So, are you are saying that the American colonists were not British citizens, or that the attempt to confiscate peivately-held powder, cannon, and other arms in Lexington & Concord was supportive of citizen rights, or what...?
None of the above. My statement was as regards the right of individual Britons to keep and bear arms being stronger under George III than it is in present day Britain.
Even though it "was" stronger, obviously by his actions in 1775, George felt that he could rescind those rights "by law", which is exactly what today's gun-grabbers are arguing. And that is precisely why the Second Amendment exists in the Constitution.
The attempt to confiscate privately-held powder, cannon, and other arms was viewed with alarm by the British subjects in Boston who were being punished collectively for the actions of a few insurrectionists who tossed untaxed tea into Boston Harbor.
The actions of the central government were heavy-handed and were meant to punish and coerce the people into obeying the government. The people of Boston were expected to turn in their arms and such surrender was a condition of being allowed to leave Boston.
Even without an explicit ban on confiscating arms, the arms of the citizens of Boston were private property that was being taken by the government without compensation.
All this activity around Boston, Lexington, and Concord reached its ignition point in April of 1775, a full fifteen months prior to the Declarataion of Independence. All the actions taken up until that time were viewed as the reasonable response to a tyrannical government.