Category: Uncategorized


Hell I found out that Disneyland in Anaheim has a real jail for some reasons. Seems somebody went skinny dipping in the submarine pool & freaked out some folks by tapping on the portholes of the sub. I think that some liquor was involved. Grumpy, Class of 1977 Arcadia HS. (Think AHS = All Horse Sh*t)
Part I of this post briefly describes Some of the firearms advances before 1791. Part II describes the federal industrial policy for advancing firearms technology.
This post is based on my article The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900. It is forthcoming in Notre Dame’s Journal of Legislation, vol. 50, no. 2, in 2024. The Post also draws on chapter 23 of my coauthored textbook Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulations, Rights, and Policy (Aspen Pub., 3d ed. 2022).
I. Firearms improvements before 1791
While the Founders could not foresee all the specific advances that would take place in the nineteenth century, the Founders were well aware that firearms were getting better and better.
Tremendous improvements in firearms had always been part of the American experience. The first European settlers in America had mainly owned matchlocks. When the trigger is pressed, a smoldering hemp cord is lowered to the firing pan; the powder in the pan then ignites the main gunpowder charge in the barrel.
The first firearm more reliable than the matchlock was the wheel lock, invented by Leonardo da Vinci. In a wheel lock, the powder in the firing pan is ignited when a serrated wheel strikes a piece of iron pyrite. The wheel lock was the first firearm that could be kept loaded and ready for use in a sudden emergency. Although matchlock pistols had existed, the wheel lock made pistols far more practical and common. Paul Lockhart, Firepower: How Weapons Shaped Warfare 80 (2021).
The wheel lock was the “preferred firearm for cavalry” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Id. The proliferation of wheel locks in Europe in the sixteenth century coincided with the homicide rate falling by half. See Carlisle E. Moody, Firearms and the Decline of Violence in Europe: 1200-2010, 9 Rev. Eur. Stud. 53 (2017)
However, wheel locks cost about four times as much as matchlock. Moreover, their moving parts were far more complicated than the matchlocks’. Under conditions of hard use in North America, wheel locks were too delicate and too difficult to repair. The path of technological advancement often involves expensive inventions eventually leading to products that are affordable to average consumers and are even better than the original invention. That has been the story of firearms in America.
Flintlocks quintuple the rate of fire
The gun that was even better than the wheel lock, but simpler and less expensive, was the flintlock. The earliest versions of flintlocks had appeared in the mid-sixteenth century. But not until the end of the seventeenth century did most European armies replace their matchlocks with flintlocks. Americans, individually, made the transition much sooner. Lockhart at 106.
Indian warfare in the thick woods of the Atlantic seaboard was based on ambush, quick raids, and fast individual decision-making in combat—the opposite of the more orderly battles and sieges of European warfare. In America, the flintlock became a necessity.
Unlike matchlocks, flintlocks can be kept always ready. Because blackpowder is hygroscopic, and could be ruined by much water, it was common to store a firearm on the mantel above the fireplace. Another advantage, which mattered greatly in America but was mostly irrelevant for European warfare, is that a flintlock, unlike a matchlock, has s no smoldering hemp cord to give away the location of the user. Flintlocks are more reliable than matchlocks—all the more so in adverse weather, although still far from impervious to rain and moisture. Significantly, Flintlocks are much simpler and faster to reload than matchlocks. See, e.g., W.W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development 66-67 (9th ed. 1910); Charles C. Carlton, This Seat of Mars: War and the British Isles 1585-1746, at 171-73 (2011).
Initially, the flintlock could not shoot further or more accurately than a matchlock. Lockhart at 105. But it could shoot much more rapidly. A matchlock takes more than a minute to reload once. Id. at 107. In experienced hands, a flintlock could be fired and reloaded five times in a minute, although under the stress of combat, three times a minute was a more typical rate. Id. at 107-08. Compared to a matchlock, a flintlock was more likely to ignite the gunpowder charge instantaneously, rather than with a delay of some seconds. Id. at 104. “The flintlock gave infantry the ability to generate an overwhelmingly higher level of firepower.” Id. at 107.
