Posted on 02/25/2014 11:02:56 AM PST by Stanwood_Dave
My Clif-Notes version first:
2nd (second) Amendment & See Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 and the founders had both weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION (canons) and equal to today 2014, A-K 47’s FULLY AUTO in their personal possession, i.e., their superior hunting rifle’s. Although not FULLY AUTO, they did have in their possession the MOST ADVANCE[D] RIFLE’S of the time 1775-6.
Oh, and those ADVANCE[D] RIFLE’S were used for hunting, both duck’s & British.
First off, let me say that I don’t hold my self out as some be-all-know all 2nd (second) Amendment guy.
This is just some very small, but very significant, observations I come to see and learn.
And if you spot something that I have failed to give credit for the original thoughts / layout, I apologize now for failing to give proper credit if and where it would be proper.
Again I just think when put together in Context, as I have, it’s a solid argument on the freedom’s we’re losing, and or lost, and just maybe help you decide just where and when the SHTF!!!!
My Clif-Notes version first:
2nd (second) Amendment & See Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 and the founders had both weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION (canons) and equal to today 2014, A-K 47’s FULLY AUTO in their personal possession, i.e., their superior hunting rifle’s. Although not FULLY AUTO, they did have in their possession the MOST ADVANCE[D] RIFLE’S of the time 1775-6.
Oh, and those ADVANCE[D] RIFLE’S were used for hunting, both duck’s & British.
We’ll leave Howitzers out of the equation to K.I.S.S., (Keep It Simple Stupid.) For now.
I wonder what the legal daily LIMIT was on the British, or did you need a licence, that’s a joke son, just a joke. (Think Foghorn J. Leghorn /Chicken, is a character that appears in the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons for Warner Bros ) See: Best of Foghorn Leghorn @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8TQZBHszI4
[George] Washington didn’t use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
We’ll leave “FIRE” out of this occasion, although it was a weapon that was commonly used during these times. I wonder if there was a three day plus waiting time / period to use fire?
During Colonial times, the ‘battle ax’ was replaced with the tomahawk, a device with utility as a tool and a weapon--and it was a fearsome weapon in the right hands. (Remember the scene’s in The Patriot, a 2000 American historical war film directed by Roland Emmerich, written by Robert Rodat, and starring Mel Gibson)
Bonnie & Clyde, in my opnion was the last time that civilians and the police were evenly matched in fire power. 80 years ago. (2014 subtract 1934 = 80 years.)
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve ... unless ... the government’s intention is to be more powerful than the people .
Bonnie Elizabeth Parker (October 1, 1910 – May 23, 1934) and Clyde Chestnut Barrow (March 24, 1909 – May 23, 1934)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle#Civilian_use
After passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, civilian BAR {Browning Automatic Rifle} ownership was restricted even further.
The primary variant of the BAR {Browning Automatic Rifle} series was the M1918, chambered for the .30-06 Springfield rifle cartridge and designed by John Moses Browning in 1917 for the U.S.
Expeditionary Corps in Europe as a replacement for the French-made Chauchat and M1909 Benet- Mercie machine guns.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browning {John Moses Browning (January 23, 1855[1] – November 26, 1926), born in Ogden, Utah.}
My thoughts laid out in support of the Cliff-Notes version:
Lets start with Paul Revere ( December 21, 1734 O.S. – May 10, 1818)
Credited with saying “The British are coming,” evening of April 18, 1775
Revere was not alone on his mission to warn John Hancock, Samuel Adams and other patriots that the British were approaching Lexington on the evening of April 18, 1775. Two other men, William Dawes and Samuel Prescott, rode alongside him, and by the end of the night as many as 40 men on horseback were spreading the word across Boston’s Middlesex County.
See also : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm
2nd Paragraph Although it proved to be a false alarm, the Powder Alarm caused political and military leaders to proceed more carefully in the days ahead, and essentially provided a “dress rehearsal” for the Battles of Lexington and Concord seven and a half months later. Furthermore, actions on both sides to control weaponry, gunpowder, and other military supplies became more contentious, as the British sought to bring military stores more directly under their control, and the Patriot colonists sought to acquire them for their own use. (Emphasis added by me-D.P.G)
See: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/revere-and-dawes-warn-of-british-attack
2nd Paragraph, 2nd sentence.
In the spring of 1775, General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, received instructions from Great Britain to seize all stores of weapons and gunpowder accessible to the American insurgents. On April 18, he ordered British troops to march against Concord and Lexington. (Emphasis added by me-D.P.G)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord
2nd Paragraph, 1st sentence.
