by Samuel Hux

Military Culture (apparently foreign territory to the NRA, its members and enthusiasts) is very specific about the meaning of the word gun.  Either a machine-gun (for battlefield or on an airplane) or a handgun (pistol or revolver).  .  . or a cannon (as in the field artillery or aboard a Naval vessel.  .  . or casually as in another and comic sense.  I learned early in basic training at Fort Jackson many years ago never to call a rifle a gun.  Platoon sergeant stood before recruits, holding a rifle in both hands, “This is your rifle,” and gesturing toward his penis, “This is your gun.”  And, with proper gestures: “This is for business, and this other is for fun” (or some version of same according to Sarge’s style).  And since the rifle he held was not Grandpa’s hunting rifle but the M1 Garand, it was clear that by “business” he meant “killing.”  That’s what military rifles, whether the M1 or subsequent assault rifles, are for.

This lesson was learned long before I ended my army enlistment as a cadreman at The Infantry School at Fort Benning.  Cadreman?  That means I was one of the enlisted men who supported and trained candidates at “OCS”: Officer Candidate School (Infantry).  I mention this—maybe shamelessly—to establish my “credentials,” so to speak.

Clearly, since those of us who want the NRA put in its place are not talking about machine-guns or handguns or cannons, for god’s sake, we have in mind specifically the kind of military-style assault weapon—whether the AR-15 specifically or any other that “AR-15” has come to stand for in the public mind (!) related to the M16 or AK47—that is on the market for civilians and was used most dramatically and tragically in Uvalde, Texas, to slaughter grammar-school kids, even decapitating some, according to reports, and mutilating little bodies beyond recognition, so lethally powerful is the rifle.  Good God almighty!

I mention all this because of a piece, If Abe Were Prez, that I published a few scant days ago in Iconoclast and the amazing responses I got from NRA-types, whom I shudder to imagine armed with anything beyond a slingshot.  I argued that assault weapons should be banned from sale on the open market, allowed in the hands of military and proper police units only, that merely raising the age limit to 21 merely insured that only full adults would be the future assailants, that Biden should display the guts that Abe Lincoln did when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation by executive order, and, alluding to my military experience, argued that in non-combat situations soldiers did not have the easy access to lethal weapons that a clever civilian psychopath does.

The negative reactions to my piece—when not merely viciously and stupidly insulting—amounted to misleading technical quibbles about weapon types, the lie that assault rifles are hunting rifles, and in the one response that suggested they could-should be used violently, when—defense against criminals aside—it became necessary “in possible defense against a tyrannical government,” which sounds as paranoid as the 1/6/21 insurrectionists, and which really makes one wonder.  .  .  !

One remark by the single responder who seemed at all intelligent may be the most disturbing of all.  This “sportsman” does not own presently an AR-15, but wishes he did because he’d love to shoot it on the rifle range.  (As if a Browning or Mauser hunting rifle were not good enough?  Or perhaps Grandpa’s less accurate old rifle requires too much skill?)  Let me explain something:

I made a big point of the fact that I am an infantry veteran, even though I enlisted too late to finish basic training in time to go into combat, missing that terrible experience by a matter of weeks.   I have wondered, in print, if many “NRA fanatics” have done military service, and have guessed the answer is No, suggesting that most seem like draft-dodgers who like to play with fire-arms.   That may sound insulting, but I do not care if it does.  If the law continues to allow a sportsman to blast a rifle-range target with an assault rifle the law still allows “Uvalde” possibly to happen again.  Is it too much of a sacrifice by the sportsman to give up that doubtfully humane pleasure in order to make the inhumane pleasure of a psychopathic coward less possible?  To indulge a pleasure which, even though legal, endangers others—especially young innocents—is childish and irresponsible.   And despicable.

If you are a military veteran, even one who has not made “the ultimate sacrifice” as the saying goes, you have made a sacrifice for the good of your country nonetheless.  If you are incapable of sacrifice, hugging your selfish pleasures instead, and thereby contributing to the deaths of innocents—no matter how innocent you may continue to feel—you should suffer the just feeling of humiliation.


