem,” or questions my beliefs because someone doesn’t like me.

The Lord promises me that people are going to hate me in this life because they hated Him. Hatred aimed toward me doesn’t bother me. And I don’t want the government to throw someone in jail who speaks out against what I believe in.

Thank you Indonesia for showing us exactly what not to do.