About 700 British Army regulars, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy military supplies that were reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. (Emphasis added by me-D.P.G)
Ok boys and girls just what the hell is / was military stores /supplies in 1775-6? I’m not comfortable answering cast-iron frying pans etc., your talking fuse(s), black powder and cannon plain and simple.
We’ll leave Howitzers out of the equation to K.I.S.S., (Keep It Simple Stupid.) For now.
Did the founders have the equivalent of A-K 47’s FULLY AUTO?
From numerous sources basically the American’s cheated because the American’s did not only fight using Napoleonic methods (standing in line in a open field of combat) but hey they cheated by standing behind trees and using their superior (to the British Brown Bess) rifles.
See: http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/americanrevolutio1/p/American-Revolution-Brigadier-General-Dani el-Morgan.htm
Daniel Morgan - American Revolution: With the outbreak of the American Revolution after the Battles of Lexington & Concord, the Continental Congress called for the formation of ten rifle companies to aid in the Siege of Boston. In response, Virginia formed two companies and command of one was given to Morgan. Quickly recruiting 96 men, he departed Winchester with his troops on July 14, 1775. Arriving in the American lines on August 6, Morgan’s Riflemen were expert marksmen who employed long rifles which were of greater range and accuracy than the standard Brown Bess muskets used by the British . Later that year, Congress approved an invasion of Canada and tasked Brigadier General Richard Montgomery with leading the main force north from Lake Champlain. (Emphasis Added by me-D.P.G.)
(Colonel) Daniel Morgan {Born on July 6, 1736} and his crack-shot riflemen were instrumental in America’s revolutionary victory over the British. Having irritated a British lieutenant, Morgan was made irate when the officer struck him with the flat of his sword. In response, Morgan knocked the lieutenant out with one punch.
Court-martial[ed], Morgan was sentenced to 500 lashes. Enduring the punishment, he developed a hatred for the British Army as well as later remarked that they had miscounted and only given him 499.
See also From “The American Revolution against British Gun Control”: http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
“The American Revolution against British Gun Control”
From Page 4 of 8 of my copy, last paragraph (or 33rd paragraph)
One British officer reported: “These fellows were generally good marksmen, and many of them used long guns made for Duck-Shooting.” On a per-shot basis, the Americans inflicted higher casualties than had the British regulars. (Emphasis added by Me D.P.G.)
So, I think I nailed the fact (there is so much more but Brevity is the Soul of Wit) that the Americans were in fact reaching out and touching many a British infantryman / officer(s) with way superior fire power.
As further proof of the founders owning Cannon(s) I give you Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 .
The U.S. Constitution {See Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 } authorizes Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
That means they expected individuals to have enough firepower to take on foreign ships and armies (as shown by the “captures on land and water”). You aren’t going to do that with a single musket, so at least some people had to own the 18th century weapon(s) of mass destruction, the cannon (and probably more than one).
Founders had CANONS. Canons were on PRIVATE ships during the war of 1812. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
The War of 1812 was a 32-month military conflict between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, its North American colonies and its Indian allies. The outcome resolved many issues which remained from the American War of Independence, but involved no boundary changes.
Gun & Cannon Safety!!! Every gun or cannon is to be considered loaded until proven otherwise. Doubt this,
See: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/11/exclusive-loaded-revolutionary-war-era-cannon-found-in- central-park/
The NYPD released a picture of what its officers found: more than 800 grams ( 1.76369809747902 lb’s {from: http://www.tech-faq.com/convert-grams-to-pounds.html} or 1.8 pounds) of black powder still capable of firing, along with cotton wadding and a cannonball CBS 2’s Young spotted being carried in a white cloth by a Conservancy employee.
For John Moore, who is working on a book called “The Secrets of Central Park,” this is a new one.
“This is an amazing surprise. It was there for so many years and people were sitting on it when it was a loaded cannon,” Moore said.
That’s right: the loaded cannon was on public display from the 1860s until 1996 when the Conservancy decided to bring it indoors to protect it from vandalism. It was donated to the park about the time of the Civil War .
The finding was a shock to everyone involved, including tourists using the park Friday afternoon.
“Something like that, it’s surprising to be overlooked,” Denise Night said.
“It seems like some people are pretty incompetent not to notice after all these years,” Steve Night added.
