Posted on 08/26/2010 4:38:46 AM PDT by marktwain
Every so often, but especially in August before school starts, I like to see some evidence of my private-school tuition dollars at work. So I recently asked my sons what provoked the first gunshots in the American Revolutionary War.
“The Tea Act of 1773,” said the 12-year-old, apparently tossing out the first Colonial grievance that came to mind.
“King George's Stamp Act!” screamed his younger brother, apparently mistaking our conversation for a televised game show with prizes.
“You're both wrong,” I said.
For many years, the American colonists’ disaffection was manifest as a strictly political and social movement, free of armed conflict. A chain of British insults — the Proclamation of 1763, the Quartering Act and Stamp Act of 1765, the Tea Act of 1773, the Intolerable Acts of 1774 — typically were met by a flurry of newspaper and pamphlet publishing, protest meetings, speeches, boycotts, and occasional civil disobedience. Local church leaders even called for days of fasting and prayer.
This non-violent confrontation with Britain might have continued indefinitely, but, in April, 1775, colonists faced a challenge which would circumscribe what they were willing to fight and die for.
Only when British General Thomas Gage attempted to confiscate colonists’ rifles and gunpowder did the first armed conflict with Britain erupt at the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Colonists knew that they couldn't allow the British to seize guns or ammunition, or their cause would be lost. In a defining moment, America became the ultimate single-issue organization, and our single issue was the right to arms.
The unmistakable lesson here is that, to secure liberty and civil society, the first Americans had to become laser-focused on their right to possess firearms. But are we to believe that the same approach is somehow required today? In this year of burgeoning government, political corruption, and shrinking personal freedom, the answer is yes. As Charlton Heston explained in his speech to the National Press Club in 1997: “The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows rights to exist at all.”
Until Second Amendment rights gain full and irrevocable standing in 21st century American law, we remain in the lingering shadow of General Gage and his tyrannical strategy of public disarmament. In 1775, we quickly became a “one-issue organization” to preserve freedom. Today, the remarkable degeneration of our free society demands the same unique focus.
My sons enjoyed learning more about the battles of Lexington and Concord. And when they stand with me in the voting booth this November, they'll know exactly why I'm a single-issue voter toting a list of endorsements from the Second Amendment organizations to which I belong.
Great post!
Being a one issue voter is a very narrow minded way to live
save
the Quartering Act and Stamp Act of 1765,
_______________________________________________
That wasnt the first quartering of English soldiers that Americans had to pay for...
The English invaded and captured NYC from the Dutch in 1664
The English had several ships and 800 trained soldiers, the Dutch had 150 soldiers and about 250 more armed civilians to protect about 1,000 men, women, and children from the English cannons...
Shortly after the English came ashore, soldiers were quartered about the city. the locals had to pay for their support..
In April, 1665, my ancestor Hendrick Hendrickson Kip was “assessed” (taxed) to pay for the board and lodging of the soldiers stationed in the city garrison...
and that was after he had taken the oath of allegiance to the English Crown ...
So paying for the food and lodging for English soldiers was not a new thing to the serf-like colonials...
the second amendment was menat to keep citizens armed and ready to fight a rogue government. I have heard alot lately about “Common Sense” gun laws. If we are to be ready, willing and able to fight a rogue government, then there can be NO, repeat, NO restrictions on the type and amount of firearms we can possess. This includes fully automatic weapons, mortars and howitzers (if you can afford them) tanks and the such. Remember, during the revolution, the americans rented warships from private owners, it should be so today......
To me, there's usually one issue that is more important to me than others. That doesn't mean I am a 1 issue voter guy, though.
However, if I feel that that one issue is so important as to not be ignored, then that's what I go on. Case in point, in the 2006 mod terms, terrorism was my biggest issue and I cast my vote for those would agree with me.
I am not sure if that all makes sense, it's difficult to put into words sometimes.
Not really. A second, and possibly more imortant, reason for placing soldiers in private homes was for surveilance. It was hard to plot any sort of demonstration, let alone a revolution, while a soldier of the king was sitting at your table. Such snooping is a lot easier now with the huge variety of high-tech "toys" the government has for seeing through walls, listening to conversations or following individuals through the use of GPS devices. All of which violate the Constitution in one way or another, yet the courts split hairs and allow them. Not only that, but we get to pay for it too.
When Scott began pushing his A rating by the NRA, he got my vote here in Florida. However, I am not single issue voter, I just push some higher to the top with the 2nd being a hot topic for me. Balancing the budget (make that reducing our debt), defense, abortion and dismantling the entitlement programs are first teir issues for me also.
Great article.
Outstanding!
LOL!
I freaked out a local census worker when he stopped by.
We spent more time talking about the Constitution than the reason for his visit, and while we were discussing the RKBA, he started in about how old the Constitution was and how the second didn't guarantee the right to own a nuclear warhead.
I looked him in the eye and asked "Why not?"
You should have seen the look on his face. I almost spoiled the moment by laughing.
:-)
In a superficial sense it might seem narrow minded, but I'm to a large extent in agreement with the original poster. The fundamental issue political issue of all time is whether government should define its own limits and have power over us, or whether government should be limited in size and answerable to us. Since the 2nd Amendment, which provides our God-given right to keep and bear arms with unlimited legal strength in the phrase "shall not be infringed", is the guardian of the power to decide whether we rule or are ruled, it's a good single issue to use as a touchstone. Any candidate who wants the citizenry capable of resisting unwarranted government decrees has the right fundamental values, while any candidate who wants to make sure that government can compel obedience is (like Obama and Pelosi) an enemy of freedom.
I’m a single issue voter too, but I don’t vote for crooks, even if they are pro 2nd amendment. I won’t vote for Scott.
You don’t pay a 1.3 billion dollar fine, Resign as CEO and refuse to release your deposition unless you are GUILTY.
Doesn’t matter anyway, the dems will have the money expose him. I won’t vote for the Dem, but I won’t support Scott under
Any circumstances. As Doc Holiday said.. “My hypocrisy only goes so far”.
I don’t require anyones permission to determine how I will protect myself or my family. I guess I am not someone who applies for permission from elected or appointed officials. I’ve got bad knees.
If the only issue was with feeding and housing the soldier you would be right but the secondary issue is surveilance. Imagine what could have happened (or NOT happened) if the British army had quartered a few soldiers in the homes of Adams, Jefferson and Franklin. Fortunately for us now, those guys were all on the run from the British and a bit hard to find. There were lesser leaders though and some of them had a redcoat or two living with them.
The fourth amendment does cover search and seizure but only those acts that are overt. Covert “searches” were still carried on by those soldiers who reported to their officers each day.
Dude, you are reading things into the amendment that was never intended. The abuses you are talking about are covered in the 4th amendment. I’m glad you are not a Supreme Court Justice (At least I hope you’re not) because you would be reading things into the law instead of what it plainly says.
The 3rd amendment is what it says it is. The government is not allowed to quarter soldiers in people’s homes during peacetime. Yet, you read in a distinction in the 4th amendment concerning overt and covert searches (only overt searches are covered in the 4th amendment according to you). That distinction is not there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.