quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
There is absolutely ZERO historical backup for anything you said.

So, lets have a little historical facts.

a). At the time of the revolution, each member of a milita was expected to provide his own weapons and ammunition.

b). Great Britain, sought to restrict the rights of gun ownership.

c). The continental army had great trouble procuring guns and ammunition and would not have succeed were it not for private arms.

Go read about the minute men, and how men assembled with their weapons in very short order, and supported each other for mutual defense. Why, do you suppose they were called 'minute men'.


The role of gun ownership is fairly abundantly discussed and there is no such extrapolation as yours anywhere in the first hundred years of our founding.

I know you lie about absolutely everything  but this is a very easily verifiable historical fact.

What was the British Army marching to Concord to do that resulted in the battle known as the Battle of Lexington and Concord that started the Revolutionary War? They were trying to seize the colony's armory. Weird if the colony was having such trouble procuring arms.

In reality the Army regulars were armed by the government in standard fashion. It was only the irregulars, which were of virtually no use in any of the major battles, that supplied their own arms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

There were hundreds of milita units that participated in the American Revolutionary war. And many of them had long and distinguished histories.

Not to mention having Pennsylvania (aka Kentucky) long rifles, which contributed significantly to their success and virtually all of which were private arms.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
There is absolutely ZERO historical backup for anything you said.

So, lets have a little historical facts.

a). At the time of the revolution, each member of a milita was expected to provide his own weapons and ammunition.

b). Great Britain, sought to restrict the rights of gun ownership.

c). The continental army had great trouble procuring guns and ammunition and would not have succeed were it not for private arms.

Go read about the minute men, and how men assembled with their weapons in very short order, and supported each other for mutual defense. Why, do you suppose they were called 'minute men'.


The role of gun ownership is fairly abundantly discussed and there is no such extrapolation as yours anywhere in the first hundred years of our founding.

I know you lie about absolutely everything  but this is a very easily verifiable historical fact.

What was the British Army marching to Concord to do that resulted in the battle known as the Battle of Lexington and Concord that started the Revolutionary War? They were trying to seize the colony's armory. Weird if the colony was having such trouble procuring arms.

In reality the Army regulars were armed by the government in standard fashion. It was only the irregulars, which were of virtually no use in any of the major battles, that supplied their own arms.

Totally clueless again.

Tell me - why was the liberty bell made in London?
Answer: Because the colonies, under the system of mercantilism was denied much local industry. The colonies existed for the benefit of the mother country. This included foundries.

As for supplies of powder and weapons:
http://www.history-of-american-wars.com/revolutionary-war-weapons.html

I quote: "Local governments maintained limited arsenals and powder supplies to support their militias."

"Assembling men, material and weapons were critical issues on a large scale particularly for a national rebellion. "
"By 1776, replacing arms and materials sustained in the colonials Northern Department were an overwhelming pressure on poorly trained supply officers.

The Continental Congress quickly recognized the problem of supply and the shortages of arms. "

"Foundries were small and production of metals was limited. War with the British further complicated shortages. Muskets, gun powder and cannon were in short supply."

"In 1775, the colonies had a dearth of foundries. Some small mills existed and none were forging cannon."

Keep reading. Learn some history oh master of the universe. In point of fact you know nothing about the arming of the continental forces. But your statements about the irregulars is so wrong its.. appauling. Militias in fact played a crucial role. At least according to http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm

By the time of the Revolution, Minutemen had been a well-trained force for six generations in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Every town had maintained its 'training band'. The adversity that this region faced — Native-American uprisings, war with France, and potential for local insurrections, social unrest, and rioting — provided ample reason to adhere to a sound militia organization.

And the milita would later form the corp of US military units - including units which still exist today.

As for militias being "of little or no use in any of the major battles.. let see

Militias captured Fort Ticoderoga - where the first american canons were stripped from the brits.
Concord and lexington were decided by milita men.
Washington was heartened by a rise in militia enlistments in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.[59] These militia companies were active in circumscribing the furthest outposts of the British, limiting their ability to scout and forage.[60] Although Washington did not coordinate this resistance, he took advantage of it to organize an attack on an outpost of Hessians in Trenton.[61] On the night of December 25–26, 1776, Washington led his forces across the Delaware River and surprised the Hessian garrison, capturing 1,000 men.[62]

King's mountain was decided by milia.

Guilford Courthouse - while a 'loss' for the americans was the final strategic victory in the south. Again, militia provided the bulk of the force.

You've apparently never heard of the green mountain boys.