In fairness, it never occurred to anyone that the cannon, which is said to be at least 233 years old, would still pose a threat. The field piece was already more than 90 years old when it was donated to the park, apparently by someone who’d salvaged it from a sunken British frigate in the East River . It was put on display at the park, and capped with concrete. No one even considered the possibility that British sailors had loaded and sealed it before their ship went down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hussar_(1763)
HMS Hussar was a sixth-rate frigate of the Royal Navy, built in England in 1761-63. She was a 28-gun ship of the Mermaid class, designed by Sir Thomas Slade. In early {01/11/13} 2013, a cannon from Hussar was discovered stored in a building in New York’s Central Park still loaded with live gunpowder and shot
Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” A “reprisal” means an action taken in return for some injury . A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include forced used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured.
“Marque” is related to “marching” and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a Letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A.
Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country.
Private Military Contractors in Iraq?
Can you say BINGO for Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company
A private military company (PMC), private military firm (PMF),[1] or private military or security company, provides armed security services. PMCs refer to their staff as security contractors or private military contractors. Private military companies refer to their business generally as the private military industry or The Circuit.[2][3] While the hiring of mercenaries is a common practice in the history of armed conflict, it is prohibited in the modern age by the United Nations Mercenary Convention, which is why PMCs make a specific differentiation between their commercial activities and the connotations surrounding the word “mercenary”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
The procedure for issuing Letters of Marque and the issuing authority varied by time and circumstance. In colonial America, for instance, colonial governors issued them in the name of the king. During the American Revolution, first the state legislatures, then both the states and the Continental Congress, then, after ratification of the Constitution, Congress authorized and the President to sign Letters of Marque. A shipowner would send in an application stating the name, description, tonnage, and force (armaments / cannons) of the vessel, the name and residence of the owner, and the intended number of crew, and tendered a bond promising strict observance of the country’s laws and treaties and of international laws and customs. The commission was granted to the vessel, not to its captain , often for a limited time or specified area, and stated the enemy upon whom attacks were permitted. For instance, during the Second Barbary War President James Madison authorized the Salem, Mass., brig Grand Turk to cruise against “Algerine vessels, public or private, goods and effects, of or belonging to the Dey of Algiers.” [17] (Interestingly, this particular commission was never put to use, as it was issued the same day the treaty was signed ending the U.S. involvement in the war—July 3, 1815.)
By issuing the “Commission to the vessel” all crew members had immunity, via the “Commission.”
Fully auto weapons owned by private citizens?????:
I give you Teddy Roosevelt’s Roughriders:
Yet private ship owners had cannon, and even as late as Teddy Roosevelt’s Roughriders, the {William Tiffany}Tiffany Family (as in jewelry) gave them a couple of machine guns (Private interests gave the regiment superior firepower). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbury_Kane or below: http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/the-rough-riders-potato-digger/
http://www.americanrifleman.org/Webcontent/images/2013-2/20132279156- roughridersgun_m.jpg
from Paragraph 7 But this was not a Gatling; it was a potato digger and, as TR wrote in The Rough Riders (1899): “Our regiment had accumulated two rapid-fire Colt automatic guns, (pre John Browning’s design 50 caliber M2 machine gun, see also Note-1) the gift of Stevens, Kane, {William Tiffany}Tiffany {as in Jewelry Family}, and one or two others of the New York men … .”
Note-1: Prior, to the July 1, 1898, assault on San Juan Hill.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbury_Kane Spanish-American war service When the Spanish-American War broke out, Kane, with other leaders of society, enlisted in the First United States Volunteer Cavalry, better known as the “Rough Riders.” Kane and several of his East Coast friends including William Tiffany donated two Colt Machine Guns that cost $7,500 each. When the Rough Riders will Sic{were} allowed to expand from their original number of 778 to 1000, Kane was commissioned a lieutenant. Roosevelt mention him in his account The Rough Riders:
+++++++++++++++++++
Brian T. Halonen (halonen@csd.uwm.edu) The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” 1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.” 1812: “The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.” 1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.” 1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.” 1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
+++++++++++++++++++
http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20130301gun-control-need-angle-debate.html
By Ed Ford Mon Mar 4, 2013 7:57 AM
It is now common for the anti-civil-liberties side of the gun debate to ask why anyone would need a standard-capacity magazine (which they call a high-capacity magazine) or a carbine (which they refer to as an assault rifle).
The question is generally followed by a smirk with a whiff of condescension or a genuine look of curiosity.
As tempting as it is to vigorously explain the history of tyrannical governments, mass-murdered citizens, 1776, Koreans in the Los Angeles riots, the Constitutional Convention, findings of U.S. vs. Miller or the intent of a well-regulated militia, don’t do it.
As Admiral Ackbar would say, “It’s a trap!” Answering this question gives it weight and validity. It has neither. It is no one’s right to decide what you are allowed to own based on your need to own it, regardless of the item in question. Period.
