Congratulations to Jeff the Baptist

...on bagging his first deer.

First Rifle, II

James R. Rummel, a major gunblogger, kindly posted a response to my first rifle bleg. Thanks!

James is a professional personal defense instructor and his blog is filled with useful advice about keeping out of trouble. He teaches that much of self defense isn't gunslinging, but preventative measures, like having a door sturdy enough to slow down home invaders. Check it out.

First Rifle

Several experienced riflemen, such as Jeff the Baptist, have advised me to get a .22 as my first gun, instead of the Marlin .357 that had been my plan. I'm not thrilled about it, as I will barely be able to afford a first gun, let alone a second. But their arguments make sense, so I will heed them. Perhaps later I will be able to afford something heavier, such as a Remington 700 BDL.

I'm considering the Winchester Wildcat, but I know that the chances of walking into a gun store and finding a used model might not be good. So I'd like to know what knowledgeable readers think that I should look for in a used .22.

Language Has No Objective Reality

Kevin Baker at The Smallest Minority is presently in a debate with another writer about gun rights and the meaning of the Second Amendment. Although I think that Kevin and I will largely agree about the individual right to keep and bear arms, we seem to approach it from somewhat different directions.

His opponent strangely asserts that the original intent of the amendment was not to protect that individual right, but I'm not going to get into that right now. Kevin responds:

Obviously, the Founders didn't all hold one homogeneous intent that became each part of the Constitution, instead they wrote law, and in law it isn't the intent that matters, what matters is what the words say and how they are understood at the time they were written. This is called "Original Understanding Theory." There is a third, "Original Public Meaning." All three theories carry the moniker of "Originalism," but Original Understanding is the theory under which law is supposed to function, and it is the one most accepted by "Originalists" on the courts today. What was intended doesn't matter. What it says is.

I disagree. Original intent is the only legitimate approach to understanding communication (oral or written) because communication is an attempt to convey the internal workings of a mind outside of itself. Language is nothing more than an approximation of thought, a code used as a substitute for thoughts. Words, in their various forms and arrangements, have no instrinsic meaning. They simply stand as crude replacements for the actual thought. Example:

dholghuwehfo dfuhywe pgjh vn myw idfmn

What does this mean? Unless you know what the code is, this is gibberish. But then, all language is gibberish (that is, without meaning) unless the reader/listener knows the code. Words, if spoken, are simply particular sounds. If written, they are only specific drawings. To say "What it says is" asserts an objective reality to that which is only a reflection of the actual reality, which is the thought that originated the communication.

Here is an example. This is not a chicken:



CHICKEN

Neither is this:

The first is a word that represents the bird in the English language. But not if you don't speak English. If you don't speak English, it's just a bunch of angular black markings. The second is not a chicken either. It's a picture of a chicken. Both are drawings that represent my mental concept of a chicken (but not necessarily yours), but neither is an actual chicken, or else you would be able to eat it.

Nor are they equivalent. The expression does not equal the concept. The first does not even look like a chicken, and the second is not even a picture of a chicken. It's a drawing representing a chicken, but not a picture of an actual chicken. We look at the drawing and guess that it stands for a chicken, but if it were a substantially more abstract drawing, we wouldn't even know that. It is only because it approximates a two-dimensional expression of a chicken that we share in common that we are able to communicate the concept of 'chicken' through it. As an objective reality, neither is an actual chicken.

The only way that a language could be objective is if all of its components are operating from an agreed-upon code. If, let us say, the authors of the Constitution had a fixed dictionary in the words had only one meaning and only certain constructions thereof had discrete functions, then one might say that it would be possible to objectively know the meaning of their text.

But language very rarely operates this way. Only constructed languages could even attempt it. Natural languages -- those that spontaneously form and change over time as they are used by a population -- can be roughly understood by philologists, but their meanings cannot be contained because users use words based upon what they think that they mean, not what official dictionaries and grammars say that they mean.

It's possible to gain a sense of what the authors of the Constitution thought that words and phrases meant by reading documents of the era to see how words were used in relation to each other. But this data set is vastly incomplete because it does not even come close to encompassing every use of the words and phrases that they used. Our data set consists entirely of a comparative handful of surviving written communications, and none of the oral communications whatsoever.

