davjohns

Anyone heard from her lately? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I didn't follow the link; only read what you wrote. I think those are common sense things that shouldn't need to be law, but I could certainly support them. Sadly, I think they are only enforceable after something bad happens in the first case, and hardly at all in the second. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Another: From the Delphos Herald, Oct. 1, 1930 Aplon Lechleitner, who died Monday, last member of Green Squad which had charge of cannon brought to Delphos after Civil War and now located in Library Park. The death of Aplon Lechleitner, who passed away at Ft. Wayne Monday, recalls to some of the older residents some of the interesting incidents in the life of this city in the early days. Mr. Lechleitner, a veteran of the Civil War, was a member of a gun squad of five which was formed to take charge of a cannon which was secured for Delphos following the Civil War, a reminder of the grim battle between the North and South. This is a one-pounder which was used throughout the war. This gun was secured through the efforts of George W. Hunt, Isaac Scott, R.W. Lythe, John Feely and Henry Moennig. These men paid the expense of bringing the gun to Delphos and owned it jointly, ownership passing to those remaining upon the death of any of the five. Mr. Moennig was the last of the five to pass away and gave the gun to the City of Delphos. The gun squad which was formed to have charge of the cannon consisted of Fred Rauschart, John Clapper, James Point, J. McLaughlin and Aplon Lechleitner. These men fired it many times upon occasions of elections and other times of general interest. It finally became unsafe to fire it and this practice ceased. Information concerning the history of the gun and those who brought it to Delphos and handled it here was received from John Wahmhoff, local historian and curator of the museum at the public library. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think we are close. I still think the term 'arms' was meant to be more expansive than what an individual can carry. If the purpose was to overthrow a tyranical government as they had just done, they would not recognize such a limitation, would they? Indeed, I can think of quotes that indicate they had no illusion that they had just come up with a perfect form of government that would not need replacing. If it neede replacing, surely the People needed the tools to do it with? The same tools available to the government? To this point, those tools were called 'arms'. Interesting except from a piece I just found: Benjamin Franklin’s served the Continental Congress as "Minister Plenipotentiary.” Minister Plenipotentiary is defined as "A diplomatic representative ranking below an ambassador but having full governmental power and authority; a plenipotentiary." (2) This enabled Franklin to issue Letters of Marque with the authority of the Continental Congress. Letters of Marque authorized a privately owned vessel to make captures on behalf of a country at war. But American privateering commissions were not recognized as such. Having not yet gained her independence from Britain, the Continental Congress technically could not issue Letters of Marque, The American colonies were no more than unruly factions under British rule. Captured privateers who operated under an American commission, were not granted prisoner of war status by the British. They were regarded as pirates, rebels or murderers and could expect to end their days in the noose. (4) But nonetheless, in March of 1776, congress passed the Privateering resolution, which granted colonists the right "…to fit out armed vessels to cruize [sic] on the enemies of these United Colonies." (5) The first ship to gain Benjamin Franklin’s American privateering commission was the “Black Prince”, a French-owned vessel so named for it’s black hull and near-legendary prowess and speed as a rumrunner. The Black Prince was crewed by Irish smugglers who would split the profits from the venture with the vessel’s owner. Franklin himself took no profit from privateering. His sole interest lay in the procurement of British prisoners for trade. The Black Prince underwent extensive improvements to prepare her for this daunting task of Benjamin Franklin’s. She was approximately sixty-five feet in length by twenty feet in her beam (width). Her hold was retrofitted to accommodate fifty or more hammocks and small sleeping cubbyholes for her officers. She was armed with sixteen 4-pounder guns and thirty swivels. (6) The Black Prince enjoyed a brilliant solo career, capturing an impressive thirty-five vessels before being joined by the Black Princess, who served as her consort ship. The Black Princess was “…a cutter of 60 feet keel & 20 feet beam mounting 16 three pounders and 24 swivels & Small arms with 65 men all Americans and Irish under the command of Capn Edward Marcartor of Boston." (7) Together, the two ships terrorized British merchant shipping channels, thwarting all attempts to stop them and successfully capturing twenty prizes. "…we continue to insult the Coasts of the Lords of the Ocean with our little cruisers” Franklin wrote to Congress when describing his fleet’s progress. (8) The Black Prince and Princess continued their assaults until disaster