6 Responses

  1. question for the author regarding this conclusion point, “If you are incapable of sacrifice, hugging your selfish pleasures instead, and thereby contributing to the deaths of innocents—no matter how innocent you may continue to feel—you should suffer the just feeling of humiliation.”

    i assume that the author is suggesting that the thing that is being “hugged” is a gun, right?
    so, here is the question, and since the author is a professor of philosophy i request that the reply be based in logic and not in emotion:

    if a gun owner is quietly sitting at home and obeying the laws and not committing any crimes and not committing any gun crimes in particular, how is that innocent person in any way responsible for the crimes of others? is thedriver of a car motoring his way to work in the morning responsible in any way for a lunatic who drives into a crowd of people on purpose? should the innocent driver on his way to work feel humiliation because a lunatic driver elsewhere, not him, has committed a heinous crime with a vehicle?

    in addition, if the innocent gun owner is sitting at home obeying the laws and not committing any crimes and certainly not committing any gun crimes why should that person feel humiliated?

    1. My name is Sam Hux. I don’t usually respond to the anonymous. Dan who? But I’ll make this exception. Not hugging one’s rifle: hugging one’s pleasure is a metaphor meaning caring only about one’s pleasure when there are things more important. And I am not talking about innocent gun owners but about people who approve of civilians purchasing weapons that only the military should have access to. OK?

  2. Don’t hold your breath, Dan. I haven’t yet seen this author engage with those who disagree with him in any productive manner ever. He heaps insults and mocks readers with apparent glee, as if being superior at nastiness and smarminess means he’s won the would-be debate.

  3. Professor Hux emotes but doesn’t think.
    Professor Hux makes false equivalencies … The Armalite Rifle format is to an “assault rifle” as a .22 is to a Davy Crockett Mortar.
    Professor Hux clearly does not want to hear or know truth.
    Truth, defined as verifiable fact, means accepting the reality that since 1966 there have been 13 mass school shooting incidents in the US, with a total body count of 170 humans…if using the FBI’s definition of a mass shooting: four or more people killed by gunfire at a single location.
    But there are other kinds of mass killings such as the still-unexplained 2017 Law Vegas strip incident that left 60 people dead, or the granddaddy of all mass shootings — the 1966 Texas Bell Tower shooting that killed 31.
    There have been others, too, but in total these mon-school shooting events kill about 400 people per decade since 2000.
    So, in total, we’re looking at about 1,100 killed by mass casualty event gunfire in just over half a century
    In a nation with a population that grew from about 250-million in the mid-1960s to more than 330-million today, that number (1100) isn’t even a rounding error.
    Yes, each life lost is a tragedy … Lives cut off far too early.
    But … and it’s a big “but,” … more people die every year from blunt instruments such as hammers & bats, than by all types of rifles & shotguns combined.
    More people are stabbed & sliced to death every year than are killed by rifle fire…of any & all kinds combined
    Professor Hux appears to believe the weapon is the problem. Not so, dear Professor. The problem is mental illness, and is clearly the result of the Liberal efforts that destroyed what mental health treatment system existed in the US prior to the mid-1970s .
    If anyone should feel shame or guilt over these sad incidents it is the Liberal activists whose grandiose pretensions at being “humane” caused tens of thousands of treatable mentally ill to be thrown out, in to the streets.
    It is Liberals who created mass homelessness.
    It is Liberals who make referring any person to a mental health professional a career risky act.
    So these kids stew in their worst juices until they explode in fits of violence… By gun, by hammer or bat or blade.
    Shame on the inhumane & heartless Left.

    1. Prof. Hux, traditionalist conservative by the way, wonders if Mr. Coles would be insensitive enough to share these irrelevant “thoughts” with the parents in Uvalde, Texas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

New English Review Press is a priceless cultural institution.
                              — Bruce Bawer

Order here or wherever books are sold.

The perfect gift for the history lover in your life. Order on Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Order on Amazon or Amazon UK or wherever books are sold

Order at Amazon, Amazon UK, or wherever books are sold. 

Order at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Available at Amazon US, Amazon UK or wherever books are sold.

Send this to a friend