Answer to why I carry a gun

[Kimba]

Received in an e-mail from a friend. I might print out a few and hand them out like the gun right flyers.


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 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.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

[Pa. Patriot]

I carry a gun because I'm bitter.

Much simpler.

[Tsgtbob]

I carry a gun because a club is too clumsy, a sword is too unweildy, and a nuclear warhead is too bulky.

[Mtbkski]

Nice post. I copied it and sent it on thru my e-mail list. It should be getting around pretty good.

My favorite one was:

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

[renegadephoenix]

i carry a gun
because a police officer is to big to fit in my holster.

[CommonHighrise]

I carry a gun because life is violent, dangerous, and uncaring. Anyone who doubts this in any way is lying to themselves.

No matter how many reactionary laws are put in the books. No matter how well funded the police are. No matter how far you go to disarm the populace, life doesn’t change.

Take away guns entirely; people will still use knives and bats. Take those away, and they will break branches off of trees, smash glass bottles for sharp edges, use pieces of scrap metal. Take all those away, and they will still use their bare hands and feet. After all, that is how we first began being violent.

I carry a gun because, unlike all the aforementioned weapons, it does not rely on how strong the user is. It is the only way a 75-year-old woman can be held equal to a 23-year-old male. It eliminates the supremacy of physical violence in an altercation.

Does it eliminate physical violence entirely? No, of course not. As state above, the violence of life does not, and will not change. All it will do is place all parties on an equal level when that violence is entered into, as at some point, to some degree, it will be.

What this does, on the broader spectrum of society, if the majority of people were open about being an armed populace, that would place the knowledge into the minds of the violent predators that they no longer hold supremacy over the physically weak. If able, they will choose a different, weaker populace to prey upon, where physical supremacy can be an advantage.

But what if there is nowhere else the predators can go? What if all the populaces are equally armed? Those opposing the armament of citizens like to promise that the predators will only become more desperate, more violent. While there is no steadfast guarantee that this will be the case (as no vast populace has ever been held physically equal in the history of mankind), the alternative is plainly propagation of the same reoccurring situation; the strong preying on the weak.

That situation is pleasant to those who wish to disarm the populace through power, either political or military, as it has been done throughout human history. This provides a segregated situation, a buffer class of people who are not themselves predators, yet are easier prey to the predators than the ones who control the force to disarm the populace. By giving the predators prey to feed upon, those in power can keep the predators from turning on them.

This situation is commonly referred to as sheep, dogs, and wolves. Unarmed populaces are considered the sheep, the weakest of the three, but the largest in number. The wolves are the strongest, but the fewest, and the dogs fall in the middle of both. In order to keep the stronger wolves from killing them, the dogs allow a few sacrificial sheep to be eaten. Since the sheep are weaker than the dogs, the wolves go after them rather than the dogs. The wolves are pacified, the dogs are kept alive, and at the cost of only a few unlucky sheep, is the whole flock protected.

What happens to this scenario when you arm a populace is the sheep start becoming dogs. When all the sheep are dogs, there is no difference on whom the wolves prey on. This is the motivation for those in power to keep the main populace from becoming armed.

To sum it up, I carry a gun because I don’t want to become one of those few unlucky sheep. Even if we are all preyed upon equally as dogs, at least we have fangs to defend ourselves.

CommonandtheladiesloveitHighrise