Why a populace should always be armed

The sun never set on the British Empire. It was the largest empire in world history. Out of nearly 200 countries in the world, only 22 were never controlled or invaded by Britain.

In April of 1775, the British Royal Military Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, sent 800 British Army Regulars, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, on a preemptive raid to seize guns from American patriots at Lexington and Concord.

George Mason of Virginia stated: “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

James Madison wrote (“Letters & Writings of James Madison,” 1865, p. 406): “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprise of ambition. … Kingdoms of Europe … are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” 2nd Edition, 1833, p. 125): “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium (safeguard) of the liberties of a Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.”

“...I soon expect the gun grabbers will begin to preach that having a gun will not stop crime so give up your guns. ...” [DaveA37, post 13]

Anti-gun people have already done this. For decades: first time the notion appeared in the general media was in the 1970s (if memory serves).

The assertion was typically accompanied by “supporting data,” which usually boiled down to stray remarks from some social-science researcher trying to talk up their dishonest conclusions coming out of their flawed study (happened before the public was alerted to the existence of push-polling, though “scientific” studies undertaken to “prove” a conclusion or political stance already committed to has bedeviled research for centuries).

Those times also predated public realization that the “helping” or “caring” professions (medicine, psychiatry, therapy, counseling) were being corrupted in the name of “compassion.”

“... in the UK home invasions have increased because of their gun ban and if you injure the home invader you’ll wind up being charged....” [SkyDancer, post 11]

Barely hints at the crime problems besetting the British Isles.

For the last decade at least, crime rates have surpassed rates in the USA, in every category save one: murder. And all trend analysis indicates that one will follow soon. London’s murder rate recently topped the US rate.

The admission of that unwelcome bit of news was accompanied by stern warnings from London’s mayor, that authorities would be cracking down on citizens carrying knives. So the brainless response SkyDancer noted continues.

“The founders were well aware that the Revolution would have never started or succeeded if the population did not have personal arms. ...” [allendale, post 4]

A conceit widely believed in the United States, but the first part is doubtful, and the second is demonstrably false.

American colonists became more and more vexed over the period 1750-1775 (approximately) because the Imperial British government moved to curtail liberties they had enjoyed since their ancestors began arriving on the Eastern Seaboard 100-plus years earlier: a reversal of British policies that nominally controlled everything but in practice largely left the Colonials to their own devices.

That changed as the machinations of European power politics altered the situation. The Seven Years War marked the greatest departure: Britain emerged victorious and in undisputed control of eastern North America, but its government began taxing the Colonies more (to pay off debts and to get the colonials to pay for their own defense), and banned movement of colonists west of the Appalachians. The British government had made treaties with American Indian tribes who had provided support during the war, in which they agreed to prevent the colonists from invading the natives’ lands.

Up until independence, the Colonials had thought of themselves as British subjects with rights equal to anyone living in the British Isles. Britons looked on the situation differently: to them, the most exalted Colonial was still not equal to the lowliest Briton “back home”. Colonials were beneath contempt ... no one back in England cared whether a colonist was privately armed or not.

Many additional events from 1763 through 1775 riled things still more: Colonial challenges to increasingly stringent British policies ratcheted tensions still higher.

The attempt by British forces to confiscate arms and munitions of the Massachusetts Bay Colony on this date in 1775 was nothing new: the Boston garrison had sortied into the countryside before, but had not confiscated much of anything. This time it became the spark that set off open rebellion, but it is important to recall that the Redcoats moved to seize “officially” held weapons and ammunition in local armories, not privately owned guns.

To address the second aspect:

The fledgling United States did not “win” the American War of Independence. It did not lose. American forces retreated from one defeat to the next, narrowly avoiding annihilation, until the French, then the Spanish and the Dutch, became involved.

Of a sudden, Imperial Britain was faced with a worldwide war against major European powers; the conflict in the Colonies receded in importance. In the final analysis, the British came out of it very well, scoring victories in other theaters. The loss of most of British North America was their only major setback.

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.