1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Justin, Jan 21, 2013.

  1. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    I recently came across this photo:


    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?
  2. John828

    John828 Well-Known Member

    I think the ban was part of the "Coercive Acts" that the British Parliament passed in 1774.
  3. JVaughn

    JVaughn Well-Known Member

  4. roadliner

    roadliner Well-Known Member

    A good read. Thanks.
  5. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Well-Known Member

    You are correct.
  6. firstater

    firstater Active Member

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  7. buckeye8

    buckeye8 Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. chipcom

    chipcom member

    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?

  9. Hoppy

    Hoppy Active Member

    That was a good read. Thanks.

    One thing I thought was interesting..
    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.
  10. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Well-Known Member

    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. ;)

  11. Spike_akers

    Spike_akers Well-Known Member

    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
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  12. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

  13. 303tom

    303tom member

    Somebody posted that on my FB page, says it all..............
  14. mikeasb

    mikeasb Well-Known Member

    Great read! Thanks for the link, it has already gone out to several friends and family.
  15. pockets

    pockets Well-Known Member


    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).
  16. HankR

    HankR Well-Known Member

    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?
  17. Skribs

    Skribs Well-Known Member

    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."
  18. 230RN

    230RN Marines on Mt. Curibacci

    From the Kopel article cited above (dang, that guy is good!):

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

    Terry, 230RN
  19. Old Dog

    Old Dog Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. Spike_akers

    Spike_akers Well-Known Member

    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....

Share This Page