|
Bowling Pins
Needed
If you have or if your know a source for used
bowling pins please contact Tim Major
810.659.0258. Bowling
pins are needed to replace the damaged
pins used in the bowling pin
league.
****************************************************************************************************************************
Work detail - May 10, 2008- Completed
A lot of general
clean-up done
Range
repainted
Lead removed from in back of back
stops
Back stops
oiled
************************************************************************************************************
Some words to
ponder:
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 gay 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.
| 