The Theoretical Lethality Index (TLI) is a measure of a weapon’s effectiveness in military combat. The TLI of a seventeenth century musket is 19 and the TLI of an eighteenth century flintlock is 43. Trevor Dupuy, The Evolution of Weapons and Warfare 92 (1984). So the transition of firearm type in the American colonies more than doubled the TLI. There is no reason to believe that the American Founders were ignorant of how much better their own firearms were compared to those of the early colonists.
Joseph Belton’s 16-shot model
In 1777 in Philadelphia, inventor Joseph Belton demonstrated a firearm that could fire 16 shots all at once. The committee watching the demonstration included General Horatio Gates, General Benedict Arnold, and scientist David Rittenhouse. They wrote to the Continental Congress and urged the adoption of Belton guns for the Continental Army. Congress voted to order a hundred–while requesting that they be produced as 8-shot models, since gunpowder was scarce. However, the deal fell through because Congress could not afford the high price that Belton demanded. Repeating arms were expensive, because their small internal components require especially complex and precise fitting.
Hence, the Founders who served in the Second Continental Congress were well aware that a 16-shot gun had been produced, and was possible to produce in quantity, for a high price. Delegates to the 1777 Continental Congress included future Supreme Court Chief Justice Samuel Chase, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry, John Hancock, the two Charles Carrolls from Maryland, John Witherspoon (President of Princeton, the great American college for free thought), Benjamin Harrison (father and grandfather of two Presidents), Francis Lightfoot Lee, and Richard Henry Lee .
The Girardoni rifle
Likewise, the 22-shot Girardoni rifle famously carried by the Lewis & Clark expedition starting in 1803 was no secret, as it had been invented in 1779. It was used by the Austrian army as a sniper rifle. Powered by compressed air, its bullet his as hard as the modern Colt .45ACP cartridge. John Paul Jarvis, The Girandoni Air Rifle: Deadly Under Pressure, Guns.com, Mar. 15, 2011.
The Girardoni had a 21 or 22 round caliber tubular magazine, and could be quickly reloaded with 20 more rounds, using speedloading tubes that came with the gun. After about 40 shots, the air reservoir could be exhausted, and would need to be pumped up again.
Repeaters in ordinary commerce
As of 1785, South Carolina gunsmith James Ransier of Charleston, South Carolina, was advertising four-shot repeaters for sale. Columbian Herald (Charleston), Oct. 26, 1785.
The American Rifle
The founding generation was especially aware of one of the most common firearms of their time, the Pennsylvania-Kentucky rifle, which is also called “The American Rifle.” The rifle was invented by German and Swiss gunsmith immigrants in the early eighteenth century. When they came to Pennsylvania for religious freedom, they were familiar with the heavy Jaeger rifles of Central Europe.
The American Rifle was created initially for the needs of frontiersmen who might spend months on a hunting expedition in the dense American woods. “What Americans demanded of their gunsmiths seemed impossible”: a rifle that weighed ten pounds or less, for which a month of ammunition would weigh one to three pounds, “with proportionately small quantities of powder, be easy to load,” and “with such velocity and flat trajectories that one fixed rear sight would serve as well at fifty yards as at three hundred, the necessary but slight difference in elevation being supplied by the user’s experience.” Robert Held, The Age of Firearms: A Pictorial History 142 (1956). “By about 1735 the impossible had taken shape” with the creation of the iconic American Rifle. Id.
As for the most common American firearm, the smoothbore (nonrifled) flintlock musket, there had also been great advances. To a casual observer, a basic flintlock musket of 1790 looks very similar to flintlock musket of 1690. However, improvements in small parts, some of them internal, had made the best flintlocks far superior to their ancestors. For example, thanks to English gunsmith Henry Nock’s 1787 patented flintlock breech, “the gun shot so hard and so fast that the very possibility of such performance had hitherto not even been imaginable.” Id. at 137.