struck on April 6th of 1780, when the Black Prince met her end as she struck a reef during an engagement along the coast of France. Lastly, the "Fearnot" joined Franklin’s black fleet, sailing independently of the Black Princess. She was "…A fine large cutter" (9) which was equipped with eighteen six-pounder guns and twenty swivels. Between 1779 and 1780, the three ships brought in an impressive one hundred and fourteen prizes, eleven of which were retaken, seventy-six were ransomed, sixteen were brought in, one hundred and twenty six were paroled and eleven were lost, scuttled or burned. (8) In the end, their reign of terror was only partially successful in respect to exchanging prisoners, for although they captured many, the British remained uncooperative for the most part, during prisoner exchange negotiations. But Franklin’s ships were successful in doing what had never been done before- wreaking havoc upon the "Mistress of the Seas", as Britain was then known. Ironically, toward the close of the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin attempted to have a clause added to the peace treaty with Britain, prohibiting the practice of privateering in future conflicts. But despite the efforts of the good doctor, privateering continued to flourish. Much of this was due to the fact that the fledgling United States had no significant naval force with which to defend itself and that privateering was a highly effective method of accomplishing the young nation’s means. Privateering continued to be practiced by the United States throughout the Civil War. To this very day, our government still maintains the right "…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." (10) I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I would have to do a bit of research, but I think you are mistaken. I'm pretty sure privately owned merchant ships of the day were heavily armed (cannon) and this was acceptable. I seem to recall the government contracted privately owned and armed ships for various expeditions. There seems to be no issue there. Many of the units of the US Civil War were outfitted by individuals who provided cannon as personally owned property. I'm certain many of them returned to private ownership after the war. All seem to have been deemed rightful, then. They are proudly displayed in yards of Chattanooga residents today and still privately owned. Nobody seems concerned. I have actually bought one on the internet for a unit I was assigned to and wanted it for ceremonial use. No paperwork was necessary. Black powder firearms are not deemed firearms by the ATF (have fun with a hypothetical scenario there). I think privately owned cannon were covered by the Second Amendment at the time it was written and continues to be so today. Again, research may prove me wrong...but I would have to see it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I ALMOST agree with you. I would carry it a bit further. I don't think private citizens should have nukes because I don't think anyone should. Even the US. To have them is to have the power to use them...and they should never be used again. I recently read some history of the first nuke program, the reaction of the creators to the first detonation, and the effects of the first two deployments. It is incredibly sobering. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

The right to bear arms shall not be Think they were talking cannons? I can't bear a cannon Can you? If you would read the Federalist papers I linked to you will see that the debated included being armed when going for a walk I can't let you frame the argument as being merely personal protection. That was ONE reason individuals have the right to own arms. The more important reason (since you just read the Federalist Papers) was so that the ultimate power (force) resided with the People. And those People could replace the government by force of arms when necessary. In that light, tanks, planes, grenades, RPGs, cannon, and anything else necessary to a popular uprising was deemed a right of the People. I am not an advocate of the violent overthrow of the government. Nor do I see it happening in my lifetime. However, I try to learn from the past. The past tells us it can and will be necessary. To think otherwise is to be as arrogant as the Romans (remember them?). Also, I think it is a healthy thing for elected officials to know the possibility (however remote) exists. Checks and balances. Checks and balances. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I`m pretty neutral on the gun debate but it amazes me that people are putting this much energy to save... assaults rifles. Because there are no 'assault rifles'. There are only rifles. The last attempt to define them eliminated such irrelevant things as bayonette lugs, pistol grips, flash suppressors and collapsible stocks. None of these were relevant to anything but the appearance and popularity. Calling it something ominous like 'assault rifle' is just an Information Operations campaign conducted against the population. When automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, and silencers were regulated, it was because they were popular with gangsters. It wasn't because law abiding citizens were abusing them or ordinary citizens were being killed with them. They just got lots of play in the media. Same thing for 'assault rifles'. There is also the whole 'slippery slope' argument. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think you and I went in the same direction with slightly different outcomes. I agree that the state would be unlikely to criminalize a fed doing their job. I was thinking more of the larger issue of a state ensuring legal ownership of firearms in their state. If the weapon was produced in the state and never left the state, the feds could not claim interstate commerce. This was always the first issue when I defended gun charges in federal court. Since I never had a case where the weapon was produced within the state, we never went further. I'm not sure there is any further to go. I agree that, in the long run, the feds would just withhold the money they stole from the state's citizens until the state gave in. That's how they ultimately made the 10th amendment moot. But hypothetically, I don't think the feds could ban firearms in a state without the state's compliance. I suppose the feds could claim weapons produced in a state were easily transported across state lines to assert jurisdiction. That's pretty much how the FBI jumps into kidnapping cases when they want. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I used to fight competitively. I always loved to see a handle on the back of my opponent's head. I wonder why more players don't use that handle? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I have to disagree. I think arms are arms. The Founding Fathers did not mention planes, tanks, etc. because they did not exist. And automatic weapons are NOT illegal. Nor are silencers or sawed off shotguns. You have to fill out some paperwork and pay a tax to have them. More trouble than buying a pistol, but less than getting a passport. I have two silencers. I found the ATF quite helpful and the process quite smooth. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

The Patrick Henry quote made me do some research. I was never taught this in school. I wonder why not? The American Revolution against British Gun Control By David B. Kopel* Administrative and Regulatory Law News (American Bar Association). Vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 2012. More by Kopel on the right to arms in the Founding Era. This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment. Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate. The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder. Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder. Modern “smokeless” gunpowder is stable under most conditions. The “black powder” of the 18th Century was far more volatile. Accordingly, large quantities of black powder were often stored in a town’s “powder house,” typically a reinforced brick building. The powder house would hold merchants’ reserves, large quantities stored by individuals, as well as powder for use by the local militia. Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied “public arms” and powder to individual militiamen. Policies varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house. Before dawn on September 1, 1774, 260 of Gage’s Redcoats sailed up the Mystic River and seized hundreds of barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house. The “Powder Alarm,” as it became known, was a serious provocation. By the end of the day, 20,000 militiamen had mobilized and started marching towards Boston. In Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, rumors quickly spread that the Powder Alarm had actually involved fighting in the streets of Boston. More accurate reports reached the militia companies before that militia reached Boston, and so the war did not begin in September. The message, though, was unmistakable: If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that violent seizure as an act of war, and would fight. And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775. Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention. That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm, and then took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly. The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians. Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.” When the Massachusetts Assembly convened, General Gage declared it illegal, so the representatives reassembled as the “Provincial Congress.” On October 26, 1774, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress adopted a resolution condemning military rule, and criticizing Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.” The Provincial Congress urged all militia companies to organize and elect their own officers. At least a quarter of the militia (the famous Minute Men) were directed to “equip and hold themselves in readiness to march at the shortest notice.” The Provincial Congress further declared that everyone who did not already have a gun should get one, and start practicing with it diligently. In flagrant defiance of royal authority, the Provincial Congress appointed a Committee of Safety and vested it with the power to call forth the militia. The militia of Massachusetts was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts. Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America, sent Gage a letter on October 17, 1774, urging him to disarm New England. Gage replied that he would like to do so, but it was impossible without the use of force. After Gage’s letter was made public by a reading in the British House of Commons, it was publicized in America as proof of Britain’s malign intentions. Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted. Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin was masterminding the surreptitious import of arms and ammunition from the Netherlands, France, and Spain. The patriotic Boston Committee of Correspondence learned of the arms embargo and promptly dispatched Paul Revere to New Hampshire, with the warning that two British ships were headed to Fort William and Mary, near Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to seize firearms, cannons, and gunpowder. On December 14, 1774, 400 New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort. A New Hampshire newspaper argued that the capture was prudent and proper, reminding readers that the ancient Carthaginians had consented to “deliver up all their Arms to the Romans” and were decimated by the Romans soon after. In Parliament, a moderate minority favored conciliation with America. Among the moderates was the Duke of Manchester, who warned that America now had three million people, and most of them were trained to use arms. He was certain they could produce a stronger army than Great Britain. The Massachusetts Provincial Congress offered to purchase as many arms and bayonets as could be delivered to the next session of the Congress. Massachusetts also urged American gunsmiths “diligently to apply themselves” to making guns for everyone who did not already have a gun. A few weeks earlier, the Congress had resolved: “That it be strongly recommended, to all the inhabitants of this colony, to be diligently attentive to learning the use of arms . . . .” Derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke, the ideology underlying all forms of American resistance was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights; from the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant. The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny. The troubles in New England inflamed the other colonies. Patrick Henry’s great speech to the Virginia legislature on March 23, 1775, argued that the British plainly meant to subjugate America by force. Because every attempt by the Americans at peaceful reconciliation had been rebuffed, the only remaining alternatives for the Americans were to accept slavery or to take up arms. If the Americans did not act soon, the British would soon disarm them, and all hope would be lost. “The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us,” he promised. The Convention formed a committee—including Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson—“to prepare a plan for the embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient” to defend the commonwealth. The Convention urged “that every Man be provided with a good Rifle” and “that every Horseman be provided . . . with Pistols and Holsters, a Carbine, or other Firelock.” When the Virginia militiamen assembled a few weeks later, many wore canvas hunting shirts adorned with the motto “Liberty or Death.” In South Carolina, patriots established a government, headed by the “General Committee.” The Committee described the British arms embargo as a plot to disarm the Americans in order to enslave them. Thus, the Committee recommended that “all persons” should “immediately” provide themselves with a large quantity of ammunition. Without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors. In Virginia, George Washington and George Mason organized the Fairfax Independent Militia Company. The Fairfax militiamen pledged that “we will, each of us, constantly keep by us” a firelock, six pounds of gunpowder, and twenty pounds of lead. Other independent militia embodied in Virginia along the same model. Independent militia also formed in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maryland, and South Carolina, choosing their own officers. John Adams praised the newly constituted Massachusetts militia, “commanded through the province, not by men who procured their commissions from a governor as a reward for making themselves pimps to his tools.” The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord. The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18. At dawn, the British confronted about 200 militiamen at Lexington. “Disperse you Rebels—Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse!” ordered Major Pitcairn. The Americans were quickly routed. With a “huzzah” of victory, the Redcoats marched on to Concord, where one of Gage’s spies had told him that the largest Patriot reserve of gunpowder was stored. At Concord’s North Bridge, the town militia met with some of the British force, and after a battle of two or three minutes, drove off the British. Notwithstanding the setback at the bridge, the Redcoats had sufficient force to search the town for arms and ammunition. But the main powder stores at Concord had been hauled to safety before the Redcoats arrived. When the British began to withdraw back to Boston, things got much worse for them. Armed Americans were swarming in from nearby towns. They would soon outnumber the British 2:1. Although some of the Americans cohered in militia units, a great many fought on their own, taking sniper positions wherever opportunity presented itself. Only British reinforcements dispatched from Boston saved the British expedition from annihilation—and the fact that the Americans started running out of ammunition and gun powder. 