Gun Control, If this was Lexington or Concord on 19 April 1775 ?

Question

and the British were marching into town. How would you feel about gun control at the time?

After all the British Troops were marching in to seize the stock pile of American Colonial arms.

Answer 1

~Jewle,

Of all your ridiculous cut and paste jobs, this is by far the most ludicrous. Have you any clue that you failed to even address the question let alone answer it? No one is particularly impressed that you can work a mouse and several people have commented in other questions (and have even posted questions addressing you specifically) as to the idiocy of what you are doing. Duh.

Ed, if I follow your logic correctly, then you are saying that you agree wholeheartedly that some Idaho neo-nazi militia should have the right to engage in an armed invasion of Washington (or some Moslem extremist should be able to blow up the World Trade Center). Wasn't the rightful government of the colonies simply trying to maintain law and order and quell a growing spirit of rebellion amongst a minority of the colonists (at its peak, only about 1/3 of the colonists actively supported the rebellion) when the British troops marched on Concord to seize the weapons depot there and to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock? I suppose anarchy and war in the streets beats an ordered and free society. No, I have no desire to give up any of my weapons but by the same token I don't want Uzis and AK-47s freely available to any lunatic who wants one. Regardless, I doubt that my .44 mag or 7mm is going to have much effect on an M1a2 Abrams.

In any event, the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit gun control. It allows the right to bear arms in order to maintain a "well regulated militia". When the need for a militia died, so died with it any unfettered right to bear arms, and, technically, any right at all to own firearms.

As to personal defense, more people are killed with their own weapons and/or by accidental shootings (usually by and of children) than by burglars. Drive-bys don't count. They are generally acts of war between rivals, and your seeming support of unrestricted gun ownership advocates that those wars be allowed to continue. Oh, the bad guys shouldn't be able to own guns? Then you DO support SOME gun control? What, as you long as you get to dictate the terms, it's ok? That concept is as foolish as your original analogy.

Answer 2

Actually the British were out looking for a stockpile of Colonial gunpowder that was hidden in the countryside on April 19, 1775. Since all firearms at that time had to be loaded with gunpowder and a bullet every time they were fired (no cartridge ammunition) I would suggest that the British were making an attempt at gun control.

Answer 3

There were no semi-automatics back then nor machine guns (a forerunner was invented c.1861). People had to load their weapons with gun powder, a small, round, lead bullet, similar to a tiny cannon ball, stuff in a wad of cloth, push the mixture carefully with an iron poker-like rod and fire. The flint lock gun was very long and heavy; pistols, too, were heavy. All in all, the weapons during this time, were similar to portable cannons and took forever--sort of--to load.

Answer 4

Given the kinds of Arms that the Military can use now the right to bare arms is moot beyond personal home defence against robbers and such which is not the constitutional issue!

Answer 5

That is one of the reasons that the second amendment of the costitution was written and approved.

The founding fathers of our country understood that the ability of the people to overthrow an oppressive government must be preserved.

The Second amendment had nothing what so ever to do with hunting, sport shooting, or arms collections. It was to enssure that the people could band together and defend their freedom against a government gone bad.

Case in point: The Bush administration!

Answer 6

that's about as smart as asking why they did not installation tanks, airplane and gadget guns. diverse age, diverse priorities, technologies and needs. And by the fashion, they were armed forces, less than the command of (in a large number of cases elected) officials, and issue to a level of armed forces self-discipline. no longer yahoos, no longer loners, and in all likelihood no longer loonies. by the criteria of the time, a properly regulated armed forces!

Answer 7

Jimfix is a stoned liberal idiot.

Lexington and Concord were early
British attempts at oppression and gun control.

Answer 8

Your 100% right. Leave gun control to Hitler and Stalin, Americans are free to defend themselves.

Gun control causes crime. Gun control has never worked anywhere so why cite it as a solution?

I think it was a tragedy first and foremost and my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.

The killer alone caused the crime, but the high number of victims is directly caused by gun control. The Virginia Tech killer never registered his gun, so why cite registration as a solution?

They were just sitting ducks with no way to defend themselves much like the victims of Colin Ferguson. Concealed-carry advocates warned us all long ago to expect tragedies like this as long as we have gun control.

When only criminals have guns the rest of us can only ponder tactics like "notifications."

In a state where concealed-carry is allowed or promoted, the loss of life could have been much less. He may have shot one or two, but a concealed-carrier would have dispatched him right quick.

Sadly there is no way to prevent a killer with a gun. In tribal Africa where there are no manufactured guns, tribesman make them from pipes and rubber-bands so clearly gun control is not the answer. You can make a gun out of wood in an hour! He could have stabbed just as many with a knife.

Since you will never stop the OFFENSE, we must allow ourselves a DEFENSE. We are not all of one culture anymore, so violence will only increase.

HB 1572 was a Virginia state bill to allow college students to carry arms on campus to protect themselves from tragedies like what happened at Virginia Tech. The bill was defeated

The spokesman for Virginia Tech was happy to hear the bill [HB 1572] was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

The fact is NOT passing the bill allowing students to defend themselves caused many more deaths. States that pass concealed-carry laws experience lower crime rates, Texas is a good example of this.

The only way to prevent these killing rampages is concealed-carry. Would you rather protect yourself or wait for the folly of police or school "notification?”

Answer 9

Oscar, ditto about jewle. I sprained my finger trying to scroll past several of her irrelevant and non-responsive plagiarisms. What a pain.

Answer 10

I have heard some absurd questions on here but this one is tops.