Article about the Start of the Revolutionary War: Notice Something?

LibertyKid

Platinum Member
May 26, 2021
1,627
1,028
938

Shot Heard Round the World’ musket balls recovered from site of famous first-day Revolutionary War battle​


First, this could go in the Media Forum, but this is also somewhat 2A related. I want to point out, whether intentional or not, the specific use of words that are used and not used when describing why the Brits were coming to America and what they were looking for.

IMO, this is a perfect example of the media, controlling narratives, and shying away from actually telling the whole truth.

Can you find what is "Missing" from the context of the article?
 
They weren't "rebels", they were "patriots.

And they weren't "militia", just farmers, hunters, shop keepers, and citizens who owned guns.
They were militia units along with "minutemen"......There's a bit of difference in training but they too were militia made up of the farmer, shopkeepers, etc.


 
They were militia units along with "minutemen"......There's a bit of difference in training but they too were militia made up of the farmer, shopkeepers, etc.



But technically, didn't the battle take place one year before the Declaration of Independence and before the Constitution defined the "militia" in the Second Amendment?
 

Shot Heard Round the World’ musket balls recovered from site of famous first-day Revolutionary War battle​


First, this could go in the Media Forum, but this is also somewhat 2A related. I want to point out, whether intentional or not, the specific use of words that are used and not used when describing why the Brits were coming to America and what they were looking for.

IMO, this is a perfect example of the media, controlling narratives, and shying away from actually telling the whole truth.

Can you find what is "Missing" from the context of the article?

The British were not trying to disarm ordinary citizens if that is the point you are trying to make
 
The British were not trying to disarm ordinary citizens if that is the point you are trying to make

There barely was any distinction between what could be called a "military weapon" and a "civilian weapon" during those times. Rifles could come in small bore calibers for hunting small game, or large bore for hunting large game or use in warfare. Many of the cheaply available large caliber rifles were manufactured by arsenals for military purpose, or one could spend more money and have one custom made.

But for the most part there was hardly any difference between weapons made for military use, and weapons made for hunting.
 
There barely was any distinction between what could be called a "military weapon" and a "civilian weapon" during those times. Rifles could come in small bore calibers for hunting small game, or large bore for hunting large game or use in warfare. Many of the cheaply available large caliber rifles were manufactured by arsenals for military purpose, or one could spend more money and have one custom made.

But for the most part there was hardly any difference between weapons made for military use, and weapons made for hunting.
Very true
But the Brits were looking for an armory not to disarm ordinary civilians
 
They were looking to stop a rebellion, pure and simple.

They failed.

If the Founding Fathers had been captured by the British, should they have all been hung like we know they would have been?
That is the way rebellions are
 

Shot Heard Round the World’ musket balls recovered from site of famous first-day Revolutionary War battle​


First, this could go in the Media Forum, but this is also somewhat 2A related. I want to point out, whether intentional or not, the specific use of words that are used and not used when describing why the Brits were coming to America and what they were looking for.

IMO, this is a perfect example of the media, controlling narratives, and shying away from actually telling the whole truth.

Can you find what is "Missing" from the context of the article?
An honest evaluation that the "REvolution" was bunch of rich slave rapists who didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes?
 
The Founding Father's owned slaves much like the rest of the rich folk all over the world owned slaves.

The Constitution does not endorse slavery, as many of the Founders, like Ben Franklin, intended to do away with slavery later on, which they did.

They decided to fight that battle another day in order to form the Republic and break away from the slave owning British.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson wanted to free the slaves in the Declaration of Independence, but recanted to allow the Republic to form instead of break apart which it would have.

Thanks for playing.
 
But technically, didn't the battle take place one year before the Declaration of Independence and before the Constitution defined the "militia" in the Second Amendment?
Militia had been around since colonists were fighting-off the NAs.

Hell my ancestors belonged to a militia long before 1776.....They used their own weaponry, there was no armory in their village.....They met/drilled at a small church.

They were still fighting NAs in the mid-1700s.

 
There barely was any distinction between what could be called a "military weapon" and a "civilian weapon" during those times. Rifles could come in small bore calibers for hunting small game, or large bore for hunting large game or use in warfare. Many of the cheaply available large caliber rifles were manufactured by arsenals for military purpose, or one could spend more money and have one custom made.

But for the most part there was hardly any difference between weapons made for military use, and weapons made for hunting.
Rifles were not used by any military to any extent. The entire British had ONE small experimental unit of one hundred men armed with rifles. Its only battle was Brandywine where Major Patrick Ferguson, the inventor of the rifle was killed, and the unit was disbanded after the battle. The militaries didn't use rifles because European designs were very slow to load, and only specialized Jaeger (essentially snipers) used rifles because accuracy is more important to someone like that than rate of fire.
 

Forum List

Back
Top