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. That night, the American militiamen began laying siege to Boston, where General Gage’s standing army was located. At dawn, Boston had been the base from which the King’s army could project force into New England. Now, it was trapped in the city, surrounded by people in arms. Two days later in Virginia, royal authorities confiscated 20 barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and destroyed the public firearms there by removing their firing mechanisms. In response to complaints, manifested most visibly by the mustering of a large independent militia led by Patrick Henry, Governor Dunmore delivered a legal note promising to pay restitution. At Lexington and Concord, forcible disarmament had not worked out for the British. So back in Boston, Gage set out to disarm the Bostonians a different way. On April 23, 1775, Gage offered the Bostonians the opportunity to leave town if they surrendered their arms. The Boston Selectmen voted to accept the offer, and within days, 2,674 guns were deposited, one gun for every two adult male Bostonians. Gage thought that many Bostonians still had guns, and he refused to allow the Bostonians to leave. Indeed, a large proportion of the surrendered guns were “training arms”—large muskets with bayonets, that would be difficult to hide. After several months, food shortages in Boston convinced Gage to allow easier emigration from the city. Gage’s disarmament program incited other Americans to take up arms. Benjamin Franklin, returning to Philadelphia after an unsuccessful diplomatic trip to London, “was highly pleased to find the Americans arming and preparing for the worst events.” The government in London dispatched more troops and three more generals to America: William Howe, Henry Clinton, and John Burgoyne. The generals arrived on May 25, 1775, with orders from Lord Dartmouth to seize all arms in public armories, or which had been “secretly collected together for the purpose of aiding Rebellions.” The war underway, the Americans captured Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York. At the June 17 Battle of Bunker Hill, the militia held its ground against the British regulars and inflicted heavy casualties, until they ran out of gunpowder and were finally driven back. (Had Gage not confiscated the gunpowder from the Charleston Powder House the previous September, the Battle of Bunker Hill probably would have resulted in an outright defeat of the British.) On June 19, Gage renewed his demand that the Bostonians surrender their arms, and he declared that anyone found in possession of arms would be deemed guilty of treason. Meanwhile, the Continental Congress had voted to send ten companies of riflemen from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to aid the Massachusetts militia. On July 6, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, written by Thomas Jefferson and the great Pennsylvania lawyer John Dickinson. Among the grievances were General Gage’s efforts to disarm the people of Lexington, Concord, and Boston. Two days later, the Continental Congress sent an open letter to the people of Great Britain warning that “men trained to arms from their Infancy, and animated by the Love of Liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.” The Swiss immigrant John Zubly, who was serving as a Georgia delegate to the Continental Congress, wrote a pamphlet entitled Great Britain’s Right to Tax . . . By a Swiss, which was published in London and Philadelphia. He warned that “in a strong sense of liberty, and the use of fire-arms almost from the cradle, the Americans have vastly the advantage over men of their rank almost every where else.” Indeed, children were “shouldering the resemblance of a gun before they are well able to walk.” “The Americans will fight like men, who have everything at stake,” and their motto was “DEATH OR FREEDOM.” The town of Gorham, Massachusetts (now part of the State of Maine), sent the British government a warning that even “many of our Women have been used to handle the Cartridge and load the Musquet.” It was feared that the Massachusetts gun confiscation was the prototype for the rest of America. For example, a newspaper article published in three colonies reported that when the new British generals arrived, they would order everyone in America “to deliver up their arms by a certain stipulated day.” The events of April 19 convinced many more Americans to arm themselves and to embody independent militia. A report from New York City observed that “the inhabitants there are arming themselves . . . forming companies, and taking every method to defend our rights. The like spirit prevails in the province of New Jersey, where a large and well disciplined militia are now fit for action.” In Virginia, Lord Dunmore observed: “Every County is now Arming a Company of men whom they call an independent Company for the avowed purpose of protecting their Committee, and to be employed against Government if occasion require.” North Carolina’s Royal Governor Josiah Martin issued