15 July 04

From an LEO friend in Norway:

"As is the case in the USA, Norwegian gun laws are a product of our history. From the 14th century to the year 1814, Norway and Denmark were a single nation. In 1814 Norway was 'given' to Sweden in the wake of the Napoleonic wars. That unstable union lasted until 1905, when Norway officially became the independent, sovereign nation that it is today. We were poor then and thus could not afford a standing army. Like you, we relied on a militia, which included all able-bodied citizens. Laws required that each farm supply and equip one soldier, including his arms.

The pivotal event was the Bolshevik Revolution of 1914 in Russia. The Romanovs had close, genetic ties with nearly every other royal family in Europe. The brutish murder of the entire Romanov family at the hands of Communist revolutionaries sent shock waves through every other royal household on the continent. Paranoid royals everywhere waxed delusional and fearfully imagined themselves besieged by angry mobs of their own armed citizens. That is when the concept of 'gun control' really took hold among Western Europe's royals (and modern-day politicians who arrogantly see themselves in the same role) and why private gun ownership is today so highly restricted here. In the minds of cynical politicians, mobs armed with sticks and pitchforks were not nearly as scary as if they were armed with guns. 'Gun control,' wherever it is instituted, is not designed to protect citizens from criminals. It is designed to protect politicians from citizens.

By the way, one inquiry about politics in the USA: Why do you use the term 'liberal' to describe Bolsheviks. Marxists, and Communists? In Norway, 'liberals,' are freedom loving."

Good question!

/John

15 July 04

Uniforms:

As the age of repeating rifles and machine guns dawned upon Western Europe with the coming of the Twentieth Century, it became obvious to forward-thinking military planners that soldiers' uniforms had to lose much of the conspicuousness that so characterized them in previous decades. Bright reds, yellows, blues, and whites, the pride of so many armies and units, needed to give way to dull, drab, even camouflage. The matter was a delicate one, but the British and Germans lead the way, introducing khaki and gray infantry uniforms in the early 1900s. The French, of course, bucked the trend, insisting that brightly colored, gaudy uniforms were "quintessentially Gallic." They paid a terrible price for their shortsightedness at the Marne in 1914.

With the sun shining on their bright colors, French infantrymen could hardly sneak around on the battlefield. Feathered hats, shining breastplates, polished buttons, and brightly colored sashes all provided excellent targets for German rifleman and machine gunners. The Germans took full advantage and annihilated the French (nearly a quarter million in a single battle), particularly the officer corps, who were individually picked off with ease. Once again, the French had to learn the hard way.

Shortsightedness, as illustrated in the foregoing, is a grave issue, even today, and brave men, it seems, always have to pay the price. Military planners who "don't know what they don't know" need to take it upon themselves to become enlightened. Those who "don't want to know what they don't know" need to find something else to do.

/John

15 July 04

Good marks for RRA, from a friend in the Federal System:

"John, I'm sure you're aware that our agency awarded a contract for 2,200 AR-15s to Rock River Arms. These carbines are semi-auto only LAR-15s. To date, 43 of them have been issued. During the mandatory transition course, an agent will fire 1,500 rounds. 50,000 rounds so far, and not a single malfunction, not one. The only addition we make is the D-Ring, which you recommend."

Pretty impressive!

/John