It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What caused or sparked the American Revolution?
I was really asking more of a question. What did the English do which made the colonialists think that it warranted taking up arms.
You wanted historical perspective, there it is. Good luck finding that on the internet, a quick search came up with garbled versions of that.
but I don't see anything about gun control. The arms the colonists were defending belonged to the militia, and had probably been purchased by the British government...
That's an interesting observation, but I wonder how relevant it is to the question. I'm not talking about a statistical situation here, I'm talking about the real, heartfelt belief among many Americans that our government (Federal, State and local) is out of control and that it's agents (police and other LEOs) are acting directly against American citizens to unjustly murder them.
BS, they belonged to the locals, most of whom hunted for sustenance or used them on their farms to control predation of livestock. They had to 'check them out' from storage to utilize them. Thats the part that gets lost, the British outlawed possession of arms unless authorized, thats why the depot was established in the first place, sort of a gun control without banning them, one of the final outrages suffered by the people and a precursor too what was going to eventually happen, out right confiscation.
Ultimately, do you know what started America's War for Independence? That's right, it was a tyrannical government that soft peddled "self-defense" while banning firearms and gunpowder.
On April 19, 1775, British and American soldiers exchanged fire in the Massachusetts towns of Lexington and Concord. On the night of April 18, the royal governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, commanded by King George III to suppress the rebellious Americans, had ordered 700 British soldiers, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith and Marine Major John Pitcairn, to seize the colonists' arms and gunpowder stores in Concord.
At Lexington Green, the British were met by approximately seventy American Minute Men led by John Parker. At the North Bridge in Concord, the British were confronted again, this time by 300 to 400 armed colonists, and were forced to march back to Boston with the Americans firing on them all the way. By the end of the day, the colonists were singing "Yankee Doodle" and the American Revolution had begun. You can read a timeline of the events that followed here.
Edit To Add: You still haven't shown anything that supports your claim that the British seized the colonists' arms and forced them to "check them out" if they wanted to go hunting. Primary sources, not NRA bloggers please.
originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: DJW001
Great post. Would like to say that "the right of the people" as opposed to the right of the state presupposes that this right was not confined to weapons down at the armory. The state itself, the states, have no more of a right than the Feds to keep weapons out of the hands of the people.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest.
Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: NOTurTypical
Had to look that one up.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest.
Thank you
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: NOTurTypical
Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.
No, a request for verifiable sources. Anyone can say "the Colonists were rebelling against gun control." What interprtr needs to do is prove that there was "gun control," and the only way to do that is through primary sources.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: NOTurTypical
Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.
No, a request for verifiable sources. Anyone can say "the Colonists were rebelling against gun control." What interprtr needs to do is prove that there was "gun control," and the only way to do that is through primary sources.
That's not true, primary sources also contain bias of the author. Nothing is written without a bias. Each source must stand or fall on its own merits.
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: DJW001
Now: why has the NRA not made a statement of support in these Second Amendment cases involving African-Americans?
What about NRA news commentator Colion Noir's outreach to AA to defend themselves?
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Gryphon66
Is it possible that the NRA views these Second Amendment rights cases as being racial in nature?