Is there a correlation between 2A and military marksmanship?

[Jeff White]

Unfortunately, that seems to pretty much undercut the founding father's major justification for 2A, which was that in order to have a ready fighting force to defend the country, the people should own arms and by implication be practiced with them so that fielding an army would take less time and training (“A well-regulated militia”, with “well-regulated” keeping the 18th century concept of something mechanical in proper working order or calibrated correctly).

The 2d Amendment has nothing to do with the defense of the nation. It has everything to do with making certain that the federal government did not have a monopoly on the tools of coercive force.

Many have commented that military strategy is less concerned with the combat effectiveness of the individual combatant than larger deployment of force.

True then just as it's true now. At the time the 2d Amendment was written marksmanship was mostly irrelevant to military tactics. Soldiers lined up in formation and fired volleys of musket fire at soldiers who were also lined up in formation. Yes, there were sharpshooters but they were used in a combat support role. Contrary to popular belief, the revolutionary war was not won by farmers and merchants who turned out with their Pennsylvania and Kentucky long rifles and picked off the redcoats from long distances. The revolution was won by the Continental Army (with a lot of help from France) using the same tactics other armies were using at the time. The only militarily relevant small arms task was how to load the weapon. Military drill at the time consisted of the motions one had to do to efficiently load the musket and how to march and change the formation from columns to lines and back again. These tactics and the necessary skills to support them didn't change until after the Civil War.

Many have indicated that individual training of “marksman” or “expert” is not absolutely necessary except for Marines or Special Forces.

Marksmanship is only irrelevant in the Air Force and Navy where most of the jobs do not require the use of small arms. Everyone in the Army and Marine Corps must qualify as Marksman in order to graduate from basic training or in the case of the USMC, boot camp. Granted that the rating of Marksman is easy to earn, but it is still a quantitative requirement.

Marksmanship training has made huge advances since the NRA was formed in the late 1800s for the purpose of promoting rifle shooting. At that time, marksmanship training was very rudimentary and the military didn't spend a lot of time and money on it.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Rifle marksmanship must have some value in modern warfare. From what I understand Americans made so many one shot to the head kills in MOUT that there were calls for an investigation to determine if Iraqi prisoners were being murdered.

 

[Jenrick]

So far, a minority of respondents do think there's a correlation between previous gun experience and better marksmanship or combat effectiveness in the armed forces. Unfortunately, that seems to pretty much undercut the founding father's major justification for 2A, which was that in order to have a ready fighting force to defend the country, the people should own arms and by implication be practiced with them so that fielding an army would take less time and training (“A well-regulated militia”, with “well-regulated” keeping the 18th century concept of something mechanical in proper working order or calibrated correctly). It also meant that the federal government could field a force that supplied their own arms, requiring less armament to be supplied by the government.

Even when the Constitution was written, shooting skill had little to do with military prowess. Probably even less then it does now. Von Steuben's molding of the Colonial Army at Valley Forge centered far more around discipline, close order drill, and bayonet work then marksmanship. With the weapons of the time period those were the critical areas for a soldier. Individual marksmanship was not something that mattered for regular troops.

Historically local militias were tasked to drill, as in close order drill, their members to provide a block of troops ready to integrate into the regular battle line. This had nothing to do with shooting prowess.

Honestly a far better requirement for the modern American to stand a chance in helping in a armed conflict would be a fitness requirement or standard. This is the most time consuming process for a new recruit that can't be shortcut. Someone who comes in already in shape has a great advantage over one who isn't in almost every facet of infantry/combat arms work.

-Jenrick

 

[Nom de Forum]

Honestly a far better requirement for the modern American to stand a chance in helping in a armed conflict would be a fitness requirement or standard. This is the most time consuming process for a new recruit that can't be shortcut. Someone who comes in already in shape has a great advantage over one who isn't in almost every facet of infantry/combat arms work.

-Jenrick

Gotta agree with that. I am reminded of a story told to me decades ago that it is easier to train skiers to be good shots than to train shooters to be good skiers for biathlon.

 

[Sol]

2A at least affords the opportunity to handle firearms before joining the military.

