“Why The Gun Is Civilization”

This is five years old but topical today. It’s not long but the logic in it is inescapable.

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.


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.”

Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to “Why The Gun Is Civilization”

  1. notamobster says:

    My daughter said that if given the choice between the my freedom of speech and my gun, that I (me not her) would choose my gun, and then say whatever I want because I have a gun. While her idea is correct, I adjusted the phrasing, because it’s important. The way her statement was worded, implies that I would use the force of arms, to say whatever I want.

    The corrected version would show me relying upon the fact that I am secure in my right to say what I want, with the firearm which enables me to remain that way.

    Basically: If given the choice between my free speech and my gun, I choose my gun, because it and only it, protects my right to free speech.

    Liberals see the world differently than we do. They see all interaction as the result of force or compulsion. It’s no wonder that they choose to be guided by the strong hand of government when they don’t believe any human capable of making decisions on their own. Every decision is forced upon them, and thus they rely upon to govern their lives and the lives of others…

  2. serfer62 says:

    The Colt Peacemaker was originally called “The Equalizer” with the poster ad illustration of a women with it holstered.

  3. R.D. Walker says:

  4. R.D. Walker says:

    Alex Jones did not make the case the guns are civilization. He looks like a raving fascist idiot. What a douche. We can win this debate with half our brains tied behind our backs if idiots like Jones don’t lose it for us. Morgan got exactly what he wanted from this clown.

    • BigJimTX says:

      I just watched that and it was painful.

    • Rockheim says:

      The problem isn’t extremist windbags like Jones.. Or like Nugent. The problem is that these are the only kinds of people that the MEDIA will allow on their shows or airwaves.
      Do you think for an instant that anyone capable of a sane, rational, clear, concise argument will be given airtime or be allowed to share a studio or stage with the liberals who are driving the narrative?

      • Jim22 says:

        Yes. Both are outrageous and both are favorites of on-air people who want to paint all gun owners as unbalanced.

        The unconvinced viewer is the one who must be won over. Nugent and Jones are not doing the pro-gun people any favors.

        • notamobster says:

          Piers Morgan chose Alex Jones because he’s a conspiracy-hawking, fear-mongering, d-bag. He’s intellectually inconsistent and sounds like a lunatic. He achieved EXACTLY what he set out to achieve with this interview. The good thing is – only 14 people saw it and they’re already firmly in the liberal camp on gun control.

          Liberals will not intentionally do anything which pushes them out of their comfort zone, or challenges their world view. That’s why they insult & shout-down anyone who starts to do so.

    • ww says:

      RD…have you ever tried to debate anything with a Liberal? They will shout, yell, scream and do most anything they can to over talk you to prevent you from making a point. How many times have we wished the our reps would show some balls in responding to their opponents? How many times have you been discussed with the apparent unwillingness of our side to rebut the verbal bullcrap the liberals broadcast? Jones went on the attack and did an excellent job.

      • locke n load says:

        I’m all for going on the attack ww, but Alex made me cringe. What we know to be true, and that which never gets aired on MSM outlets DOES have to be broadcast, yes.
        But we’re NEVER going to get anywhere pounding people over the head with it. Persuasion is an artform. And making that British fop look foolish doesn’t need an over the top rant. Any one of us could have done a better job of looking reasonable.

  5. locke n load says:

    That little piece is too good not to share. With any luck my squishy-lefty friends will go into conniptions reading it.

    Oh, and Nugent isn’t a loon at all. He’s…enthusiastic. I find most of his arguments not only rational but honest and consistent. The fact that he eats what he kills, feeds his family and friends( and DOZENS of shelters) only adds to my admiration of the guy. Ted can hang at my place anytime.

    • Jim22 says:

      ” He’s…enthusiastic.”

      Yep, he is enthusiastic. You may have missed it a week or so ago. Piers Morgan had Nugent on and Ted went into a rant not unlike Alex Jones’. Nuget told him to, “Suck on my machine gun”, and ,”Kiss my ass”.


      I put the two of them in the same cubbyhole. That’s the group that Morgan is using against the pro-gun people.