Apparently ward and putnam's militia played no role at bunker hill.

Militia, charging hitchcock collapsed the british lines at the battle of princeton.

There were hundreds of milita units that participated in the American Revolutionary war. And many of them had long and distinguished histories.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

There were hundreds of milita units that participated in the American Revolutionary war. And many of them had long and distinguished histories.

Not to mention having Pennsylvania (aka Kentucky) long rifles, which contributed significantly to their success and virtually all of which were private arms.

K.

Yeah I was going to mention the Kentucky rifle, created by german settlers in pennsylvania.
You know .. the ones with twice the range of contempory muskets. But they suffered the drawback that they couldn't have a bayonet.

So these weren't typically used by continental army - but by militias and sharpshooters. One of the reasons that brits lost such a huge number of officers were militia picking them off behind the lines.

But you you know.. whats the point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
There is absolutely ZERO historical backup for anything you said.

So, lets have a little historical facts.

a). At the time of the revolution, each member of a milita was expected to provide his own weapons and ammunition.

b). Great Britain, sought to restrict the rights of gun ownership.

c). The continental army had great trouble procuring guns and ammunition and would not have succeed were it not for private arms.

Go read about the minute men, and how men assembled with their weapons in very short order, and supported each other for mutual defense. Why, do you suppose they were called 'minute men'.


The role of gun ownership is fairly abundantly discussed and there is no such extrapolation as yours anywhere in the first hundred years of our founding.

I know you lie about absolutely everything  but this is a very easily verifiable historical fact.

What was the British Army marching to Concord to do that resulted in the battle known as the Battle of Lexington and Concord that started the Revolutionary War? They were trying to seize the colony's armory. Weird if the colony was having such trouble procuring arms.

In reality the Army regulars were armed by the government in standard fashion. It was only the irregulars, which were of virtually no use in any of the major battles, that supplied their own arms.

Totally clueless again.

Tell me - why was the liberty bell made in London?
Answer: Because the colonies, under the system of mercantilism was denied much local industry. The colonies existed for the benefit of the mother country. This included foundries.

As for supplies of powder and weapons:
http://www.history-of-american-wars.com/revolutionary-war-weapons.html

I quote: "Local governments maintained limited arsenals and powder supplies to support their militias."

"Assembling men, material and weapons were critical issues on a large scale particularly for a national rebellion. "
"By 1776, replacing arms and materials sustained in the colonials Northern Department were an overwhelming pressure on poorly trained supply officers.

The Continental Congress quickly recognized the problem of supply and the shortages of arms. "

"Foundries were small and production of metals was limited. War with the British further complicated shortages. Muskets, gun powder and cannon were in short supply."

"In 1775, the colonies had a dearth of foundries. Some small mills existed and none were forging cannon."

Keep reading. Learn some history oh master of the universe. In point of fact you know nothing about the arming of the continental forces. But your statements about the irregulars is so wrong its.. appauling. Militias in fact played a crucial role. At least according to http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm

By the time of the Revolution, Minutemen had been a well-trained force for six generations in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Every town had maintained its 'training band'. The adversity that this region faced — Native-American uprisings, war with France, and potential for local insurrections, social unrest, and rioting — provided ample reason to adhere to a sound militia organization.

And the milita would later form the corp of US military units - including units which still exist today.

As for militias being "of little or no use in any of the major battles.. let see

Militias captured Fort Ticoderoga - where the first american canons were stripped from the brits.
Concord and lexington were decided by milita men.
Washington was heartened by a rise in militia enlistments in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.[59] These militia companies were active in circumscribing the furthest outposts of the British, limiting their ability to scout and forage.[60] Although Washington did not coordinate this resistance, he took advantage of it to organize an attack on an outpost of Hessians in Trenton.[61] On the night of December 25–26, 1776, Washington led his forces across the Delaware River and surprised the Hessian garrison, capturing 1,000 men.[62]

King's mountain was decided by milia.

Guilford Courthouse - while a 'loss' for the americans was the final strategic victory in the south. Again, militia provided the bulk of the force.

You've apparently never heard of the green mountain boys.

Apparently ward and putnam's militia played no role at bunker hill.

Militia, charging hitchcock collapsed the british lines at the battle of princeton.

There were hundreds of milita units that participated in the American Revolutionary war. And many of them had long and distinguished histories.

Read what the actual American commanders thought of their irregulars. It was the trained regular army troops that stood and fought the British. Not the militia. That is a fact. All the rest is romance. That's why we damn near lost the war and why the entire war turned on the French finally getting involved with their fleet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Britain could have crushed the rebellion. She just had multiple things going on around the globe, and couldn't give this one the attention and resources it needed.

