An interesting photo from one of the recent pro-gun protests


PDA






Justin
January 21, 2013, 08:16 PM
I recently came across this photo:

http://i.imgur.com/9HV71tQ.jpg

I'm not nearly the student of history that I wish I was. Can anyone shed some light on the British attempts to ban import in 1774?

If you enjoyed reading about "An interesting photo from one of the recent pro-gun protests" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
John828
January 21, 2013, 08:22 PM
I think the ban was part of the "Coercive Acts" that the British Parliament passed in 1774.

JVaughn
January 21, 2013, 08:39 PM
Check out this, it's a good read

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

roadliner
January 21, 2013, 08:47 PM
A good read. Thanks.

meanmrmustard
January 21, 2013, 08:51 PM
I think the ban was part of the "Coercive Acts" that the British Parliament passed in 1774.
You are correct.

firstater
January 21, 2013, 09:11 PM
The Regulars went after the gun powder stocked piled by the militia through out New England. They attempted a blockade but due to the size of the coastline this wasn't practical. My understanding is that much of the gun powder was imported at the time and a successful blockade of powder would have ruined any chance the colonists had to wage a sustained war against the British. The "powder alarms" was one of the sparks that touched off the War for Independence. If you want to read more about this, a great book is Paul Revere's ride by David Hackett Fischer. I'm not one to sit down with a book, but I couldn't put this one down. The Appleseed folks use this book as a source for their discussions at their shooting events.

buckeye8
January 21, 2013, 09:21 PM
I can't say it much better than Dave Kopel (link provided by JVaughn).

I can add one poignant footnote:

I teach American Government (high school and college) and in every single textbook and every single state-mandated curriculum I have ever seen, the role of gun control in the American Revolution is completely absent. I have not reviewed texts or state standards from every state, but from what I've seen, this is simply not taught. The 'Coercive Acts' are usually mentioned, and other parts of the Coercive (or 'Intolerable') Acts are usually discussed, but the gun control legislation and subsequent attempts at confiscation are always absent.

Colonial Americans would be shocked to know that, 200+ years later, American children are taught the story of the Revolution with nary a mention of the British Government's attempts to disarm them. I was halfway through my Master's Degree before I learned it myself!

Our history has been whitewashed, and it is incumbent upon us, as pro-gun advocates, to demand that it be restored. Long-term, this is as important to the protection of the 2nd Amendment as anything else we might do.

chipcom
January 21, 2013, 10:03 PM
Everybody has read (I hope) the Declaration of Independence...but how many have read the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_causes_and_necessities_of_taking_up_arms)?

In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birth-right, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it; for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

Hoppy
January 21, 2013, 11:14 PM
That was a good read. Thanks.

One thing I thought was interesting..
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.

I've been doing a lot of reading on black powder firearms, flintlocks, etc.. correct me if I'm wrong, but 6 lbs of powder and 20 lbs of lead would be about 400 or so shots. My math for that is 7,000 grains in 1 lbs of powder, avg. shot about 100 grains. Average round ball for .62 cal is 350 grains? I understand a Brown Bess is normally .75 caliber so the ball would be more like 600 grains. That would make the number of shots even lower.

It sounded like a lot when I read the article, but not so much after trying to figure it out.

armedandsafe
January 21, 2013, 11:49 PM
I remember reading about that 20 and 6 as I was growing up. In that reading I was informed that the average face-to-face battle was 3 to 4 volleys by the defenders and two volleys by the attackers before the two sides met for hand to hand or the two sides separated. Because the first volley was fired by the soldiers in the front and then followed by a volley from the soldiers behind them, followed by a volley by the soldiers behind them, there would not often be a second shot and certainly not a third shot by the soldiers in any given engagement.

Now, that is considering open field, face-to-face attack/defense. In a situation of forted up or entrenched soldiers being attacked by soldiers not accomanied by cannon, the situation changes, but the number of rounds fired by each individual was still quite small before the battle became hand to hand or one of the parties withdrew.

This is from my memory, but I think it is accurate. One of the American soldiers at New Orleans was amazed that he had fired as many as 7? rounds and dropped 2 balls on the ground in the primary battle. I do remember clearly that the total count of ball expended by him was less than 10 and that he dropped 2 on the ground in his haste to reload.

