The war* got going 249 years ago this day. It is also the day of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which was one of many.
I probably should snark that the current government in the Massachusetts Commonwealth is very much against citizens owning state-of-the-art weaponry and, in that regard, they have more in common with the Lobsterbacks than they do with the Colonialists. I'm surprised that they haven't made Concord replace the musket held by the Minuteman with a rake or some such.
___________________
* "The war", when I was a child, referred to either the Revolutionary War or the Second World War. That 19th Century dust-up in the South was not given much regard, because, after all, we had won that one, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Quincy is "celebrating" its four-hundredth year next year
That's when I date the start of the War
Just a couple of issues. All those guns in the early States were registered, their owners recorded (and fined if they hadn’t maintained them when inspected during militia musters). Public carry was near universally prohibited both before and after 1791. Stand your ground wasn’t the rule, retreat was the lawful requirement. There were many safe storage laws regarding loaded arms (for good reason with “loose” gunpowder). Confiscation of weapons occurred widely between 1776 and 1783, with anyone refusing to swear loyalty to the Colonies disarmed. It’s kinda bordering upon “originalism” to pretend we haven’t massively expanded the right under the Second, but there’s certainly a lot that both sides ignore in the “gun debate”.
Old Klingon Proverb: A blade needs no ammunition.
Those of us in our eighth decade prefer to use firearms, than you very much.
The history may be so but it also lead to what would become
law and the law as written is not what is oft speculated.
It would seem the founders objected to the pre and post revolution
law and enumerated it in the constitution aka federal law. Local
law did not always match.
When you look at Massachusetts constitution you see that is still
in effect and the difference of a commonwealth vs state.
so for reference its..
Article XVII of the Constitution of the Commonweath of Massachusetts provides:”The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.”
Seems armies are more regulated. I presume state armies.
In the end it is what it is. Looking at many of the other articles
its easy to see why its a nanny state.
To disagree, is banging ones head against the wall.
Eck!
Anyone can shoot and kill from a distance. But to look your enemy in the eye, knowing you'll remember his face for the rest of your life. Now that takes a stomach much stronger than you'll ever have.
Post a Comment