The Founders were well aware that what had been impossible or unimaginable to one generation could become commonplace in the next. With the federal armories advanced research and development program that began in the Madison administration, the U.S. government did its best to make the impossible possible.
II. James Madison and James Monroe, the founding fathers of modern firearms
U.S. Representative James Madison is well-known as the author of the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. What is not well-known is how his presidency put the United States on the path to mass production of high-quality affordable firearms.
Because of weapons procurement problems during the War of 1812, President Madison’s Secretary of War James Monroe, who would succeed Madison as President, proposed a program for advanced weapons research and production at the federal armories, which were located in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Harpers Ferry, Virginia. The Madison-Monroe program was to subsidize technological innovation. Ross Thomson, Structures of Change in the Mechanical Age: Technological Innovation in the United States 1790-1865, at 54-59 (2009). It was enthusiastically adopted with the support of both the major parties in Congress: the Madison-Monroe Democratic-Republicans, and the opposition Federalists. 8 Stat. 204 (1815); Johnson, Kopel, Mocsary, Wallace & Kilmer, Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy 2209 (3d ed. 2022) (online chapter 23).
While serving as ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson had observed the progress that the French were making in producing firearms with interchangeable parts. He enthusiastically recommended that the United States do the same. See Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Jay (Secretary of Foreign Affairs under the Confederation government), Aug. 30, 1785, in 1 Memoirs, Correspondence, and Private Papers, of Thomas Jefferson 299 (Thomas Jefferson Randolph ed., 1829). In 1801, President Jefferson recounted his French observations to Virginia Governor James Monroe and expressed hope for Eli Whitney’s plan for interchangeable gun parts. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, Nov. 14, 1801, in 35 The Papers Of Thomas Jefferson 662 (Barbara B. Oberg ed., 2008).
Under the bipartisan Madison-Monroe program, generous federal arms procurement contracts had long lead times and made much of the payment up-front, so that manufacturers could spend several years setting up and perfecting their factories. The program succeeded beyond expectations, and helped to create the American industrial revolution.
The initial objective was interchangeability, so that firearms parts damaged in combat could be replaced by functional spare parts. After that would come higher rates of factory production. And after that, it was hoped, production at lower cost than artisanal production. Achieving these objectives for the more intricate and closer-fitting parts of repeating firearms would be even more difficult.
To carry out the federal program, the inventors associated with the federal armories first had to invent machine tools. Consider for example, the wooden stock of a long gun. The back of the stock is held against the user’s shoulder. The middle of the stock is where the action is attached. (The action is the part of the gun containing the moving parts that fire the ammunition; the Founding generation called it “the lock.”) For many guns, the forward part of the stock would contain a groove to hold the barrel.
Making a stock requires many different cuts of wood, few of them straight. The
artisanal gunmaker would cut with hand tools such as saws and chisels. Necessarily, one artisanal stock would not be precisely the same size as another.
To make stocks faster and more uniformly, Thomas Blanchard invented fourteen different machine tools. Each machine would be set up for one particular cut. As the stock was cut, it would be moved from machine to machine. By mounting the stock to the machine tools with jigs and fixtures, a manufacturer could ensure that each stock would be placed in precisely the same position in the machine as the previous stock. The mounting was in relation to a bearing — a particular place on the stock that was used as a reference point. To check that the various parts of the firearm, and the machine tools themselves, were consistent, many new gauges were invented. Felicia Johnson Deyrup, Arms Makers of the Connecticut Valley: A Regional Study of the Economic Development of the Small Arms Industry, 1798-1870, at 97-98 (1948); Thomson at 56–57.
What Blanchard did for stocks, John H. Hall, of the Harpers Ferry Armory, did for
other firearms parts. Hall shipped some of his machine tools to Simeon North, in Connecticut. In 1834, Hall and North made interchangeable firearms. This was the first time that geographically separate factories had made interchangeable parts. Id. at 58; Merritt Roe Smith, Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology: The Challenge of Change 212 (1977).
