"In 1774, British Brig. Gen. Lord Hugh Percy, stationed in Boston, commented, 'What makes an insurrection here always more formidable than in other places is that there is a law of this province which obligates every inhabitant to be furnished with a firelock, bayonet, and pretty considerable quantity of ammunition.' It would not be long before Lord Percy would realize how truly prophetic his words were.

"During the late night hours of April 18, 1775, British grenadier and light infantry companies under the command of Lt. Col. Francis Smith, numbering some 700 men, ferried across the Charles River from Boston to Cambridge to clandestinely march on the small town of Concord, Mass., a colonial supply depot for arms, cannon, powder, ball and other military supplies." American Rifleman, July 2010, page 49

If that's not forced de facto gun control, I don't know what is. This also lays to rest the myth that if governments really want to use their armies to repress the populace, they'll do it regardless of whether the citizenry is armed or not. If secret police or repressive armies know that most houses will oppose their raids and arrests with gunfire, they're going to be damned reluctant to carry out those actions, as well-witnessed by General Percy's quote, above.

I'm tired of the endless debate about the term "militia." At that time, there was no standing, regular army, and thus it follows, no National Guard, which gun control advocates liken to "militia." In point of fact, every citizen and Minute Man comprised "militia," albeit that some were more well-trained than others. Keep in mind that Baron von Steuben had not yet arrived and been put in charge of training and drill by Washington at the time Concord and Lexington were happening. The term "militia" referred to average citizens and Minute Men at the time the Second Amendment was drafted and ratified, just as it did before the formation of the Continental Army. It's thus disingenuous of gun control advocates to allege that "milita" was not a citizen-based term, but, rather, alluded to some pre-existence version of the National Guard. That's just not the truth. The Founders were all highly literate men; they agonized over the precision of language used in the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. if they hadn't intended "militia" to mean "armed citizenry," in the Second Amendment, they would have drafted extremely precise language to connote any linkage to an adjunct of the Army, such as the National Guard.


LiberalLawStudent's picture
LiberalLawStudent 5 years 22 weeks ago

I'm not taking a stance on gun control here, but I I wanted to jump in on the "This also lays to rest the myth that if governments really want to use their armies to repress the populace, they'll do it regardless of whether the citizenry is armed or not."

Gotta say, no gun that I can legally carry is going to protect me from the Government's predator drones and Apache helicopters.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses 5 years 21 weeks ago

What you say is true on a macro, or general, level. BUT, remember that they could never use drones or Apaches on everybody, or there would be nobody left to rule and nothing for them to win in any prospective takeover. They'd have to go house-to-house, on a micro level, and at that point, they could not withstand an armed citizenry arising in unison. Given that, I stand behind my original point.

bjdzyak's picture
bjdzyak 3 years 32 weeks ago

Enforce the ENTIRE Second Amendment


The ENTIRE Second Amendment states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Gun Lobbyists (ie, NRA) mention and support ONLY the SECOND HALF of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was conceived and intended to be the way the nation is to defend itself by allowing citizens to own and use firearms ONLY within the context of a "well regulated Militia."

We wish that gun owners be required to comply with the first half of the Second Amendment as a condition of owning a firearm as stated in the second half. Compliance means belonging to a well-regulated Militia which would require intensive regular training in weapons use and battle tactics as these Militias would be first responders when Congress declares an Act of War.

This will provide for a safer nation by requiring gun owners to be trained and responsible for defending "We the People" against foreign and domestic enemies as the Founding Fathers intended.

That's why I created a petition to The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama, which says:

"Enforce the ENTIRE Second Amendment by requiring gun owners to belong to and comply with the requirements of a well-regulated Militia as mandated by the Constitution of the United States of America."

Will you sign this petition?




Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Latest Headlines

Obama to veto legislation on refugee screening

President Barack Obama would veto a Republican bill introduced in the wake of the Paris attacks to toughen the screening process for Syrian refugees

New York officials: No credible ISIS threat against city

There is no credible threat to New York City at this time, officials said

China denies torturing political prisoners

A Chinese delegation denied mistreatement of prisoners held in police stations and deaths in custody

Community Archive

Republicans try to derail Paris Climate Summit.

This week, leaders from around the world are meeting in Paris to work out the future of global climate action.

But, while our President is overseas trying to come up with climate solutions, Republicans back in the states are undermining him at every turn. And, their typical obstruction could pose a threat to the entire Paris summit.