The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Gun Control: Lexington Green Arising?

Barack
Hussein Obama was no sooner elected than his propaganda vehicles were loosened
on the nation. In my column, “Obama’s Anti-Absolutism Club” article,
in which I demonstrate just how smitten the Mainstream Media are with Obama, what
I could also have highlighted was the lengths to which the MSM will go in the
way of excuses, covering up his failures and the peril he poses to the nation
as a wannabe tyrant, and just plain forgiving him for his executive trespasses
and crimes (all done in the name of “progress” and “moving
forward”).

It
would have been neatly just to compare the MSM with that instance of brainwashing
and indoctrination in schools, when a class of grade school children was taught
to sing his praises. Remember the scandal that erupted when people learned about
the class chanting,
“Barack Hussein Obama! Um, um, um!” and so on? 

That’s
the MSM. Substitute full-grown adults for the kids and different lyrics and a
journalistic snapping of fingers, and you have the character and substance of
the left/liberal news media. In a nutshell.

The
subject here is how the MSM, Obama, and Congress wish to ban guns – “assault”
weapons, pistols, anything private citizens could own and use to defend their
lives and homes against predators, rapists, murderers, burglars, and even government
agents – in the name of “public safety.” That desire is nearly
synonymous with the policy the British tried to enforce in the 1770’s in the American
colonies. Those who remember their American history will recall that when some
700 British soldiers marched out of Boston in April 1775, their purpose was to
find, seize, or destroy the colonials’ caches of guns
and powder to better ensure that the colonials had no means to resist or
threaten the Crown’s occupation of the city and its environs.

Paul
Revere and others rode out to the towns and hamlets outside Boston to warn them
of the approaching menace. Citizens’ militias quickly assembled to oppose the
soldiers. About sixty of them encountered the army on Lexington Green on April 19th.
A shot was fired – one that was heard “round the world,” and no one
knows from which side it came, and it hardly matters now, because the militia
stood its ground and wasn’t about to disperse on command from the British
officer in charge. The militia opened up, and the British fired four volleys in
return, killing eight of the militia. The outnumbered militia was routed. On their
way back to Boston after failing to find the caches of guns and powder, the
British were mercilessly harried by other militias – composed of farmers, coopers,
tradesmen, blacksmiths, and even freed blacks – leaving behind scores of dead
and wounded on the twenty mile march back to safety.

While
most rebelling colonials owned or used old British muskets from the Seven
Years’ War and French-made muskets,
which the British unsuccessfully tried to ban from importation, the most deadly
weapon in Americans’ hands was the Kentucky or Pennsylvania rifle. Muskets employed
“smooth bore” barrels which did not control the trajectory of the
ball blasted from them. Aiming a musket and hitting a target was a haphazard
affair. This is why both American and British forces (and later the French,
when they entered the fray) would line up in columns against each other and
fire volleys en masse, counting not
on accuracy but on numbers to cause casualties on the opposing side. Too often
a ball leaving the barrel would not fly straight ahead, but alter course left
or right.

However,
the most feared weapon in British hands, from the Americans’ standpoint, was
not the Brown Bess musket,
but the bayonet at close quarters. Most colonial muskets and rifles were not
designed to accommodate bayonets. When the British finally ascended Bunker and Breed’s
Hills after sustaining horrific losses (some 1,500, especially among officers) in
three assaults in June of 1775, most of the American casualties (some 450) were
bayoneted to death.

Rifles,
on the other hand, employed grooved barrels that more accurately directed the
ball at a target. It flew flawlessly in a straight line at a greater range, up
to 500 yards. American snipers using rifles killed or wounded many especially British
officers. Throughout the ensuing war and fight for independence, British military
policy was to immediately execute any captured American using a rifle by
hanging or firing squad.

Rifles,
however, were just as slow-loading as were muskets. The “bullet” had
to be assembled quickly with powder, paper, and ball; pre-packaged cartridges
and rifles that could accommodate them were not in common use until long after
the Revolution. Assembling a bullet took almost as much time as frying a couple
of eggs. The standard time which trained and drilled British soldiers took to
fire and reload was about four shots a minute. Their Prussian allies boasted of
six. Moreover, rifles needed more maintenance and care than did muskets. As
with “guns” – that is, with cannon on land and sea – they needed to
be swabbed and dried before preparing the next shot, because embers would
remain in the grooves or powder pans and cause premature firing. Rifles were
put on equal par with muskets in any close engagement between American and
British forces. Their effectiveness was reserved to snipers or flankers on the
sides of a main army.

Assault
weapons, particularly those with multi-cartridge clips, are the new “rifle”
feared by gun-control advocates, and, of course, by the government. “Assault”
weapons put a civilian on nearly equal terms in the way of fire power. However,
in any engagement between Americans fighting for their liberty and government forces
– local, state, or federal – civilians will still be at a distinct
disadvantage. SUVs and Mercedes cars and even Hummers are no match for armored
vehicles equipped with considerably more fire power, nor will impromptu civilian
militias be a match for trained SWAT teams and the like. But, nonetheless, such
confrontations may still occur. That is the mood of the country.

Sheriffs
and other law enforcement personnel around the country are advising citizens to
refuse to surrender their guns to federal authorities, and even advising them
to purchase them now and learn
how to use them. Other
law enforcement people and state legislators are vowing to oppose any federal
gun controls that may be legislated (or dictated by Obama via “executive
order”) and threatening to arrest any federal official or officer trying
to seize, confiscate, or control private weapons. Their statements are based on
a reverence for the Constitution – particularly the Second Amendment –
completely lacking in the White House, Congress, and the MSM.