Keep in mind that this was research I did in the late 40s. ;)

Pops

Spike_akers
January 22, 2013, 02:43 AM
actually the first time the term Assault Rifle was used was with the MP40 and StG44 the term was Sturmgewehr which quite literally meant Storm Rifle, and was coined by hitler... but that really doesnt help our case. however, we are not trying to ban assault rifles. we are trying to ban assault WEAPONS. completely different. because an assault weapon can be anything, where as an assault RIFLE has already been defined. must be selective fire with semi and full auto, fire a round that is between that of a standard rifle and should have a minimum range of 300 meters. not to take the topic off tract

Alaska444
January 22, 2013, 03:12 AM
Everybody has read (I hope) the Declaration of Independence...but how many have read the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_causes_and_necessities_of_taking_up_arms)?
Wow, never saw that before. It lays it out right before all to see. Gun control and confiscation.

Thank you.

303tom
January 22, 2013, 10:13 AM
Somebody posted that on my FB page, says it all..............

mikeasb
January 22, 2013, 10:36 AM
Great read! Thanks for the link, it has already gone out to several friends and family.

pockets
January 22, 2013, 10:56 AM
Cute....but.....

1. It's a musket, not a rifle.
And it is definitely not the first firearm used for an assault. A bamboo matchlock, wrapped with hemp, firing an arrow might have been more historically accurate.

2. Most soldiers and militia firing muskets in wartime used paper cartridges.
Those had more powder in them than was needed for the main charge....the 'extra' was for priming the pan. Powder was also far less potent than today's Goex or Swiss, especially coarse musket powder. Six pounds of powder would fill around 250-300 cartridges (at 150 grains per cartridge), 20 pounds of lead would run maybe 280 '14ga' balls (14 balls to a pound) for a .75 or so bore (military musket balls were undersize for loading).
.

HankR
January 22, 2013, 10:59 AM
, we are not trying to ban assault rifles. we are trying to ban assault WEAPONS.

What's this "we", Spike? I ain't trying to ban anything. "We" can't let the antis define terms, or "we" get made up terms such as "assault weapon" (something that maybe looks military, but has no additional function) and "high capacity magazines" (standard capacity magazines that hold some number higher than a person that has never fired a gun in her life feels that "we" need.)

If "we" let them define the terms, "we" get distracted from the facts:

It's not about "need", we are talking civil rights. (Late last week I started hearing arguments along the lines of "I need an AR-15 for the same reason Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front". The back of the bus is going the same place, I could use an SKS or a Garand, but we're talking about basic human rights, not needs.

God given (or, if that term makes you nervous, "natural") rights. Not given by the constitution, we were born with these rights which are protected by the constitution.

Registration always leads to confiscation. I think that there is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on right now, with the left demanding stuff that they can't hope to get through congress so that they can settle on universal background checks. If we let them distract us from the above, and the fact that the federal government should have no say over who I sell my personal property to, we still have the details of implementing universal background checks on all sales. Namely, it won't work w/out a list of all the guns and who has them and once we need the governments permission to buy and sell personal property what is to stop them from changing the rules about who is permitted?

Skribs
January 22, 2013, 11:03 AM
Wouldn't it be the original "assault weapon". I don't think it meets the qualifications for "assault rifle".

I do like how the AR-15 has been nicknamed the "modern musket."

230RN
January 22, 2013, 11:14 AM
From the Kopel article cited above (dang, that guy is good!):

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.

I dunno. Something inside me wants to go "Yee-haw!"

Terry, 230RN

Old Dog
January 22, 2013, 02:22 PM
Completely agree with you, Terry! Great stuff, great reading, great refresher and a reminder of why the history of our nation was so exciting for me back in my student days.

If only we could get young people today excited about these fascinating events in, and superb writings about, our rich and legendary history.

Spike_akers
January 22, 2013, 02:30 PM
What's this "we", Spike? I ain't trying to ban anything. "We" can't let the antis define terms, or "we" get made up terms such as "assault weapon" (something that maybe looks military, but has no additional function) and "high capacity magazines" (standard capacity magazines that hold some number higher than a person that has never fired a gun in her life feels that "we" need.)

If "we" let them define the terms, "we" get distracted from the facts:

It's not about "need", we are talking civil rights. (Late last week I started hearing arguments along the lines of "I need an AR-15 for the same reason Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front". The back of the bus is going the same place, I could use an SKS or a Garand, but we're talking about basic human rights, not needs.

