Posted on 01/06/2004 3:09:07 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
Monday of this week I was invited to speak before the Asheville Rifle and Pistol Club. As I write this, I have a stack of cards from these folks on the desk next to me. But I won’t use any names. They are all private citizens, and by inviting me to their monthly meeting, they didn’t bargain to see their names in print, or in electrons if you prefer, in a national column.
This is not a matter of secrecy, however. The Club meets monthly in the lecture hall above the Skyland Fire Station in Arden, just outside Asheville. About sixty of their 487 members in good standing (per the report of the Membership Chairman) were in attendance when I was there. They welcome visitors who are interested in gun sports and in good company. And if visitors like what they find, all are welcome to consider joining.
I learned a lot while visiting with these folks, and all of it was positive.
The gentleman who invited me to the meeting sent me directions by e-mail that were more precise than any other set of directions I have ever received other than from computers or from AAA. I complimented him on that, and asked whether he had “experience in dropping bombs or in military attacks.” He replied with three words. He said, “Both. Rapid deployment.” And therein hangs a tale.
Most of the Club members are veterans, and based on his age, his military bearing, and the three words this man used to answer my question, I conclude the following: He is a Vietnam veteran, who was an officer in the ground forces that were carried into combat zones by helicopter when things were hot and heavy and the efficient use of force was a matter of life and death. I did not inquire further, because I know from experience in my family that folks who have been in combat have very personal reasons to limit how much they talk about such things, and I respect that restraint.
I got into a conversation with another member about the nature of military decision-making when on a mission. The gist of it was this: Such decision-making has to be fast, because there isn’t time to sleep on it, ponder the pros and cons, and decide what to do sometime later. Second, such decisions are always made on the basis of partial information, some parts of which might be inaccurate. Third, such decisions have to be correct almost always, because lives are on the line if the leader makes mistakes. And most importantly, a military leader, from the platoon level to the division level, always gives credit for a successful mission to the men and (today) women who carried out the mission, if it was successful. But a good military leader takes personal responsibility if the mission fails.
I have read the short and poignant apology that General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote, to take responsibility for the failure of the D-Day assault on the beaches of France, if it did fail. He had that in his pocket from the moment he ordered the assault to go forward to the point that the beachheads had been taken, and the Allied forces were into the hedgerows and headed deep into France.
That leads to my second point. I have seen this before, but not so concentrated. People who have served honorably in combat tend to succeed in whatever pursuits they follow in the civilian world, once they take off their uniforms for the last time. And this makes logical sense when you consider the skills that are necessary for success in any business or profession in which working with people and overcoming obstacles is required.
The business executive (or executive of a charity, a college, whatever) has to make judgments quickly. The information for that decision will always be imperfect and some of it may be wrong. Lives are not on the line, except in medicine. But the life of the leader’s company or institution is very much on the line. It only takes a few bad decisions to turn a good concept and a worthwhile business into a failure. (Trust me on this; I know these things.) And a good civilian leader takes the blame for failure on his own shoulders, but shares the credit for success with all of his colleagues.
Note how the criteria for being successful in the civilian world are similar to the criteria for success on the battlefield. It is, therefore, no surprise that these men, and these days these women, transfer success in one area to success in the other.
The second reason I was delighted to meet with these people had to do with constitutional law. Many times I have testified before committees of the House, the Senate, and of various state legislatures across the country. By definition, all present on such occasions were interested in constitutional law.
But in the Asheville Rifle and Pistol Club, I found a group of citizens, most of them laymen, who were deeply interested in constitutional law. Of course they were interested in the Second Amendment, the one of the Bill of Rights that guarantees “the right to keep and bear arms.” No court has ever enforced that right the way that the Framers intended, but it is still there in the text, and the fight to establish it in court goes on.
But the interest of these folks in the Constitution did not stop there. I always have a long question and answer period, because it’s better to discuss what the audience wants to hear about than to use all the time to discuss what I think they might be interested in.