Following Oregon
Sheriff Tim Mueller’s lead, three more Sheriffs in parts of Oregon announced
Wednesday in letters to U.S. Vice President Joe Biden that they would refuse to
enforce any federal gun laws that are unconstitutional.

Crook County
Sheriff Jim Hensley local reporters, “I’m going to follow my oath that I took
as Sheriff to support the constitution.” “I believe strongly in the Second
Amendment,” Hensley added, urging “If the federal government comes into Crook
County and wants to take firearms and things away from (citizens), I’m going to
tell them it’s not going that way.”

Meanwhile,
back East,

Minnesota, Pine
County Sheriff Robin Cole wrote an open letter to his residents to inform them
that he does not accept that the federal government supersedes State
authorities when it comes to regulation of firearms. “I do not believe the
federal government or any individual in the federal government has the right to
dictate to the states, counties or municipalities any mandate, regulation or
administrative rule that violates the United States Constitution or its various
amendments.” Cole wrote.

Cole said that
the right to bear arms is “fundamental to our individual freedoms and that
firearms are part of life in our country.”

Even
in liberal New York, gun-owners,
stung by the Journal
News stunt of publishing a map of legal gun-owners,
are vowing never to register or surrender their weapons to the federal government.

Now, in what is
sure to be a growing trend across the entire country, New York gun owners are
organizing a resistance against what many believe to be the most, “brazen
infringement on the right to keep and bear arms anywhere in the nation,”
according to The New American:

Preparations are already being made for mass resistance. “I’ve heard from
hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will
be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration
deadline comes,’’

said President Brian Olesen with American Shooters Supply, among the biggest
gun dealers in the state, in an interview with the New York Post.

Even government
officials admit that forcing New Yorkers to register their guns will be a tough
sell, and they are apparently aware that massive non-compliance will be the
order of the day. “Many of these
assault-rifle owners aren’t going to register; we realize that,’’ a source in
the Cuomo administration told the Post
, adding that officials
expect “widespread violations” of the new statute.

However,
Senator (“Ma’am”) Dianne Feinstein
is determined that the nation shall bow. She has introduced gun-control legislation
in the Senate that conforms to Obama’s rhetorical emotionalism about guns.

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale,
transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and
high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Feinstein
misses the point:  Any weapon – revolver,
Colt or Mauser type pistols with ammo clips, hunting rifles, shotguns, and so
on – can be used “military-style” in any conflict between men. The rapidity
and efficiency with which such weapons can be loaded and fired are irrelevant. Reducing
an ammo clip to nine rounds from twenty is futile; more ammo clips would just be needed
to be carried and handy in such engagements. That may or may not work to the
disadvantage of a “new rebel,” and that is also irrelevant.

The
whole thrust of Feinstein’s bill is to further disarm Americans as a first step
to disarming them completely and permanently, so that they would need to resort
to bows and arrows, rocks, and rubber bands. Such a move will be touted as
being for their own good, for the “public good.”

 


Is
America edging closer to another Lexington Green? Time will tell. Americans are
beginning to stand their ground. Will it be a war, or a civil war? If armed
conflict occurs between Americans and their government, where will it begin? And
when? Will such a conflict be premature, timely, or too late? Whatever the scenario,
it would be good to remember Captain John Parker’s
immortal words at Lexington Green, words that were also “heard round the
world”:

 

“Stand your
ground! Don’t fire until fired upon! But if they want to have a war, let it
begin here!”



 

Previous

Obama’s Anti-Absolutism Club

Next

Rights vs. “Rights”

5 Comments

  1. John Shepard

    As always, thank you, Ed.

    Long Live Lady Liberty!

  2. John Shepard

    We are where we are. There's still the uniquely American sense of life, born in the early years of this country and it's intellectual roots, though it's being eroded and has been eroding for decades.

    My hope is that, like the proverbial frog in water, before that sense of life – of independence and individualism, love of life and hope for a better future grounded in the individual's own self-responsible efforts – has been ground away and forgotten to history, enough Americans finally grasp that we're in a pot and that the temperature of the water is rising fast, too rapidly to deny, and that this ominous, bleak future so obviously ahead of us is at last rejected with a full embrace of the principle of individual rights.

    The right ideas are there, available for any who yearning for freedom. And as Dr. Peikoff says, "To save the world is the simplest thing in the world. All one has to do is think."

    Long Live Lady Liberty!

  3. Edward Cline

    If there's an incident over gun registration or confiscation, that alone might not touch off a Lexington Green type confrontation. What is more likely is a confrontation over the First Amendment. Then that might devolve into a Second Amendment conflict. Ed

  4. John Shepard

    Because the First Amendment is better understood than the Second Amendment, more obviously important?

    Just curious as to your thinking.

    By the way, I just discovered that Cyrano de Bergerac will be on TCM tonight. For some reason, at TCM's site for the movie it doesn't show it scheduled for tonight – it shows it for March 1 – but if you look at the page for Jose Ferrer's filmography there, it does, in the title bar.

    Check your local listings if interested.

  5. Tim C

    John, I'd hazard a guess that Ed means because the lefties (incredibly) don't see the threat to the First Amendment – which they do still – presumably?! – hold dear – that their favored policies represent, and (hopefully) when they do they are likely to object.

    I also concur with you that hopefully – somehow – there will be enough remaining sense of life/being American left that when things really erode people will stand up. But present trends certainly are not encouraging….

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén