Sign into an existing account

Your most deep-seated brainwashing and program ing happened when you were maybe 4 to 8 years old. “Violence never solves anything.“ Is perhaps the best example. You can only get people to believe that silly stuff if you start beating it into their brain at a very young age.

The fact of the matter is that violence solves everything and has throughout most of human history. The main reasons humans organize into societal groups is so that they can more effectively apply violence through military and police structures.

"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.)

(Personal Sidenote: If violence isn't the answer, it's because you are asking the wrong questions. Bad people with guns can only be stopped by Good people with guns. Having the ability to use force to resist coercive violence also changes the algorithm of violence by raising the "opportunity costs" to the unaffordable. There are two phases to a crime: 1) get the swag, 2) get away with the swag. It simply isn't worth getting into a gunfight with me, because even if you "win" and get the contents of my wallet (a questionable 'victory' at best), but die on the way to the hospital anyway, then what was the point?)

Violence is the Only solution to a tyrannical government.

Yeah violence solves many problems. Had a bully in high school. Caught him beating a weaker kid I knew. Smashed his face, kicked him in the head and gut a few times. Made him cry in front of everyone. He never bullied anyone again. Violence solved the problem of this fag.

To be capable of peace you must first have the capacity for violence. If you do not have the capacity for violence you are not peaceful, you are weak.

The monopoly only works when government meets its obligations.

Think about this for a second. Brainwashing humans into believing the only cross-species language in the history of the world that it solves "nothing" by a sleight of hand thinking.

No one ever believed it did solve anything, but sure as hell was an excellent deterrent from creation of further BS. It is the ultimate "you stop what you are doing this instant" act.

My first high school was pretty rednecky and there were fights at least every week. When I say fight, I don't mean little niggery blowups, but full on, bloody and bruised fights all taking place at a certain place the teachers couldn't find. Even in the halls you could face violence or a punch out of nowhere. It was a low level prison. (There were a few niggers but they were the real country niggers and surprisingly there wasn't really any racial shit. Nigs and humans kept to themselves.)

Years after I would get to the point of a full on fight and get in the guy's face and he'd keep it going. I'm a big guy and some tiny little fuck would still get mouthy. So I would clock him. He would run a fairly good distance away before shouting "WHAT THE FUCK??" like it's a complete surprise. They have never really faced violence and have no idea how to handle it.

That's the scary thing. A whole generation of 'men' that have absolutely no idea what to do if someone wants to beat their ass other than to cower 'why? what are you dooing?'

Yes, what you just told is true. Not the quote you wrote though.
Read the Protocols, first page, third point. Since people with bad instincts are more numerous, then it's way more cost-effective to use force/terror than academic discussion. Although, that breeds orc mindset.

Historically, violence is the most sure solution.
Politics =compromise =negotiation =failure

deleted

"Without violence nothing is ever accomplished in history." - Karl Marx

I advocate the use of force in self defense. It is up to your own moral code to determine what exactly that is and how proactive to be about it.

I find that violence often solves less than cleverness does. But if it really were never able to solve a problem our government wouldn't use it. But then that still begs the question, does government ever solve a problem. They used violence to fight the war on drugs and drugs won.

Violence usually solves a problem 1/8th as effectively as you think it will and has 4 times the cost you assumed it would. But it is used to solve intractable situations. But clever people are able to take the number of situations one would consider intractable down to a third. That still leaves some cases for violence.

A nigger wrote that.
Niggers like Floyd die from dope and acting a fool when attracting police to their behavior.
It's the cops fault the hood can't learn by example?