We may, however, make good guesses about what the authors of the Constitution meant by a written expression by analyzing how these words and phrases were used in the context of their writings. But we cannot know with objective certainty in the same way that we can know that 2+2 will always equal four.

Even though this is an educated guess, it is a superior way of knowing than asserting that units of a language can have objective meanings. Remember that these units of language are communications -- imperfect attempts to express inner thought to an outer world. If you're not attempting to discern what the speaker or writer is trying to communicate, then you're rejecting communication conceptually. And if you're rejecting communication, then uses of language might as well be random.

But for a moment, assume that language meaning can be objectively knowable. How would you test the hypothesis "Communication X represents concept Y"? If X and Y are not placed in reflection of other uses of X and Y, and there is no codebook in which to look up X and Y, how can their meaning be known?

This problem does not go away, as Kevin suggests, because a unit of language is a law. Laws remain attempts to communicate concepts. If you're rejecting original intent, you're deciding not to try to discern the communications of the authors of the law, and are left without any guide as to what the words and phrases in a given law mean.

"What it says is" simply isn't knowable. What the writers were trying to say is, at least, researchable.

Ammunition Quality Control

I emailed a question to James Rummel, a professional self-defense instructor:

As a newbie to guns, one of the things I've asked myself is "How do I know what is quality ammo and what is not?" There seems to be quite a price range between brands, even if other characteristics are the similar. Are there brands that are of poor manufacture and are more likely to misfire? Are there brands that really top-shelf, but needlessly expensive?

I know that with cars, I would never buy a Chrysler but I would buy a Toyota -- if for no other reason that quality control issues. Should a new gun owner have similar concerns, or should he just buy the cheapest ammunition he can find?

James wrote a lengthy response. Thanks!

My Current Read: The Art of the Rifle by Jeff Cooper

Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper was among America's foremost firearms instructors of the 20th Century. I'm currently reading one of his seminal works, The Art of the Rifle. The book is principally concerned with the precise movements and techniques for successful rifle shooting. As such, I am too ignorant to understand or evaluate it, but it has expressed to me how complex is accurate riflecraft. When and if I am in a financial position to buy my rifle, I shall consult it again.

In his introduction, Cooper expresses sentiments that any classical liberal would approve of:

It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, because a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.

I am less confident than Cooper that there are more good men than bad, but if there are fewer good men, that is all the more reason for them to be armed with rifles.

Wherein I Find Myself Defending Pacifism

It's a topsy-turvy world. CarteachO writes that he is always armed because he sees self-defense as not only a right, but a moral obligation:

I carry a weapon because it is the moral thing to do. It meets with my definition of doing ‘right’. Being prepared to defend myself and loved ones is part of being a responsible person.

Please allow me to explain…

I believe people have a ‘moral obligation’ to take responsibility for themselves, not leaving the task as a burden to others. I know this may not be a popular concept in some circles, but that doesn't change it as my belief. I know we are laden with entire generations of people who honestly think they bear no responsibility for their own safety, wellbeing, and actions.

I engaged this idea in the comment thread, asserting that one only has a moral obligation to defend oneself if one insists upon being defended by others. If a person refuses to defend him/herself, but also declines the defense of others, s/he has not engaged in parasitism and therefore has committed no moral wrong.

If people are truly free, then they are free to make bad decisions as well as good ones; they are free to choose to live and to choose to die. If people cannot opt out of a social contract, they are merely slaves, not free men and women.

Some of the commentors whether or not a pacifist has the right to decline to use force to defend his/her children from violence. This is an interesting question which requires contemplation. It is similar to the question of whether or not a parent may ethically decline medical treatment based upon religious grounds.

HT: Hell In a Handbasket

Armed College Student Prevents Massacre

You probably won't hear much about this news story because ten students weren't slaughtered by lunatics. That's why it's important to give it as much publicity as possible and point out that armed, trained, responsible citizens prevent crime.

Gun Readiness vs. Gun Security

James Rummel is a professional armed self-defense instructor. I e-mailed him a question about keeping a gun safe from children at home, but still quickly accessible during an emergency. He kindly wrote a lengthy response. Thanks, James!