Because Hall “established the efficacy” of machine tools, he “bolstered the confidence among arms makers that one day they would achieve in a larger, more efficient manner, what he had done on a limited scale. In this sense, Hall’s work represented an important extension of the industrial revolution in America, a mechanical synthesis so different in degree as to constitute a difference in kind.” Id. at 249.
The technological advances from the federal armories were widely shared among American manufacturers. The Springfield Armory built up a large network of cooperating private entrepreneurs and insisted that advances in manufacturing techniques be widely shared. By mid-century, what had begun as the mass production of firearms from interchangeable parts had become globally known as “the American system of manufacture”—a system that encompassed sewing machines, and, eventually typewriters, bicycles, and automobiles. See, e.g., David R. Meyer, Networked Machinists: High-Technology Industries In Antebellum America 81-84, 252-62, 279-80 (2006).
Springfield, in western Massachusetts on the Connecticut River, had been chosen for the federal armory in part because of its abundance of waterpower and for the nearby iron ore mines. Many private entrepreneurs, including Colt and Smith & Wesson, made the same choice. The Connecticut River Valley became known as the Gun Valley. It was the Silicon Valley of its times, the center of industrial revolution. Id. at 73–103, 229–80.
In short, the Founding generation was familiar with tremendous advances in firearms technology. In the American colonial experience, the rate of fire for an ordinary firearm had quintupled. As of 1791, repeating firearms capable of firing 16 or 22 shots had been demonstrated, but they were much too expensive for ordinary citizens. The Madison-Monroe administration’s wise industrial policy, continued under future administrations, led the way towards the mass production of high quality firearms at low prices. No one in 1791 or 1815 could have foreseen all the firearms innovations in the 19th century. We do know that the American federal government did all it could to make those innovations possible.

30 YEARS OF JEREMY CLARKSON AT THE SUNDAY TIMES: HOMEPAGE
Looking back on three decades of Clarkson’s motoring articles
Since 1993 readers of The Sunday Times have been entertained by Jeremy Clarkson’s car knowledge, outrageous opinions and peerless similes.
To mark 30 years of columns on Clarkson’s clock, Driving.co.uk has rooted through the archives to pull out some of our favourite reviews of all time.
We’ve also found out how Clarkson got started in motoring journalism by speaking with his early collaborator and friend Jonathan Gill.
And of course we’ve interviewed the man himself on three decades of reviews, and how he feels about modern cars and their increased electrification (spoiler: he’s not a fan).
Click on the images below to explore our celebration of The Sunday Times’ motoring maestro (and we don’t mean the Austin/MG).

















The name Will Eisner is synonymous with good comics. The industry Eisner Award — the comics world’s version of the Oscars—even bears his name. Writers and artists work their whole careers hoping to win an Eisner.
Eisner is most famous for The Spirit — a genre-bending series about a masked crime fighter. Most observers also give Eisner credit for coining the term “graphic novel” — and then elevating graphic novels to the level of a serious art form.
Less well known is Eisner’s stint in the U.S. Army and his work for, and on, the military. War and military service were strong threads running through Eisner’s long and productive life. But it wasn’t until his twilight years that the artist finally directly addressed those formative subjects.

Eisner was born in Brooklyn in 1917 to poor Jewish immigrants. His father Shmuel was a painter who had fled Austria-Hungary to avoid the draft during World War I. Shmuel settled in New York City, where relatives introduced him to his future wife Fannie.
Will was one of three children. He was an avid reader of pulp adventure magazines. Much to his mother’s dismay during the impoverished 1930s, Will wanted to be an artist like his father. As a young man, he began getting work illustrating ads for newspapers and magazines.
Eisner’s high school friend Bob Kane — future creator of Batman — told him he should consider going into comics. Leaping into the new field in 1936, he quickly made a name for himself. He cofounded the Eisner & Iger Studio, where he created Sheena, Queen of the Jungle.
In 1940, Eisner — then working for The Register and Tribune Syndicate — first published The Spirit. Aiming for older readers, it told more complex stories than many of the superhero comics of the day did. It became an instant sensation.
