Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Beyond belief.... | Main | Marcus Lutrell addressing NRA convention »

A Rifleman in No Man's Land

Posted by David Hardy · 28 December 2009 09:56 AM

America's First Freedom, January, has my article "A Rifleman in No Man's Land." (It's not in the online edition). I'll post scans of some of the correspondence mentioned in it. The core of the article is that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries there was a fad of military anti-marksmanship, which NRA fought against. The theory was that most riflemen couldn't hit a target anyway (and there were proposals to remove the sights and replace them with a level, the officer calling out the proper elevation!). Marksmanship taught pride and independence, which were the ruination of good discipline.

In World War I, the standard British and French training was to rush home with the bayonet. If men stopped to shoot, they'd go prone, and the advance would stop. The one problem with this approach was that the attackers were butchered and the attack failed. Still this approach won over Sec. of War Newton Baker. American troops were trained in trench fighting with knife and grenade, not with rifles.

NRA's head, Col. William Libby, was a professor at Princeton when President Woodrow Wilson taught there, and they were good friends. General Pershing, sent to Europe to prepare for his troops' arrival, was a serious competitive shooter. The two lobbied President Wilson and Secretary Baker, and in the end won out.

This December 1916 letter from Col. Libby to the President asks for a personal meeting. It's also interesting to illustrate how NRA was then virtually a quasi-government agency. The NRA and the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice share one letterhead.

This letter from Secretary Baker announces that General Pershing has won him over to rifle skills. "This will confirm the opinion that Colonel Libbey expressed to you and, of course, completely upsets the view which I had expressed to you." He announces that soon "a large amount of practice ammunition will be in the hands of the soldiers, and suitable ranges provided for extensive practice." (Note the practice in governmental letters of putting the address at the bottom rather than top of the page).

President Wilson's response to the Secretary notes "It would tickle Colonel Libbey to death if I could show it to him, and it is very generous of you to send it to me."

So the NRA played a major role in WWI -- that of keeping American troops from being butchered. Not a bad historical niche.

UPDATE: I'd urge any reader to cast a vote. It's a vote for Lowell Baeir for Conservationist of the Year. He's a hunter and shooter and life member of NRA and president of Boone & Crockett. He's trailing a fly fisherman by 40+ votes right now, so your aid may be critical, for a good guy. You can cast your vote here. For more info on Lowell, click here.

· NRA

5 Comments | Leave a comment

jnheath | December 28, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply

Chalk one up for Ambrose Burnside!

Historically, the policy choice between creating marksmen or worker-bees has profound implications. It is equivalent to distinguishing between self-acting citizens or peasants; the difference between artisans or laborers. The choice made reveals the role of the people as envisioned by the government.

I wrote about it here, among other places:
http://www.saf.org/journal/15/TheHighestPossibleGenerality.htm

Rich | December 28, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply

Individual marksman was one of the reasons the Longbow in England was so feared by others. Each of those men were practiced and with it could shoot through the armor of the Noblemen at a distance. Meant that the peasants had a advantage over those Noblemen finally.

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | December 28, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply

People today do not understand how great a military officer Black Jack Pershing was. He was a nearly dead old man by WWII, but in Mexico, the Philippines, and France, he was great.

j t bolt | December 28, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply

Well, I'll be damned.

Liberty1 | December 31, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply

voted for Lowell

Leave a comment