God given (or, if that term makes you nervous, "natural") rights. Not given by the constitution, we were born with these rights which are protected by the constitution.

Registration always leads to confiscation. I think that there is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on right now, with the left demanding stuff that they can't hope to get through congress so that they can settle on universal background checks. If we let them distract us from the above, and the fact that the federal government should have no say over who I sell my personal property to, we still have the details of implementing universal background checks on all sales. Namely, it won't work w/out a list of all the guns and who has them and once we need the governments permission to buy and sell personal property what is to stop them from changing the rules about who is permitted?
the WE was meant as the govt. not us... sorry for the confusions... i feel that even though i do not support congress at this point, its still the american govt and therefore the WE was used....

wtr100
January 22, 2013, 02:51 PM
[mr new castrotti] See! See! See! Your precious second ammndment is just about muzkitz. See! See! See! [/mr new castrotti]

:neener:

krupparms
January 22, 2013, 04:15 PM
It would seem that Mr. Kopels article suggested that Firearms were seen as being for collective defense as well a individual defense. IE they had some for the poorer members! Did the court ruling on Heller do away with that? And if not? Could groups hold firearms &ammunition ect. in the name of a collective use?

Ryanxia
January 22, 2013, 08:08 PM
Awesome picture and a very good read on the article provided by JVaughn.

No-ladder
January 22, 2013, 08:54 PM
I would sure like to see that picture on some t-shirts. Justin Thanks for the picture, and JVaughn thanks for the Kopel link.
Lee

Trent
January 22, 2013, 09:01 PM
I *remember* being taught about the Powder issue when I was in High School.

My son, in High School now, had NEVER heard about gun issues in relation to the revolutionary war.

I'm curious now to compare a textbook from when I went to school, to when HE took the same class.

If our history is being revised right under our noses, THAT is going to make me very angry.

hogshead
January 22, 2013, 09:27 PM
Trent prepare to be mad. Great read. "In our circumstances, to accept them, would be to deserve them." Same is true today.

chipcom
January 22, 2013, 10:06 PM
Registration always leads to confiscation.

I wonder how many gun owners thought of this when they gleefully registered for their permission to carry a concealed firearm. ;)

230RN
January 24, 2013, 12:40 PM
Trent said,

I *remember* being taught about the Powder issue when I was in High School.

My son, in High School now, had NEVER heard about gun issues in relation to the revolutionary war.

I'm curious now to compare a textbook from when I went to school, to when HE took the same class.

If our history is being revised right under our noses, THAT is going to make me very angry.

I'm in the same boat with you. I remember being taught a lot of things both in the classroom and in textbooks that seems to have been "massaged" and "sanitized" in today's edumication system.

There was a big brouhaha in one of the boards recently about a modern commonly-used text which quoted the Second Amendment as "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people [militia] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The outrage in this "version" centered around the insertion of the qualifier "[militia]" in brackets by the editors of the text.

I still remember one of the Readers we used in elementary school which described in great detail the life and times of rural colonists, where such things as live turkey shoots, loading and firing flintlock rifles, and the manufacture of rifled barrels, were described in detail.

(Not to neglect the girls, the same Reader book described cooking and sewing and spinning and such things as quilting bees and the like in similar detail.)

Annnnnnnd, I still remember when purchase of firearms did not require a form 4473, which has now become "normal" to today's shooters.

Aannnnnd, one could purchase firearms through the mail! Nowadays this concept incurs gasps of shock and horror, even to today's most dedicated 2A-ers.

By gum-golly, if "they're" ever to come after us, they'd better come after we older folks first, we "living historians," who still remember what Freedom was really like before the revisionist lawyers and "historians" got hold of the Second Amendment and contorted its intent and meaning so badly it's unrecognizable.

Ayup, by cracky!

Terry, 230RN

Fryerpower
January 24, 2013, 12:48 PM
I wonder how many gun owners thought of this when they gleefully registered for their permission to carry a concealed firearm. ;)
The state of Tennessee specifically forbids the collecting of model or serial number of the guns used in qualifying for the Hand Gun Permit. Yes, they know I had access to a gun and most likely have a gun. That's it.

Jim

Jitterbug
January 24, 2013, 04:52 PM
Great photo! And good thread, thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "An interesting photo from one of the recent pro-gun protests" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!