That doesn't mean that the past experience with firearms instilled the correct or preffered method of operation with them.

Depends on the individual.

 

[Jeff White]

Gotta agree with that. I am reminded of a story told to me decades ago that it is easier to train skiers to be good shots than to train shooters to be good skiers for biathlon.

That's true, I can shoot but I can't cross country ski well at all despite being assigned to a unit with a Northern warfare mission for a few years.

 

[Jenrick]

Living in Texas I'm not even sure what you people are talking about. Ski'ing is what we do attached to a boat down here. Not sure how you're supposed to do that on dry land.

-Jenrick

 

[EIB0879]

Saw a ski slope at a Boy Scout camp in Oklahoma when my son was in Scouts. Looked like a downhill slip and slide with sprinklers on the side and they threw some Dawn on it every once in a while to make it slippery.

 

[yugorpk]

Hardest part about skiing and shooting is holding onto the rope and the gun when the boat takes off.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Living in Texas I'm not even sure what you people are talking about. Ski'ing is what we do attached to a boat down here. Not sure how you're supposed to do that on dry land.

-Jenrick

Another reason why Arizona is more fun than Texas. We can ski on snow, water, and even the sand dunes out by Yuma. I know what you Texans are going to scream: What about the beach? Well just like you Texans have the Texas Riviera here in Arizona we have Rocky Point, Mexico were everything is cheaper and the water cleaner.



P.S. I really enjoyed the 4 summer months I was stationed at Goodfellow AFB in San Angelo. Some of the friendliest people in the World there. Good Bow Hunting Club too! I had a blast shooting 3Ds while hiking in the boonies.

 

[1911 guy]

Post #53 by Jenrick is an absolute truth. Physical fitness makes every aspect of military life better, easier and when possible, enjoyable.

In my experience, there are three types of shooters who show up to boot camp: Clean slates, bad habits and properly trained.

The properly trained are few and far between and are mostly the result of dads, uncles, grandfathers, etc. passing on actual marksmanship skills.

Pretty much the exact opposite of the bad habit crowd. They have either seen one too many action movie or simply been casually raised around firearms. These folks are often safe enough, but lacking any real skill.

Then there's the clean slates. A veritable blessing to an instructor cadre. Listens, does and pays attention because he has no preconceived notions.

 

[Averageman]

Post #53 by Jenrick is an absolute truth. Physical fitness makes every aspect of military life better, easier and when possible, enjoyable.

In my experience, there are three types of shooters who show up to boot camp: Clean slates, bad habits and properly trained.

The properly trained are few and far between and are mostly the result of dads, uncles, grandfathers, etc. passing on actual marksmanship skills.

Pretty much the exact opposite of the bad habit crowd. They have either seen one too many action movie or simply been casually raised around firearms. These folks are often safe enough, but lacking any real skill.

Then there's the clean slates. A veritable blessing to an instructor cadre. Listens, does and pays attention because he has no preconceived notions.

I was lucky enough to go to a high school that had an NRA sponsored Rifle Club. We met once a week and fired .22 target rifles, but you could only join once a year and you had a very good course of training before you ever pulled a trigger.
Both of our Shop Teachers were our coaches and both were veterans of WWII. I thank them every time I run across a thread like this.
I was well trained and motivated enough to fire Expert on every qualification and later go on to be a Abrams Master Gunner.
The love and skill of shooting has stayed with me my whole life.

 

[MICHAEL T]

America was once known as a country of Riflemen. Of course then. We still believed in the American Flag , 4th of July, and mom's apple pie. Majority of todays generation only believes in texting and what they can get for themselves. From the government for free

 

[Nom de Forum]

America was once known as a country of Riflemen.

Maybe so, but it was a myth not a reality.

 

[Red Wind]

Typical Progressive speak. Ignore it.

"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to take away."

The Doobie Brothers 1978

 

[Red Wind]

We can see the true evidence here. Colonial America was a country of Rifleman.

Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture is a discredited 2000 book by Michael A. Bellesiles on American gun culture. The book is an expansion of a 1996 Journal of American History article that uses falsified research to argue that guns were uncommon during peacetime in the early United States and that a culture of gun ownership arose only much later.