Reflect for a moment on the type of person who asks someone why they should be permitted to have something they don’t need. Seriously, stop reading and think on it.
Anyone asking is either anticipating your response or too asleep to understand it. Instead, take a real look at the question. Why would anyone who understands freedom ask a question like this?
I was asked by my cousin from California why anyone would need a Jeep. I got so caught up in defending my Jeep that I missed the point.
I don’t have to need it to own it. What a simple concept, freedom. What kind of ideology or belief system do you have when you question the ownership of an item based on the owners need for it ?
Confront the poser of this question simply and directly: Do I have to need something to own it ?
Let’s play the need game with any other item and see how quickly the argument falls apart. Do you need an automatic transmission in your car? It makes it easier for drunks to drive, and drunk drivers kill 30 times more people a year than people do with rifles.
Do people need pools? There are more than 4 1/2 million pools in the U.S., yet you’re six times more likely to drown in one than be accidentally shot, even though there are 68 times more guns than pools. There are 26,000 deaths from falls each year, which is 80 times more than the number of deaths caused by rifles. Do you really need the ladders and step stools? I can think of hundreds of similarly inanimate objects that American’s don’t need.
If you are spending your valuable time and energy explaining to someone who doesn’t understand the core of freedom why you need a rifle, you’ve overshot.
Go back and figure out why anyone would ask that question in the first place.
Ed Ford of Phoenix is a rate analyst and an officer in the Arizona National Guard.
++++++++++++++++++++
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.” — Cesare Beccaria, Essay on Crimes and Punishments, 1764 Cesare Beccaria, — [Marchese Beccaria, 1738-1794. Originally published in Italian in 1764] Dei delitti e delle pene. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Beccaria
++++++++++++++++++++
Full 2nd paragraph, of – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, 26 Dec. 1787
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power became usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition; and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements; and the military force in the possession of the usurpers, can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation, there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to ensure success to the popular resistance.
Copyright 2014 All Rights Reserved Permission to Reprint is granted provided By David Peter Guadalupe (A.K.A. Stanwooddave) Stanwood, Wa. 98292
A well maintained Kentucky rifle in the hands of a good shooter was much more lethal than many firearms sold today.
Google “apostrophe use”.
Can you PLEASE learn to use apostrophes? PRETTY PLEASE? I’d like to read what you wrote, but I dismiss any article which ignores the rules of the English language. I can’t get past it.
I found this quote in Louis L’Amour’s book “The Lonesome Gods”:
“Our constitution provides that no law shall forbid us from keeping and bearing arms because of the necessity for a militia. We have a militia of a sort, but our greatest strength lies in the fact that so many of our people not only possess weapons but also understand their use, and above all they are prepared to defend themselves against any sudden attack by an enemy.
“You will remember that we won our freedom because we were armed. We were not a simple peasantry unused to weapons. The men who wrote our Constitution knew our people would be safe as long and they were armed.”
From “North to the Rails”:
“Understand one thing……You can make laws against weapons but they will be observed only by those who don’t intend to use them anyway. The lawless can always smuggle or steal, or even make a gun. By refusing to wear a gun you allow the criminal to operate with impunity.”
Not really. That would have been the Ferguson rifle, experimented with by the British, but more or less abandoned when Ferguson was wounded at Brandywine.
Rate of fire six to ten shots per minute, versus one or less for the Kentucky long rifle.
The Americans, however, were the only guys to field actual effective units of riflemen. It should be noted, however, that these were "special forces" units, and the vast majority of American troops, Continental and militia, used muskets just like the Brits.
LOL who knew...but the Law & Order FR types will be right along to tell us why the govt should be more heavily armed....and why we must prostrate ourselves at the feet of tyrants.
My gggggrandfather 1775, had a Weapon of Mass Destruction, til 1825; his blunderbuss which could kill 20 people in one shot, Redcoats preferably.
The most dishonestly interpreted SCOTUS decision ever.
Republicans have been double dog daring the progressives to SEIZE POWER for more than a hundred years..
Taunting... them... pillorying them... laughing at them.. even making it possible for them to do it..
When possible ignoring them as prevarication..
ELSE.. communism AND socialism would have been OUTLAWED..
Making it impossible to survive.. in a Constitutional System..
Instead.. they have ignored it.. acted like it didn’t exist..
Even aided it in many respects..
It’s REPUBICANS(generally) that are at fault for current full fledged Marxism... in America..
THEY are to blame for the Marxing taking place..
Socialism SHOULD have been cut off at the knees..
Republicans ALLOWED the public schools to become re-education camps..
