|
|
Jeff Cooper
Thoughts from the Gunners' Guru
Having grown up with the idea that there should be at least a half-dozen guns in every well-organized household, it has come as something of a shock to us to discover that in frontier America general poverty dictated only one firearm per household. That was the flintlock hanging in honor above the fireplace. This meant that when a boy ran off to war he could not bring along a gun since his family needed that at the homestead. It is therefore possible to assume that while guns were the common experience of all young Americans (at least those who lived outside the city limits), there were never very many guns, and even if the young men could "spring to arms overnight," there could not be anything for them to spring to. Thus getting a force together, in either the Revolutionary War or the Civil War, posed a serious problem in logistics.
This pattern was repeated to a certain extent in the Boer War, wherein every Boer had his rifle but usually there was only one per household, and large numbers of 1896 Mausers had to be fed into Southern Africa before they could proceed with the war. The Boer, however, was used to rifle shooting from as early as he could heft a rifle. This gave him a decisive advantage over the English soldier who had never touched a rifle until he put on the uniform. The English won that one as, of course, they were destined to do, but they took a nasty pasting in the attempt. "God and the Mauser" was Kruger's war cry, and it established that, while armies may defeat farmers, they cannot in the long run overcome them. The armed citizen was and remains the only guarantor of political liberty.
As the argument about the meaning of the Second Amendment continues, one is at a loss to determine whether we are dealing here with simple stupidity or willful wickedness. Certainly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" cannot be simply misunderstood. Our adversaries suggest that "the people" does not really mean the people, but rather the sovereign states. It is hard to take such ninnyhammers seriously, but they are there, and they are noisy, and they must be taken seriously. When they try to connect a nasty school shooting to constitutional law, they not only do not make sense, but they know they do not make sense. Gives me to ponder about the utility of the democratic process. As I recall, Socrates wondered about that too, but I was much younger then, and I might have misunderstood what he said.
Amongst the new offerings in major caliber service pistols we notice a fascination with grip safeties. The grip safety was a poor idea when Browning first dreamed it up, and as you know he dropped it in 1935. It is not only useless, but somewhat dangerous, but it does satisfy a sort of nervous craving for mechanical safeties which seems to be the mood of the times. Consider the "safety" on the trigger, as in the Glock and the Vektor. This is called a safety, but if you press the trigger the gun fires. This suggests stamping the combination on the safe door. It is obvious to anyone who thinks about it that in handling a firearm, safety rides between the ears, rather than between the hands. You cannot make a gun safe. You can, however, make a shooter safe, but in the Age of Technological Irresponsibility, we seek to make up for human shortcomings by means of gadgetry, which, of course, is fallible.
The gun industry, like other industries, is distressingly enslaved to faddism. The lemming principle prevails.
Many Americans do not realize that under Article VI of the Constitution, a treaty made with a sovereign power may supersede the Constitution in relevant particulars. As you know, the current head of the UN is vigorously advancing the notion that the personal ownership of firearms should be prohibited worldwide. The UN is, of course, a supranational organization and has no interest in national sovereignty. In fact, if the UN were effective, it would do away with national sovereignty. In this matter the United States stands alone in its support of personal firearms. We are surrounded by many score two-bit nations who have no interest in either our sovereignty or theirs. Those nations have no interest in the personal ownership of firearms and would swamp us if the matter were put to a vote. Thus the United Nations should be considered a force hostile to the best interests of the United States and treaties with it should be regarded with suspicion. We were quite right to reject the Kyoto Protocol, but that simply infuriates the great majority of the socialist nations which make up the UN. This is a point to bear in mind. The UN is not our friend. The United States has few friends in the world. Your taxes support these people in large measure and it is very hard to forgive someone who has done you a favor. The fact that we were thrown off the UN Commission on Civil Rights is a perfect example of this. The UN Commission on Civil Rights is composed of nations whose idea of civil rights approximates that of the weasel in the hen house. Our present administration is unlikely to be hoodwinked by these people, but until we regain control of the Senate we are by no means safe. God save the Republic!
To surrender one's personal weapon is to invite disaster. This has been obvious for so long and so often that there is probably a Greek word for the practice. If called upon to give up your gun by a superior force, you are faced with an evil choice, but if you retain it you at least retain your dignity. One thinks of the Fancher train, wherein the emigrants were assured that if they dropped their guns they would not be harmed. One thinks of Piet Retief, who was told that he and his people could not enter the presence of the king in possession of their arms. One thinks of the German Jews under Hitler - and one thinks of British street crime today.