It initially won the prestigious Bancroft Prize, but later became the first book in that prize's history to have its award rescinded. The revocation occurred after Columbia University's Board of Trustees decided that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."[1]

Now , back to Huffpo and the Daily Kos.

 

[Nom de Forum]

We can see the true evidence here. Colonial America was a country of Rifleman.

Now , back to Huffpo and the Daily Kos.

Redwing,

Your ignorance of the level of experience colonial and latter americans had using musket and rifles is typical of a great many Gun Press kool-aid drinkers. We don't need to use discredited lies to support the RKBA or the weapons prowess of american soldiers. This myth of America being a nation of rifleman was known long before the Huffpo, Cos, or Bellesiles existed. The vast majority of men serving in the American military over the last 250 years had little to no experience with rifle marksmanship let alone were they worthy of being labeled a rifleman before military training.

Redwing - Typical Progressive speak. Ignore it.

"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to take away."

The Doobie Brothers 1978

Please stop behaving like a middle-aged adolescent.

 

[Jenrick]

<sigh> You MIGHT be able to make the argument that our country was founded by people who owned a long gun. That they were "rifleman" in the sense that they were expert or even above average marksman, would be VERY difficult prove.

We were an agrarian colony, that was shifting into limited manufacturing. That's actually part of why we ended up revolting. When you farm for a living in an age where everything is man or animal powered, there is not a lot of time to practice and train. Certainly there were folks who made their living with a gun (trappers, professional hunters, etc), but they were a small segment of overall population by the time of the revolution.

In the time period of the revolution, being a "rifleman" wasn't even militarily useful. People only knew how to use their firearms to hunt with really. How useful would your average modern hunter be in a military engagement today? It was the same problem, back then.

Do we have more of a gun culture in our early history then a lot of other nations, sure. BUT that's because we only have a national culture that has existed since firearms existed. Saying Egypt doesn't have a historical gun culture is true, but they've also existed as a sovereign nation for far longer than firearms have been around.

We are far more a nation of explorers, risk takers, immigrants, farmers, inventors, etc. then a nation of rifleman. I don't think that's a bad thing either.

-Jenrick

 

[Red Wind]

Please stop behaving like a middle-aged adolescent._

Just move along, folks. Nothing to see have but more Progressive Juvenile Delinquency.

And it's Red WIND, boyo!

 

[Red Wind]

I gave the evidence in post #66 of your ignorance of the issue. Hide out in a arroyo for a spell and chill out.

Please!

 

[Nom de Forum]

Just move along, folks. Nothing to see have but more Progressive Juvenile Delinquency.

And it's Red WIND, boyo!

I think you are trying to provoke a political brawl to get the thread closed because you don't like what is being discussed. How in the heck can anyone think a disagreement about range safety has anything to do with Progressive or any other type of politics. Red Wind stop breaking political wind in this thread.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I gave the evidence in post #66 of your ignorance of the issue. Hide out in a arroyo for a spell and chill out.

Please!

You gave evidence of one particular example of poor scholarship. You did not give evidence that America has always been a nation of rifleman. BTW, in case you did not know, very few American soldiers carried rifles until the mid-19th century. You cannot be a rifleman if you don't have a rifle. Even in the days of the American frontier very few persons owned rifles. The shotgun was by overwhelming numbers the most owned weapon. America has never been a nation of rifleman. The men who established the N.R.A. after the Civil War were very aware of this.

 

[Walkalong]

OK, we're done. Why can't we discuss subjects without getting personal? What part of we don't insult other members don't we understand? Gee whiz this is frustrating.

 

[Art Eatman]

When the rebellion first began, did all the arms come from the "13 Colonies Arms Manufactory"? Or, maybe, did the colonial forces already have their guns?

Various guerilla-type units seemed to be quite proficient with rifles; Marion the "Swamp Fox", e.g.

Granted, the odds were that most were armed with smooth-bore muskets.

In passing, I'd figure that rural people subsisting in part on game such as deer would be likely to indeed be skilled shooters and be using their own personal guns. Lots of armed people during the pre-revolutionary Indian wars period, as well. Unarmed frontier folks didn't live all that long.