Flight 93

Thanks to Trent, I was reminded of something that I have always considered to be the most important fact about 9/11, yet which is rarely mentioned in these terms:

The only part of the American national security establishment that successfully defended America on 9/11 was the portion of the reserve militia on board Flight 93, acting without orders, without hierarchy, without uniforms or weapons, by spontaneous organization and action.

Most people don’t even know they are part of the reserve militia.

But the genius of the Founders lives on in this legal category, which recognizes that the ultimate responsibility for the defense of the country rests on and in the people. The standing Army, and the organized militia (National Guard) are the main line of defense, but the people are an army in latent form, the ultimate defense force, as any democratic people should be and must be.

This article, entitled The Militia And The Constitution: A Legal History, is very good. it establishes the deep roots of the militia concept, down to the American founding. Buried in the last footnote, it says:

The United States technically continues to have a national “general” militia, consisting of all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. 10 U.S.C. § 311 (West Supp.1989). Likewise, state codes contain provisions establishing general “unorganized” militias. See, e.g., VA. CODE ANN. § 44-1 (Michie Supp.1989). For practical purposes, however, these “organizations” have ceased to play any real role in national defense.

(emphasis added) But look how wrong, how 20th Century, that last comment is. In the era of mass armies, the “practical purposes” of national defense did not have a place for the “reserve militia”. But in an era of scattered, seemingly random, attacks, by terrorists and saboteurs, the only reasonable hope to thwart, contain, defeat and respond to these modern enemies is if the population at large is resilient and mentally and physically prepared — and armed — to respond to the surprise and the initiative of the enemy, as the Flight 93 passengers did. For practical purposes, on 9/11 the “general militia” far from “ceasing” to play a “real role in national defense”, was the only “organization” that successfully played any role in national defense.

(The spontaneous evacution of Manhattan by ship and boat owners was a similar bottom-up response.)

The lessons of 9/11 have been left unlearned for eight years in America.

These lessons contradict most of what people claim to know about America, modernity, and how the world works.

Bottom-up, inductive, spontaneous self-organization is the essence of America.

It works in all fields when it is allowed to do so.

UPDATE: Jim Bennett wrote to remind me of his observation, “The Era of Osama lasted about an hour and a half or so, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty.” Jim’s UPI column appears not to be online (why not?), but Mark Steyn quotes him here. We Anglospherists take the long view on these issues.

Attn: Chicago Area and Southern Wisconsin Shooters

On Aug. 15 & 16 there will be a two-day rifle marksmanship clinic at the Kenosha County Range in Bristol, WI (about 60 miles North of Chicago):

The Appleseed Program is designed to take you from being a simple rifle owner to being a true rifleman. All throughout American history, the rifleman has been defined as a marksman capable of hitting a man-sized target from 500 yards away — no ifs, ands or buts about it. This 500-yard range is traditionally known as “the rifleman’s quarter-mile;” a rifleman can hit just about any target he can see. This skill was particulary evident in the birth of our country, and was the difference in winning the Revolutionary War.

See this web page for more information.

(The Appleseed Program is a project of the Revolutionary War Veterans Association.)

This looks like a fun event!

We Are Number One!

The headline reads “US demand for handguns driving world gun trade.”

More than half of all of the legally imported handguns in the world, and about 43% of the total imported shotguns, are sent to the United States. While international trade in weapons has boomed in the past decade, it is largely fueled by sales in handguns.

Self defense, baby! And I’m a part of it!

Just trying to do what I can to make the world a better place, and expand the global marketplace.

(Cross posted at Hell in a Handbasket.)

Speaking of “Those Dumb Brinks Home Security Commercials”…

Not only are the ads stupid and misleading, they perpetuate the stereotype that, no matter what else is happening, a woman will always drop everything to answer the phone. If someone just broke into your house, and the alarm goes off and you’re trying to figure out what to do, are you going to run to answer the phone if it rings? I’m surprised there hasn’t been more comment on this point, if only for purposes of ridicule.

I understand the commercial rationale behind these ads. They seem to be directed at women who are concerned about being victimized but who don’t like guns and aren’t willing to take other serious measures to protect themselves. They want to feel safe, but either the mere feeling of safety is enough for them or they don’t understand that alarms by themselves do little to protect them. And because most such customers will not be victimized they may conclude that their alarms are worthwhile.

One of the reasons why there are few criminal break-ins of occupied homes in the USA is that many Americans do have real security systems, particularly firearms. If you prefer not to own firearms, which may be a perfectly reasonable choice for you, you still benefit from the likelihood, which most criminals probably understand, that some of your neighbors are armed.

Of course, an argument about the positive externalities conferred on communities by community members who are gun owners would be difficult to convey in a simple-minded TV commercial, and it might not help the alarm company’s business to point it out. But it’s a valid point and that’s a good thing for all of us.

Chicago Tribune on Gun Control

While individuals can have various opinions on the topic of gun control, “independent” or “neutral” journalists should (theoretically) keep an open mind.

Over the years I have pilloried the Chicago Tribune not for being pro-gun control but for NOT EVEN MENTIONING THE LACK OF GUN RIGHTS WHEN DISCUSSING MURDERS. For example, if a woman is gunned down by an ex spouse who violates a protection order, it is never discussed that she doesn’t even have the right to defend herself which may have contributed to her death. Given that Chicago leads the nation in murders on a total basis (even though we are far behind NYC and Los Angeles in population), this is not an irrelevant criterion.

In a recent article by John Kass, one of their columnists, discussing a police officer who was killed in the line of duty

Just two weeks before young Chicago Police Officer Alex Valadez was shot down on the edge of a vacant South Side lot, his alleged killer, Shawn Gaston, was in court, accused of another probation violation on a felony gun charge.

Read more