In contrast one thinks of Hartmann, the all time high scoring fighter-pilot who, when asked to leave his pistol outside when being awarded his medal by Hitler, declaimed that "If the Führer doesn't trust me, I do not want his medal."
"Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it."
We must face the fact that the pistol is an emergency device. Very few people - even the most adventurous - run into a need to shoot to save their lives. Statistically, there is no real need to shoot a pistol, only to have a pistol, since the mere possession of a sound firearm is nearly always enough to stop a fight. However, one's state of mind dominates the scene here. The man who is carrying a pistol and is fully aware of his ability to use it well, can solve the problem. A higher degree of practical marksmanship is an essential tool to the proper combat mind-set. If you know that you have the upper hand, you almost always do have it.
The Brits have succeeded in disarming themselves, resulting in the predictable explosion of street crime. In Britain today, a citizen who fights back to protect himself from assault by a goblin is in serious trouble, but the goblin is not. It is hard to believe, but the socialist solution to this situation is to increase the severity of the penalties for self-defense. It is proposed that what used to get you five years in the slammer should now get you ten. So much for the "land of hope and glory, mother of the free."
I wonder if anyone can remember that an essential feature of fairgrounds and amusement parks in pre-war America was a shooting gallery. That was a place where young men could show off to their dates by popping metal reactive targets, stationary and in motion, with a 22 rifle, and thereby to win toy animals. I would not be surprised to learn that there are people today who simply cannot believe that such a thing ever existed, but we were better people then, in various ways. Much has happened to us since then.
Note that the city council of Columbus, Ohio, has now banned the personal use or ownership of semi-automatic pistols. Presumably revolvers are okay. Apparently being bright is not a qualification for public office in Columbus. We note that there are some pretty good revolvers now available on the market. Any dastardly thing a self-loading pistol can do (quite on its own accord), a revolver can do just about as well (or as badly), depending upon what public office you hold. It is behavior like this which shakes one's faith in democracy.
These city council meetings must be quite something to attend!
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence."
-- Charles Austin Beard
It was once explained to us by Elden Carl (The Great) that the improper
procedure when attacked by a savage dog is to ram your pistol right down his
throat. You haven't got a pistol? Well, shucks! I guess you will just have to
call 911.
We had a case her in Prescott which showed again the inadequacy of the
Parabellum cartridge. The creep in this case was shot once dead center and once
again in the arm, but was able to recover and drive off at high speed resulting
in a lethal crash some miles away. We cannot prove that a major caliber hit
similarly placed would have stopped the fight on the spot, but the odds are
certainly in favor of it.
"He who goes unarmed in paradise had better be sure that that is where he is."
We were delighted with an anecdote reported to us by family member Sam Mantooth.
It seems that a Finnish veteran of the Russian war was being interviewed about
his experiences of those days
Q: "You saw a lot of infantry action?"
A: "Much."
Q: "Did you ever engage in a fire fight?"
A: "Often."
Q: "Did you ever have occasion to shoot at a human being?"
A: "Yes, several times."
Q: "Did you find this difficult."
A: "Yes. You see they tended to duck, to get behind cover, and to run in
zigzag."
Inspired as we were by the ceremonies connected with the passing of Joe Foss,
our mighty American her, we had occasion to browse once again over his
autobiography. In classic fashion, his adolescent rite of passage was the
acquisition of his own personal .22 and to be able to pack it afield
unsupervised. He did not pass the test. One of those ceramic power-line
insulators proved too much of a temptation, and he splattered it. As a penalty,
he was grounded for one year. That brand-new .22, after cleaning and greasing,
was to sit in Daddy's closet for 365 days.
The concept of personal responsibility was driven permanently home. Can you
remember how long a year was when you were 14? This punishment was vastly more
severe than any sort of flogging, and its element in character formation cannot
be overemphasized. Every aspect of this tale illustrates the essence of the
American rural tradition.
The United States of America constitute the last best hope of Earth. The
National Rifle Association of America is the firmest and most dedicated
guarantor of liberty in the United States. We have only 4 million members, where
we should have 40 million more. Thus it behooves every member to recruit himself
one new member at least every year.
In the state of Vermont (population 570,000) there are effectively no
restrictions on personal arms. In 1989, the murder rate in Vermont was 1.9 per
100,000.
In South Dakota (population 660,000), where personal weapons are flatly
prohibited (in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution), the murder rate was
71.9 per 100,000.
When rats are squeezed into dense communities they eat their young.
We need not preach about this. Let each draw his own conclusions.
It has been suggested that we have now established our public schools as safe
zones for felons who can be relatively sure that no one on campus is going to
shoot back.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
|
|
|