These folks asked knowledgeable questions about freedom of speech and of the press, following the Supreme Court’s decision generally upholding Campaign Finance “Reform.” (And on that their conclusion was the same as mine, that the Court’s decision last month was a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and an abomination.)
They asked knowledgeable questions about the presence, or absence, of any basis in the Constitution for Roe v. Wade, the Court’s basic decision about abortion. And they asked knowledgeable questions about the Pledge of Allegiance case currently before the Court as a result of the Ninth Circuit’s decision that the Pledge is unconstitutional because it includes the phrase “under God.”
As readers of these columns well know, constitutional law has been a great passion of my life for decades. But in that time, I have learned that discussions of that subject before groups of laymen strikes most listeners as stupifyingly dull. Not so with the members of this Club. It was both rare and refreshing to be in a room full of citizens who were deeply interested in – and up to speed on – major questions of constitutional law.
What sort of people were present at this meeting? Most were men, though one woman and several children were present. Mind you, we’re not talking here about displaying loaded guns in the presence of children. (I’m thinking here of that alligator handler who fed an alligator a dead chicken from one hand, while holding his young child in the other hand.) I’m certain that some of the people present have taken the training to receive Concealed Carry Permits under North Carolina law. I am certain that some of the people present were carrying handguns. But one of the rules of gun safety and common sense is that you do not display your weapon unless you have a probable reason to use it.
The last thing of interest in the meeting was yet another example of the New York Times getting a story dead wrong. Last week the Times ran an article claiming that the National Rifle Association was “more than one hundred million dollars in debt.” It so happened that a member of the Board of Directors of the NRA was present at this meeting. He said that the audited reports of the NRA showed that it had more than one hundred million dollars in investments in various well-chosen securities which was its endowment.
Jayson Blair (the writer of false stories for the Times) may be gone, but the political bigotry of the editors is alive and well. They are still running stories that are factually false, but comport with the bias of that newspaper. It really is a huge mistake to confuse a hundred million in ASSETS for a hundred million in DEBTS. The average family, sitting around the kitchen table trying to make ends meet, all know the difference between a plus sign and a minus sign. Only sloth, ignorance, or bias can explain why the Times made such a fundamental error in “reporting” on the NRA.
Many people who favor even more than the current 22,000 “gun control” laws (which tend to disarm law-abiding citizens but leave criminals as well-armed as ever) think of those who defend the Second Amendment as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who prefer to shoot first and ask questions later. Because I’ve spent a lot of time on the Internet talking with supporters of the Second Amendment, this last aspect of the members of the Club came as no surprise whatsoever: These are salt of the earth citizens, who are more interested in and more knowledgeable on the Constitution, pound for pound, than any other group of citizens I’ve ever spent time with. They are responsible, they are successful, they are good company.
There are clubs like this all across the country. I heartily recommend that citizens, or reporters, take the time to visit with such clubs and their members. For me, it was an expected pleasure. But for many people with no experience in this subject whatsoever, it could be an eye-opening experience.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.
- 30 -
Please share this with the folks at the Club.
John
Thank you not only for your stirring presentation, but also your willingness to directly answer tough questions from an audience with good reason to mistrust the average politician vying for their confidence and support.
Your report of the meeting is quite accurate as is the description of the hearts of the members. The excellent reception you received indicates you indeed won many friends from those who have never heard of you and that you are on the correct side of the crucial issues.
To the other readers: I highly recommend if you are in the NC 11th District, you arrange a venue where John can speak. You and your group will not be disappointed, and neither will the District if he can get elected. I also recommend you take him out to dinner first, giving him plenty of time to expound not only on the finer points of the law, but on such interesting subjects as the forensic investigation of Pickett's Charge. You will enjoy more than your meal.
John
I look forward to hearing from you.
Cordially,
John / Billybob
When I look at what the Supreme Court has been doing with, and to, the Constitution of late, my answer to your question is yes. I do think that ordinary citizens with decent reading skills CAN to a better job of understanding the plain English of that document, than entirely too many people on the federal benches.
John / Billybob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.