I could have crushed my last tournament, but I couldn't get the cards I needed.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Once the militias had played a key roll in penning the British up in Yorktown,
how did that happen if we needed the French to do anything?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Snicker.

Which American Commander would you like me to read.

I've read Gates, Morgan, Green, Arnold. Washington. Von Steuben.

But for laughs, why don't you provide a link or three.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


More recent studies however have gone a long way toward revising this predominantly negative assessment of the role played by the militia during the war for independence. Although the relative effectiveness of the Revolutionary militia varied from state to state and year to year, this newer scholarship has explored and described some of the crucial achievements of the militia that had been previously unexamined...

While the militia could not be counted on to stand up to trained, regular forces, it could and often did perform other important roles that were less obvious but crucial elements in the winning of independence...

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

We would have lost Yorktown, which was accomplished by the Army regulars...

You mean, which was accomplished by Army regulars supported by militia.

A number of Amherst County men reported having served under the Marquis de Lafayette in the summer of that year, and some fought in the Battle of Green Spring against Lord Cornwallis. As Generals Washington and Rochambeau arrived in Virginia in September to begin the siege of Yorktown, Amherst militiamen, along with those from many other counties, were called up to support the regular army. ~Source

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

More recent studies however have gone a long way toward revising this predominantly negative assessment of the role played by the militia during the war for independence. Although the relative effectiveness of the Revolutionary militia varied from state to state and year to year, this newer scholarship has explored and described some of the crucial achievements of the militia that had been previously unexamined...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Once the militias had played a key roll in penning the British up in Yorktown,
how did that happen if we needed the French to do anything?

We would have lost Yorktown, which was accomplished by the Army regulars, if the French fleet had not sailed up from Cuba. The French defeated the British relief forces in the Battle of the Chesapeake or Cornwallis would have simply sailed away from the siege. But with French naval guns on one side and a combined French and American army on the other he had no choice but to surrender.

The reason stuff all over the country is named Lafayette and DeKalb is because they were 2 French major generals who led American  forces during the war. Their training of our troops was pivotal in defeating the British.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

More recent studies however have gone a long way toward revising this predominantly negative assessment of the role played by the militia during the war for independence. Although the relative effectiveness of the Revolutionary militia varied from state to state and year to year, this newer scholarship has explored and described some of the crucial achievements of the militia that had been previously unexamined...

OK, I've lost the plot here.

The wording in the constitution, taken at face value, clearly allows for some room for interpretation, just as one would expect. But to my eye it looks pretty simple. While it may or may not imply the ultimate goal of a "well regulated militia" the bit about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" seemed pretty straight-forward.

More to the point, Madison & Hamilton seemed to be pretty clear in the federalist papers. So I'm sort of at a loss how anyone could possibly think that we were talking about limited groups of people (militia members) having this right. Actually, as I read the words I'm not real sure why you can't own a hydrogen bomb (I'd like to see that amended so that you clearly can't).

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

More recent studies however have gone a long way toward revising this predominantly negative assessment of the role played by the militia during the war for independence. Although the relative effectiveness of the Revolutionary militia varied from state to state and year to year, this newer scholarship has explored and described some of the crucial achievements of the militia that had been previously unexamined...

OK, I've lost the plot here... I'm sort of at a loss how anyone could possibly think that we were talking about limited groups of people (militia members) having this right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Once the militias had played a key roll in penning the British up in Yorktown,
how did that happen if we needed the French to do anything?

We would have lost Yorktown, which was accomplished by the Army regulars, if the French fleet had not sailed up from Cuba. The French defeated the British relief forces in the Battle of the Chesapeake or Cornwallis would have simply sailed away from the siege. But with French naval guns on one side and a combined French and American army on the other he had no choice but to surrender.

The reason stuff all over the country is named Lafayette and DeKalb is because they were 2 French major generals who led American  forces during the war. Their training of our troops was pivotal in defeating the British.

I repeat, Lexington, Cowpens, Kings Mt., Guilfords court house. Francis Marion
the war in the south could not have been won without the militias.
hey if your right we could have won Viet Nam by sending over a few advisors to train them.
actually it was Von Steuben who provided most of the training.
Till this thread this crappy line of argument was the intellectual property of our English posters
Who couldn't explain why, if we were so outclassed without the French, they beat the French in all
other theaters where they were fighting at the time.