An avid gun rights advocate recently posted something he’d got from somewhere about the April 19, 1775 Battle of Lexington and Concord. It was in the form of a story about a tyrannical Governor out to confiscate guns from peaceful civilians written in a way to imply current events. Only at the end was it revealed that the Governor was Gage, military governor of colonial Massachusetts, who, so the story was written, was out to disarm peaceful Americans. The point the story tried to make was that the American Revolution began by defending American gun rights.
It failed to mention a few key points. For instance, the weapons Gage’s troops wanted to confiscate were not the rifles and shotguns of local farmers, but armories belonging to the colonial legislature and reserved for use by the organized colonial militia. That didn’t mean a ragtag group of unauthorized wannabe militia types. Colonial militias were citizen soldiers organized and trained by their government.
The underlying issue was not about guns per se, it was about reverberations from the hated Stamp Act of 1765. It required purchase of official stamps to certify recorded purchases and sales to raise funds for the part of wars against France fought on American soil. Unpopular in the extreme, it was quickly repealed, only to be followed by the Townshend Acts that taxed goods imported from England that were prohibited from being made in the colonies. They inspired the 1770 Boston Massacre (look it up). Most were soon repealed, except for a tax on tea – the Boston Tea Party. An added insult was the declaration by parliament that the colonies had no right to a voice in the legislature, and could be severely punished for disobeying royal governors. The colonies retaliated by forming and drilling colonial militias. Keep in mind, the colonies had provided troops for the French and Indian Wars, so were not without experience.
It wasn’t about guns, it was about repressive legislation.
The American revolution was a long time coming, Concord and Lexington wasn’t the first encounter between British and American troops, but it was the “Shot heard round the world.”
The Declaration of Independence that followed in 1776 listed twenty-seven complaints against the king, complaints that justified revolution and the establishment of thirteen new nations joined in voluntary federation. Was the right to own guns among them? Not that I can see. The complaints were about English laws forced on the colonies, parliament’s refusal to pass laws requested by the colonies, and limiting their ability to pass laws for themselves. When the king did call legislative assemblies, he did it at odd times and places making it almost impossible to meet. If he did’t like what they did, he dissolved them. He all but shut down immigration from anywhere but England. He demanded personal loyalty from judges. He confiscated property to house troops. He kept standing armies to intimidate Americans. He made the military superior to civilian authorities. He closed off free trade with the rest of the world. He undermined traditional English Common Law. He authorized the capture of American vessels at sea. His behavior incited the insurrection of otherwise peace loving citizens. Taxation without representation was a big deal. Of course taxes needed to be raised, but Americans were denied a voice in deciding the English laws affecting them.
That’s a rough summary. Not a word about gun rights. Why? They were never an issue. Gun rights advocates got it wrong, again.