An Armed Society is a Polite Society

-This post was contributed by Doug, FrictionPoint’s first contributing author.

Forward: I base this discussion on my own personal belief of owning firearms for the reason of personal preservation.

Many individuals will read the following statement and revolt in disgust. I am not one of those. My ideals are based on personal events, opinions, and real life situations. I own many firearms, and i carry them frequently. I mostly equip myself with a Glock 17 and i carry it in a holster on my Hip.

(This is completely LEGAL in Utah, it is called OPEN CARRY, as long as you have the chamber of the pistol empty you can carry it openly. NOTE: The magazine of the gun can be loaded, but you must be 3 Steps away from Firing. 1- Load a Round, 2-Switch off the safety, 3-Fire.)

You do not see this often, but it does  happen, and their are many online communities that are in support of such acts. www.utahconcealedcarry.com has a Forum for Open Carry as well as Concealed carry.

OK, so back to the original topic. An Armed Society is a Polite Society. Lets break this down, if everyone was carrying a gun, people would be less likely to get into aggravated arguements, disputes, tiffs, ect. ect.

The quote is by Robert A Heinlein, and he mentions “Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

The basis of this rests in a few instances, in the times of the “Wild West” just about everyone was armed in some way or another. Disputes happened, but they mostly ended in bloodshed, and they were for good reasons. (for the most part).

Arming citizens is a good idea. Take for instance countries that have banned guns completely or made them extremely hard to reach by honest, law abiding citizens. The only people who will posses guns are NON Law abiding citizens who want to do the UNarmed people harm. Also, think about all the Country leaders who banned guns, what were they trying to accomplish? Communism? Dictatorship? Tyranny? Hilter, Stalin, Castro, they all didn’t allow guns. Here is a perfect example.

“The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power.” In other words, they didn’t need to pass additional laws. The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other “non-citizens.”

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership

If you were about to Tyranize a country such as hilter did, would you allow them to have guns? I think not.

Now assume the United States was COMPLETELY armed. Meaning everyone had a gun, and everyone knew it. How many people would get car jacked? How many peoples houses would get broken into? How many people would get jumped for their wallet?

Who here would want to try a violent crime against someone you knew had a gun?

I rest my case,

Si vis pacem, para bellum (If you wish for peace, prepare for war.)

-Doug