September 22, 2019
Some Key Points to How British Gun Control Launched the American Revolution
original periodical written by David B. Kopel
Excerpts and adaptation from:
How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution*
U.S. History Educational Series
[1] King George III of England) and others sought to prevent arms from coming to America (P297, D.).
[2] The British government required a permit to export arms from Great Britain to America – at the time the 13 Colonies. The British government simply did not issue ANY permits to export arms to America, effectively creating a gun ban in America (P297, D.).
[3] After which the British leadership ordered the British navy and the colonial governors to block all arms and ammo shipments to the American 13 Colonies (P297-298, D.).
[4] With the total arms and ammo blockage, “illegal” arms deals conducted between North America, the Netherlands, France and Spain. Benjamin Franklin (additional reading) was the key mastermind behind getting arms into the U.S. from foreign sources, bypassing British law.
[5] When the arms ban was heard in America, the Boston Committee of Correspondence quickly sent Paul Revere to new Hampshire to warn of two British vessels were coming with the intent to seize all firearms, including cannons and gunpowder (P298).
[6] There were some 400 New Hampshire patriots took all the firearms, gunpowder and everything else held in Fort William and Fort Mary on December 14, 1774 before the British ships and troops arrived (P298).
[7] The question was that the British (who occupied and enslaved many parts of the world), could not enslave America unless they took away America’s ability to defend themselves. Firearms dealers (‘warlike Stores’) at the time (P298-299).
[8] The Duke of Manchester was concerned that America’s (13 Colonies) had amassed 3 million people. Most of these people trained in firearms use; and the result of an armed population would effectively be dangerous to England’s ability to ultimately control and enslave America (P300).
[9] The British Government wanted no more discussion on that risk, and in late 1774 moved to “subdue America speedily and by force” (P300).
[10] Meanwhile in Massachusetts, the Provincial Congress took action to rapidly increase their American domestic arms production. Massachusetts advised everyone skilled in weapons making to do so and learn how to use them (P300-301).
[11] The Americans were under the ideology that the People had the right to defend themselves, and had other basic rights of freedom independent from government control or influence, and whereby government was to serve the people, not control them (P301).
“To the Americans (and to their British Whig ancestors), the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.”
— How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution, P301
[12] In Virginia in 1775, Patrick Henry questioned England’s intent (P302). The people in America had a choice facing England’s increasingly tyrannical rule: “accept slavery or take up arms” (P303). If America did not act expeditiously, the British would disarm America, and hope for independence and freedom would forever be lost (P303). Patric Henry had made a call to arms (P302).
“…Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned—we have remonstrated—we have supplicated—we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!…
—- Patrick Henry‘s speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775
[13] The above was Patrick Henry‘s famous speech that ended in “give me liberty or give me death” (P304).
[14] What is interesting about Patrick Henry is that it was he who brought up this idea of having “a well regulated Militia” (P304). This part was adopted in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Now, what make this especially significant is that the modern debate suggests that “a well regulated Militia” means that the government has an army to protect us.
The argument to suggest that it is the government who is supposed to have the army to protect its citizens really is in complete opposite of the intent of what Patrick Henry said:
“That a well regulated Militia, composed of Gentlemen and Yeomen, is the natural Strength, and only Security, of a free Government.”
— Patrick Henry (P304-305)
It appears that Patric Henry suggests that a Militia is necessary to protect against a tyrannical government, and not build up a government with a military that can be used against its people.
Now this is not to suggest that we need to disband our modern military, and everyone go home and maintain their own private missile silo. What this does say is Henry sought that the people should be able to band together to fight a tyrannical government.
[15] South Carolina patriots set up a local government and agreed with Henry. With England’s intent to seize weapons and ammo from the 13 Colonies, patriots felt that their liberty was at stake. The local government encouraged the people to equally arm themselves.
“…the late prohibition of exporting arms and ammunition from England, it too clearly appears a design of disarming the people of America, in order the more speedily to dragoon and enslave them;
it was therefore recommended, to all persons, to provide themselves immediately, with at least twelve and a half rounds of powder, with a proportionate quantity of bullets”
— South Carolina patriots, General Committee (P305). [Further, Origins of the Second Amendment, Stephen P. Halbrook. University of Dayton Law Review, 1989]
We all know how this turned out in the end.
Read the FULL Periodical (50pps, PDF)
Many people wonder why the United States is such a “Gun Culture.” Why do people feel the need to not only “bear arms,” but bear all types of arms.
It all comes back to the original founding of America, and the foreign-controlled dominance of the Colonists. If it wasn’t for the advancement of bearable long guns, the U.S. would have never been able to defend its self from foreign or domestic threats.
Read our Report:
Original periodical published in Charleston Law Review, Vol. 6, Winter 2012, No. 2.
*About the author:
David B. Kopel, Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm
College of Law. Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado. Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.
Kopel is the author of fourteen books and over eighty scholarly journal articles, including the first law school textbook on the Second Amendment.
Academic report was distributed in the public domain with a few key points summarized by NetAdvisor.org® Information posted for educational purposes.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.