No hew and cry... no shouting from the house tops..
No investigation of in your face sedition and treason...
Go along to git along..
Change MAY come.......... When they ADMIT IT...
Be sorry for it.... accept responsibility for it...
THEN change may come.. until THEN.. it WILL NOT COME..
Marxism is much much too lame to WORK.... Unless..
Republicans support it.. i.e. George Bush, Romney, Bob Dole.. etc.. (Boner/McConnell)
I'm curious. How would you propose going about outlawing certain political opinions while maintaining freedom of speech, press and assembly?
How do you do so without giving a government agency the right to decide what opinions are acceptable? Is that something you really want to do?
Y'dun GOOD, buddy boy !
Yeah, like this:
http://www.montereyherald.com/news/ci_25223763/five-king-city-police-officers-arrested
King City has been a shiite hole town for years, and only now are we “finding out about the corruption?” From the arrest list, it looks like it’s “just Mexicans bringing their culture northward.” Today, the PD in King City is closed because they don’t have enough “officers” remaining to keep it open. Bet this is a red letter day for the residents not to have any cops around tending to their speed traps. And we actually allow these miscreants to carry guns!
I recall a certain bank robbery gone bad in LA not to long ago that the perps outgunned an overwhelming force of officers for a significant amount of time.
Otherwise, points well made.
I’m curious. How would you propose going about outlawing certain political opinions while maintaining freedom of speech, press and assembly?
Easy by making accusation of treason possible... and prosecution of it important and doable..
AND by passing laws against sedition.. with sever penalty’s..
with public HANGING by the neck televised as punishment..
Course all the democrat party and much of the republican party is currently GUILTY..
Small price to pay for increasing the worth of the Constitution from the toilet paper it now is.. back to a/the founding Charter..
** wouldn’t take many hangings to put America back on the right track.. most democrats would “find Jesus” again.. (as they say).. post haste..
Ya know, there wouldn’t be much left of the Constitution after you get through saving it. IMO, of course.
The Founders precisely defined treason in the Constitution. Changing that would require an amendment that criminalizes certain opinions, speech and writing.
Which agency of the federal government do you propose this power be given to?
To go along with that, the colonists also introduced (or at least honed) a gorilla warfare tactic (compared to the previously honorable line-up-and-shoot-each-other game of chicken they called war. In one book I read many years ago, it is thought that this tactic was born of organized chaos. As small groups of fighters would hit and run, or set up ambushes before armies were formed (Battle of Concord) Allegedly, these tactics were adopted and used as the military became more organized. This is where the "special forces" allegedly started.
According to history, when the Brits were confronted at Concord by gathering militia (Paul Revere) the famous confrontation was won by the Brits as Colonists retreated. It was what followed that eventually had them running for their lives back to Boston. The Brits were decimated along an 18 mile retreat that baffled the Kings soldiers. It is thought that most of these colonists were still on their way to Concord and the battle along the British retreat drew them in to set up and take shots. The sniper (rifleman) was born as the colonists fought from positions with cover.
“While at Concord we saw vast numbers assembling in many parts; at one of the bridges they marched down, with a very considerable body, on the light infantry posted there. On their coming pretty near, one of our men fired on them, which they returned; on which an action ensued, and some few were killed and wounded. In this affair, it appears that after the bridge was quitted, they scalped and otherwise ill-treated one or two of the men who were either killed or severely wounded, being seen by a party that marched by soon after…On our leaving Concord to return to Boston, they began to fire on us from behind the walls, ditches, trees, etc., which, as we marched, increased to a very great degree, and continued without the intermission of five minutes altogether, for, I believe, upwards of eighteen miles; so that I can’t think but it must have been a preconcerted scheme in them, to attack the King’s troops the first favourable opportunity that offered, otherwise, I think they could not, in so short a time as from our marching out, have raised such a numerous body, and for so great a space of ground. Notwithstanding the enemy’s numbers, they did not make one gallant effort during so long an action, though our men were so very much fatigued, but kept under cover.” - Colonel Francis Smith (British account of the engagement)
Which agency of the federal government do you propose this power be given to?
Oh I see.. you’re NOT for a revolution(Civil War)?... I see how your mind works.
I however AM...
During the(this).... conflict (I’m imagining).. to even BE a part of the federal gov’t makes you suspect..
You do realize a Civil War “IS” against the feds.... don’t you?..
A splintered military would happen... since most military is State militia anyway.. they are only partially federal..
Same with the Coast Guard.. obviously the FBI, IRS, BATF, CIA, NSA... (others) have mostly been enemies of the people for the longest time.. especially NOW..
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.