a proclamation outlawing independent militia, but it had little effect. A Virginia gentleman wrote a letter to a Scottish friend explaining in America: We are all in arms, exercising and training old and young to the use of the gun. No person goes abroad without his sword, or gun, or pistols. . . . Every plain is full of armed men, who all wear a hunting shirt, on the left breast of which are sewed, in very legible letters, “Liberty or Death.” The British escalated the war. Royal Admiral Samuel Graves ordered that all seaports north of Boston be burned. When the British navy showed up at what was then known as Falmouth, Massachusetts (today’s Portland, Maine), the town attempted to negotiate. The townspeople gave up eight muskets, which was hardly sufficient, and so Falmouth was destroyed by naval bombardment. The next year, the 13 Colonies would adopt the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration listed the tyrannical acts of King George III, including his methods for carrying out gun control: “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our people.” As the war went on, the British always remembered that without gun control, they could never control America. In 1777, with British victory seeming likely, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan entitled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” To ensure that there would be no future rebellions, “[t]he Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . . .” To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era, the theory of some late-20th Century courts that the Second Amendment is a “collective right” and not an “individual right” might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, nor their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began. The Americans used their individual arms and their collective arms to fight against the confiscation of any arms. Americans fought to provide themselves a government that would never perpetrate the abuses that had provoked the Revolution. What are modern versions of such abuses? The reaction against the 1774 import ban for firearms and gunpowder (via a discretionary licensing law) indicates that import restrictions are unconstitutional if their purpose is to make it more difficult for Americans to possess guns. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the import of any firearm that is not deemed “sporting” by federal regulators. That import ban seems difficult to justify based on the historical record of 1774-76. Laws disarming people who have proven themselves to be a particular threat to public safety are not implicated by the 1774-76 experience. In contrast, laws that aim to disarm the public at large are precisely what turned a political argument into the American Revolution. The most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament. As Hurricane Katrina bore down on Louisiana, police officers in St. Charles Parish confiscated firearms from people who were attempting to flee. After the hurricane passed, officers went house to house in New Orleans, breaking into homes and confiscating firearms at gunpoint. The firearms seizures were flagrantly illegal under existing state law. A federal district judge soon issued an order against the confiscation, ordering the return of the seized guns. When there is genuine evidence of potential danger—such as evidence that guns are in the possession of a violent gang—then the Fourth Amendment properly allows no-knock raids, flash-bang grenades, and similar violent tactics to carry out a search. Conversely, if there is no real evidence of danger—for example, if it is believed that a person who has no record of violence owns guns but has not registered them properly—then militaristically violent enforcement of a search warrant should never be allowed. Gun ownership simpliciter ought never to be a pretext for government violence. The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Research Director, Independence Institute, and Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. This is article is adapted from How theBritish Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution, 6 Charleston L. Rev. 283 (2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1967702. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Home ] [ Short articles 2007-present ] [ Short 2001-06 ] [ Short articles 1986-2000 ] [ Books & journal articles ] [ Video ] [ Audio ] [ Mobile ] [ RSS feed ] [ Criminal Justice/Amends. 4-10 ] [ Digital Economy ] [ Environment ] [ Health, Education, Welfare ] [ History ] [ International ] [ Media/1st Amend. ] [ Religion ] [ Right to arms: Policy issues ] [ Right to arms: Law, History, Philosophy, Politics ] [ Right to Arms: International ] [ Terrorism ] [ Waco ] [ 繁體中文 /Chinese ] [ 日本語/Japanese ] [ Francais/French ] [ Italiano ] [ Spanish/Espanol ] [ Polish/Polski ] [ Pусский/Russian ] [ Český/Dansk/Deutsch/Magyar/Nederlands/Português/Svenska ] [ Independence Institute main site ] Share this page: Share on facebookShare on stumbleupon_badgeShare on emailShare on favoritesShare on print| More Sharing ServicesMore Click the icon to get RSS/XML updates of this website, and of Dave's blog posts Follow Dave on Twitter. Search Kopel website: × powered by Custom Search Web Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone 303-279-6536. (email)webmngr @ i2i.org Copyright © 2012 I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm rather confused. When did the IRS become a general purpose law enforcement agency? I understand when they pursue tax evasion and such. When did they become the health department? Next, we need to give the Surgeon General's Office enforcement capacity. Get rid of the 'Recommended' nonsense in USRDA. Make that stuff mandatory. And exercise? Mandatory. No more warnings on cigarettes or alcohol. They get banned outright. Let's quit playing games. If the government is going to be responsible for the care of your body, let's get serious. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Exactly! They'll have to use a crowbar to chase young mothers and their children until cornered. And deprived of the ability to protect themselves... Wait... On further reflection, your argument in this case is ludicrous. There are sensible arguments for regulating gun ownership and use. There is nothing in this fact pattern that can be used to support that argument. A sensible person would concede that this event is a good argument for private ownership of firearms and move on to other aspects of the debate. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Wow. I don't care which side of the issue you are on. That is outrageously biased journalism. The article makes it clear that she retreated and hid to get away from the man and he kept coming for her and her children. She did the only reasonable thing she could have done. Calling her trigger happy is incredible. Apparently, mothers no longer have the right to defend their children. We have lost it... I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I tend toward the more defiant stance: I saw you laugh when the knife was twisted It still hurts but the pain has shifted I'm looking back at the time that drifted by But I won't cry for the wasted years Cause you ain't worth the salt in my tears I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

PM sent. No offense taken. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I hate to be one of those who let you down, but I'm not a fan. When we figure out how to manage this planet, then I'll be ok with moving to others. Right now, I'm not sure we have anything worth exporting to other planets. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm not actually try to argue with you. I am just pointing out that there are so many people in the world, it seems silly to go back to someone you've failed with and moved on from. It's like looking for something in a place you've already searched while ignoring vast expanses that you have not explored. Of course, everyone makes their own decisions. I didn't even realize that was scripture. Just a bit of wisdom that seemed appropriate. Not sure why quoting good advice offends you, but it was not my intention. I am convinced that living for something is far harder than dying for it. Dying for something is a one-time decision. Living for something takes enduring committment. Still, if you don't care for good, time tested advice unless I am willing to die offering it, I can only offer another of the observations attributed to Solomon: ...a wise man listens to advice. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

As a dog returns to its own vomit, so does a fool to his folly. Too many fish in the sea. Move on. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I agree but the reason I quoted him was more to do with the fact that I wanted other peoples opinions on what he said rather than to promote his view. Fair enough. It just irks me when celebrity opinions are treated as authoritative on varied subjects. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Thanks. I'll have to do some research. Your piece pointed out to me that I had my twist rates reversed in my earlier comment. 1:7 is a tighter and more preferable rate. Like you quote, a 1:14 is less twist and has a less stabilizing influence. What I recall about the article I read was that the initial engagements in Vietnam resulted in limbs blown off, head popped open, and the like. The projectile tumbled so readily that it became devastating. Later versions had a more stable projectile that went through soft tissue so readily that marksmen could not tell they hit the target. The target kept advancing with little realization they had been hit. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Feds would not be able to do anything about it Please stop practicing constitutional law without a license. You're just plain wrong. Andy - I'm not a genius at CONLAW, but what do you think about a state that protects gun ownership and has an indigenous production capability? If there is no interstate commerce, how do the feds enforce anti-gun legislation? Nothing springs to mind, though I'm sure the current AG would come up with something. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Being a gun owner means never having to cower. That should be on a Hallmark card. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Ah, I see. So are their any lifetimers out there that can sponsor/refer me? +1 I let my membership expire. Time to renew. Lifetime would be convenient. Guess I'll call my dad and see if his membership is lifetime. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.