But just over a year into writing the book, world events drastically altered the course of Eisner’s life.

Not long after striking comics gold with The Spirit, the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 drew the United States into World War II. Eisner received his draft notice and enlisted in the U.S. Army.
Many early comics artists were Jewish. They were enthusiastic about fighting Nazi Germany. Besides Eisner, several prominent comics creators, including Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and Joe Simon served in the U.S. military during the war.

For his part, Eisner ended up at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, where to this day the Army tests new weaponry. Initially he worked for the camp newspaper. Then the Army reassigned him to work on maintenance manuals.
Eisner suggested he could use his comics skills to create instructive illustrations that soldiers could easily understand — an idea his superiors enthusiastically embraced.
He ended up at the Pentagon, answering directly to the Ordnance Corps brass. He worked on the publication Army Motors and created a strip starring the incompetent Pvt. Joe Dope, whose misadventures were cautionary tales for young soldiers.
The Spirit continued in Eisner’s absence, with Eisner’s assistants dutifully ghostwriting and ghostdrawing. Eisner left the military in 1945 as a warrant officer. He returned to work on The Spirit, which ran for another seven years.

But that wasn’t the end of Eisner’s military experience. Ironically, it wasn’t until he was a civilian that he finally went overseas and saw war up close.
In 1948, Eisner founded the American Visuals Corporation, which produced comic training manuals for corporate and government clients. One of his clients, unsurprisingly, was the U.S. Army.
Two years later, military officials — now waging the escalating war in Korea — approached Eisner about reviving Army Motors. Eisner and his team developed a successor, instead — P.S., The Preventative Maintenance Monthly.
The new magazine brought back many of Eisner’s popular characters. That included Joe Dope … for a while. In 1955, Army brass complained that the screw-up soldier was an embarrassment. They demanded Eisner remove him from the comics.
The Pentagon sent Eisner on several fact-finding missions to help him gather material for P.S.
He made his first visit to Korea in 1954, just after the war. For the first time, he saw for himself combat’s devastating impact on the land, civilians and the combatants.
Thirteen years later in the fall of 1967, the Army sent Eisner to Vietnam to observe another nasty conflict. As Eisner arrived in Saigon, the battle of Khe Sahn was raging to the north.
The Army escorted the artist around the country by jeep and helicopter. Not long after Eisner left, the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong guerrillas launched the bloody Tet Offensive.
Returning home, Eisner illustrated the Army’s field comic The M-16A1 Rifle: Operation and Preventative Maintenance — which became standard issue as part of the rifle’s cleaning kit.

Eisner left his position as P.S.’s artistic director in 1971. He went back to comics and experimented with longer stories. In 1978, he published A Contract With God . It was perhaps the first graphic novel — and the first of many long comics for Eisner.
Much of Eisner’s long-form work reflected his experiences growing up during the Great Depression. His graphic novels were about immigrants — particularly Jewish ones — and overcoming poverty and discrimination.
He tangentially touched upon his military service in his semi-autobiographical comic To the Heart of the Storm. It’s the story of his parents’ respective journeys to America and his own childhood — framed as flashbacks while the soldier narrator travels via troop train to his first duty station.
Buy ‘Last Day In Vietnam.’
It wasn’t until 2000, with the publication of Last Day in Vietnam: A Memory, that Eisner finally directly retold his war experiences — some of which had haunted him for decades.
The book won the Harvey Award for best graphic novel in 2001. Eisner died four years later at the age of 87.
Happy Monday!

Now get to work as somebody has to pay for my Teachers Pension! Grumpy

Founded in 1976, Gunsite Academy remains a rite of passage for all serious firearms owners, writers and enthusiasts. Founded by Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, this modernized training facility quickly became the benchmark for firearms instruction on all platforms. I am perpetually late to nearly everything in life, and embarrassingly enough, it took me more than 25 years to get to this legendary site located just outside of Paulden, Arizona. However, that came to an end just a few short weeks ago, and my perspective on shooting will remain forever changed.
