Didnt take him long...

[TheScout 10]

I use the term armory losely. The weapons and ammo in Concord were hidden in private buildings. There was no armory built by the British army there. If it was, why would it have been left unguarded?

 

Gage wrote this letter to Smith, who commanded the expedition.

 

"Sir:

Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provision, Artillery, Tents and small arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will march with the Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your command, with the utmost expedition and secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provision, Tents, Small Arms, and all military stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the inhabitants, or hurt private property."

 

If it was a British army armory why would Gage have to receive intelligence of supplies at his own armory! And why did he say it was collected there for the purpose of rebellion? Why would supplies be collected at a royal armory for a rebellion against the Crown?

 

Please don't end the argument, explain this!

 

If you took a Constitutional Law class why did you display such a lack of understanding of the Bankruptcy Clause, 21st Amendment, and the 2nd Amendment. I guess it wasn't a very comprehensive class . . .

 

I argue with Merlyn about the Constitution a lot but at least recognize he has logical arguments even though I do not believe in them. I am afraid I can not say the same for you.

[BadenP 93]

The Scout

 

I think that MileHigh did a great job dismantling your and Brents arguments and misunderstanding of Constitutional law and history. Kudo's to you MileHigh!!!

 

Scout, you state you are a former police officer and yet you advocate the sale of assault weapons to the public, just what kind of cop were you? How many of your brother officers did you see slaughtered in the streets by criminals with assault weapons? And then you have the audacity or maybe the stupidity to state assault weapons are a constitutional right. As you know assault weapons did not exsist in 1776 and most of the colonists muzzleloaders misfired, were not very accurate, and broke down or exploded after continual firing as the barrels overheated. So what the he#@ are you even talking about. I think you and Brent should take some law and history classes so you can get your facts straight. I really hope you don't spread this type of bull to your boys in the troop. Sad, sad, sad!!

[theysawyoucomin' 10]

Sure Baden can you tell us when the term "assault weapon" was made up by the gun grabbers.

[TheScout 10]

Baden,

 

How? He showed no understanding of the Bankruptcy clause and was outright wrong about it. Neither did he show any understanding of the 2nd Amendment and he claimed the 21st Amendment gave the right to use alcohol when it actually gave states the right to ban it.

 

Then he claimed the weapons at Concord were at a royal armory when I provided a letter from General Gage saying how the rebels were building the stockpile to start a rebellion?

 

I have never said I was a former police officer. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what you read.

 

What a nerve for such an anti-Catholic person to tell others to be careful of spreading our views to boys.

[Hal_Crawford 15]

When did this become about Catholics?

[BrentAllen 10]

BadenP,

You should know this by now - drinking and typing don't mix. Or is this another case of "my roommate used my password?" Either way, I needed a good laugh before church this morning - thanks.

 

If you outlaw "assault weapons" only outlaws will have them. Do you think they are going to turn them in? Felons are already breaking the law by havning possession of them. The only people the ban would affect would be law-abiding citizens, get it?

 

TheScout,

How did we ever win the Revolutionary War with such bad weapons, as BadenP claims we had? Another history scholar.

[Hal_Crawford 15]

How did we ever win the Revolutionary War with such bad weapons, as BadenP claims we had? Another history scholar.

 

Brent:

How did we win? Both sides were using the same muskets, the flaws balanced each other out. Battle lines would face off at close range and fire volleys. Some muskets would misfire, some might blow up but most would fire. Individually they were not accurate but the regiments made in affect a giant shot gun. Ultimately the more disciplined side would advance with bayonets and the other side would probably fall back. The winning side was usually the British.

 

Rifles played very little part in the revolution as it took too long to load them. A fast loading infantry rifle didn't come about until the introduction of the Minie ball shortly before the Civil War.

 

In truth, the Revolution was not won so much by colonial muskets as it was by maneuver, artillery and finally the French (yeah, the French) navy. Cornwallis' army was trapped at Yorktown on a peninsula between the James and York rivers. Under artillery bombardment from French and colonial guns, Cornwallis waited to be rescued by the English fleet under Admiral Graves. Graves was headed off by the French fleet and withdrew because the French had more ships. No rescue. Cornwallis attempted to withdraw his army by small boats but a squall wrecked the boats. Cornwallis, trapped, surrendered, the band played the World Turned Upside Down and the rest is history. (Graves arrived 5 days later).

 

Hal

[TheScout 10]

The muskets of the era were inaccurate compared to modern standards. At the time they were the the state of the art standard issue infantry weapon.

[BrentAllen 10]

Hal,

Sure, that happened in 1781, but there was a lot of fighting between 1775 and 1781. Even at the very beginning, the patriots used sniper fire to attack the British as they left Concord. Washington's attack on Trenton relied on the infantry, as much of that battle was fought in the town, house to house. A good infantryman could load and fire three shots in a minute - not too bad, in my book.

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Sniper fire harassed the British but it did not win the war. Infantrymen could fire three rounds a minute with the smooth bore but Brown Bess. They used pre-made paper cartridges and the ball pretty much dropped to the bottom of the barrel. A rifle on the other hand required that the ball be set on a patch and rammed with considerable effort down the barrel. Riflemen did not use paper cartridges so they had to deal with a powder horn and measure as well as patch cloth and knife. The process is slow and you could well have a British bayonet in you before you reloaded.

 

Trenton was won because of the element of surprise and the brilliant tactics of General Washington. Hessian casualties were 22 KIA, 83 serious wounded and almost 900 captured. Washington's cannon (placed at the ends of streets) accounted for some of the casualties. The battle was in the streets but not really house to house. Most (if not all) small arms was smooth bores be fired in volleys. Rifles played little if any role in the outcome. It is BTW a myth that the Hessians were drunk. Surprised yes, drunk, no.

 

Hal

[Kahuna 172]

TheScout:

 

>>Modern liberals like to expand the power of government. This takes away individual freedom

[TheScout 10]

"If you check carefully the personal freedoms and liberties that liberals want you to have, they all have nothing to do with government power. The ones they do want to take tend to make the government less powerful. That's what they are all about: power."

 

I guess. I think you worded it a bit odd. The making the government less powerful thing didn't make sense, to me at least.

[Kahuna 172]

>>The making the government less powerful thing didn't make sense, to me at least

[TheScout 10]

Much better.

[BadenP 93]

Scout I was refering to a comment in your post about being a policeman after rereading it I see you were quoting mile high, however your and Brent's arguments are really straw dogs with no real validity and typical of the last eight years of poorly thought out arguments of those conservatives in the White House.

 

Brent I think we established a long time ago how pathetically equipped you are to enter into any intelligent discussion, so you resort to going off topic with name calling. I see you still have to resort to such childish behavior since you have no real valid argument to defend your outlandish positions.