MyExWifeIsAWhore.com

Found this lurking around on the web, it’s a fantastic read!

“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 a [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.)

“Child molestation”, “slaying of two police officers”, “woman was found dead”, “couple found slain”.
source, source, source, source

Am I listing nightmarish conditions?  Maybe remembering something I saw on the news in some war-torn country last night?  No, I’m reading the headlines from my neighborhood’s news paper.  And those are just from today’s news.

Certainly seemed like a nice enough neighborhood when I moved here.  But, like just about every other neighborhood in Florida, the seams are beginning to burst.  A reasonably low cost of living, combined with the unusual mixing of high-cost and low-cost housing housing in close proximity seems to have attracted the best and worst of society.

Being originally from the north, I noticed the strangeness of a $350,000 home next door to rent controlled apartments quickly.  But I don’t think the reality of the implications really set in until I bought a house.

Last week, in an affluent neighborhood just down the street from mine, a 22 year old girl was shot in her garage over some money she owed to her drug dealer.  The house she was living in (presumably with her parents) is both larger and newer than mine.  There is a trailer park not one mile from my front door where 9 arrests have been made in the last 6 months.  NINE arrests!

Maybe it’s time to think about renting again..  You know, in another state, or possibly a nice war-torn country.

You are a “foo-needer”.  Don’t bother Googleing that, the word doesn’t exist.

It exists in the context of this post more to make a point, than to give a vocabulary lesson or coin a new meme.

See, what I just did there was call you a word of which I don’t know the definition.  And that’s what anyone who calls Obama a Socialist or a Marxist is doing.

Now, I’m not that big an Obama fan either, I think he’s breaking the backs of Americans all across the country to support his rich political and corporate buddies.  But, that’s the state of America regardless of who’s been in control for the past 50 years.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s spend 10 seconds and look at the validity of the name calling.

First, do yourself a favor and research Socialism and Marxism.  I recommend this for two reasons:

1. You’ll better understand what they are, and how that fits into this blog post.
2. I know for a fact that if you’re one of the people out there calling Obama a Socialist, you clearly don’t know what the fuck that is.

Yeah, I just called you a an idiot.  That just happened.

Even the people who are publicly part of the US Socialist movement say he’s not a Socialist.

If you want to call him a stack of four-letter words, I encourage you to do so.  Maybe you don’t like him because he’s tall, or because he’s black, or because his name starts with an “O”.  Whatever, just don’t read stupid shit off of angry protesters’ signs because you are too stupid or lazy (or both) to do YOUR OWN RESEARCH and figure out what to call him on YOUR OWN.

So, put away the pitchfork until you have a reason to wave it around, you fucking moron.

Here’s an interesting twist you’re not likely to see again any time soon:

The news is atwitter with Sarah Palin’s recent video in which, as I’m sure you already know, she uses the phrase “blood libel” which has everyone and their mother jumping up and down about antisemitism and racism (or maybe she’s an aspiring candidate for Miss America).

Firstly, let’s get into Palin’s head.  OK, now that we’re back from that 2 second examination we can only come to one conclusion.  Palin is an idiot,  at best.  To even begin to believe that her little video speech was anything but reading a poorly prepared statement would be ridiculous.  Racist?  Maybe.  Antisemitic?  Perhaps.  But intelligent mastermind behind a conspiracy to have a congresswoman murdered?  Um, no.

The attempted murder of  Gabrielle Giffords was tragic, and carried out by a pretty “unusual” guy with a history of mental illness.  It is safe to say, I think, that an intended targeting for assassination by the Republican party, the Tea Party, or Palin herself is unfounded, and just plain stupid.

Far be it for me to defend a politician, especially this one, but credit is only due where it is deserved and she deserves none of it.

Seriously guys, let’s center on the important issues and stop fluffing the news with bullshit.