As I entered the gates, I was welcomed with a sign that read, “Excuse our noise; it’s the sound of liberty.” This set the tone of the instruction style that graces this establishment—fun but genuine. It wasn’t too much further down the road that we started seeing signs reminding us of Cooper’s basic four safety rules:
1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
After making our way to the main classroom, we started filling out our paperwork as well as our lunch orders for the next few days (nutrition and hydration are emphasized during these courses). This was just moments before Gunsite CEO Sheriff Ken Campbell (Ret.) gave us the lay of the land and explained a little more of the site’s history and what to expect over the next few days. After his presentation, he introduced Rangemaster Lew Gosnell, the first Gunsite Instructor to whom I would be exposed.
Lew hails from a law enforcement background with a career serving some of the most crime-ridden areas in the country. As he listed these locales, I prepared myself for a week of dealing with a “work-hardened cop” who had no sense of humor. To my delight, Lew was quite the contrary, remaining utterly engaging and humorous when appropriate. I got to experience this as he demonstrated a new method of firing a Mossberg Shockwave, making it far more controllable and safe to use at eye level. After this demonstration, each participant had the opportunity to try it with live ammunition as we patterned these guns in preparation for our next course of fire, affectionally known as “The Wash.”
Sometimes, Mother Nature makes the best ranges, and all that is required is a little cleaning up. The Wash is an area on the Gunsite grounds that water flows through during heavy rainfall (yes, this part of Arizona gets rain). As a result, it cuts a deep canyon with unpredictable twists and turns, perfect for placing surprise targets. Instructor Aimee Grant took us through individually and stressed the importance of taking our time and moving side to side to better pie each turn. Running shotguns, she also introduced us to the Gunsite mantra “Load what you shoot,” a routine that helps you to keep your scattergun topped off. After my first run, I was hooked and proud to say that I aced the exercise, even showing restraint from engaging the no-shoot targets.
After finishing what was effectively an “outdoor shoot house,” we met with Rangemaster John Hall to take us through the indoor variety in one of the many fully enclosed structures on the property. Prior to this, Mr. Hall covered the best ways to open doors and enter rooms, but when we approached the house, he offered zero insight.
This is all part of the realism that Gunsite tries to maintain. Hall could have easily given me the layout of the house, how many bad guys were there, and other details that might have made it easier. However, to do so would destroy the experience, as you seldom have this information in real life. After working my way into the front door, I had to make a decision to go left or right. Remembering what the outside of the building looked like, the left seemed to make the most sense, as there couldn’t be too many subsequent rooms on that side of the house.
After neutralizing a target there, I proceeded to the right and walked through a series of rooms and hallways, identifying and neutralizing targets in realistic scenarios. Everything was going well until I shot a friendly target because I didn’t move to a point where I could get a positive ID of who I was seeing. This was a sobering experience as there is a high likelihood that I would respond like this in real life.
The trip ended with a walk through the “Urban Scrambler,” a straight-line course of fire that challenges you to overcome various obstacles and fire from unorthodox positions. By the end of the day, we were all trying to top each other in speed and technique while introducing moderate handicaps. This variation was not only accepted by our instructors, but encouraged, as it forced participants outside our comfort zone and better represented real-life shooting. This cornerstone of Gunsite training makes the experience well worth the price of admission and, in my opinion, encapsulates everything that they do.
After three full days of shooting, it was sadly time to leave. Before dismissal, we were given each instructor’s information should we need to follow up with them with specific questions. Overall, I found their lessons concise, consolidated and enjoyable. Over the course of the week, I felt pushed and engaged but never uncomfortable, which is a tough balance to strike. Feeling like I had struck gold, I started looking at the other courses that Gunsite offers, reveling in the variety on the table. Needless to say, I’ll be back!
Editor’s Note: You may have noticed that Gunsite’s “Four Rules” of gun safety aren’t exactly the same as the NRA’s “Three Rules.” Which set should you follow? Whichever one is easiest for you to remember! Whether you go by three rules or four, the most important thing is safety.