"Go home and tell your master he has sent you on a fool’s errand and broken the peace of our Sabbath. What, do you think we were born in the woods, to be frightened by owls?"
~ Sarah Tarrant (1775)
Sarah Tarrant shouted these words to 240 British troops of the 64th Foot Regiment under the command of Colonel Alexander Leslie as they left Salem, Massachusetts in February 1775 after failing to confiscate cannon and munitions which had been stored in Salem by American rebels.
Her caustic words struck a chord because one angered British troop raised his weapon and took aim at Sarah Tarrant. Ms. Tarrant stood her ground and angrily retorted: "Fire, if you have the courage — but I doubt it!"
It was a sad state of affairs that would bring men and women of the revolutionary war period to display such exemplary fortitude. However, their defiance and anger was the result of years of British "abuses and usurpations" designed to "reduce them under absolute despotism" as the Declaration of Independence a year later would assert.
What concerned the people most, in early 1775, was that the British King, through General Thomas Gage, was attempting to disarm the American colonists and this was going to be resisted at all costs.
In many ways it is easy to empathize if not identify with our forefathers because like them we are increasingly subjected to government oversight, regulation, taxation, and continual loss of our privacy.
Now, with the Supreme Court "looking into" the question of the Second Amendment, Americans are once again faced with the real problem of what response will be appropriate to any threat of being disarmed by a government out of control.
The very idea that there is a question, as to the meaning of the Second Amendment or how it should be applied, now being "debated" by the Supreme Court is absurd. It only accentuates the mental illness and moral vacuum that exists at the highest levels of government while exposing our humanoid politicians as pusillanimous imitators of Fidel Castro.
What next? Are we to be forced to consume a daily diet of triumphalist slogans, embellished by groveling, imbecilic praise for the president?
If we believe that the Declaration of Independence is correct and we are "endowed" with "unalienable" rights, including the Second Amendment, then those rights come from a source beyond and superior to the state and as such can only be relinquished to the state by our own craven acts of mental and physical capitulation.
Now, before anyone gets on their high horse and writes me concerning how we are a "nation of laws," let’s get one thing straight. When the sapient knowledge contained in the highest law of the land (US Constitution) is open to debate, redefining, ignoring, or misuse at all levels of government then don’t tell me that the maniacal fiats that pass for law issued by nefarious bureaucratic megalomaniacs, makes us a nation of laws.
In the last months we have read time and time again how a new "revolution" has begun. This revolution, I believe, is correctly defined by Butler Shaffer as being "devoted to peace, liberty, and free markets" and it has proven to encompass a rather large spectrum of American culture. More importantly Mr. Shaffer points out; this "movement" is lead by those under forty who are "self-organizing, self-directed people taking orders from no one in a political hierarchy…"
Do you think this fact has been lost on the power elite? If it hasn’t, what do you think the power structure’s next move must be?
When faced with much the same dilemma in 1775 King George wrote the Earl of Sandwich on July 1:
"I am of the opinion that when once these rebels have felt a smart blow they will submit; and no situation can ever change my fixed resolution, either to bring the colonies to a due obedience to the legislature of the mother country or to cast them off!"
I have been wondering lately if King George’s sentiments aren’t precisely why the privileged cabal, under the guise of the Supreme Court, is now taking up the question of the Second Amendment.
Is anyone so duped as to believe that a state, like the US government, which is committed to a police-state structure, mass murder, torture, illegal imprisonment, foreign wars, and the annihilation of world economies, foremost being our own, is going to roll over and acquiesce to a social order of peace, liberty, and free markets?
If so, they are expecting what has never occurred in the history of man. Political power feeds the elite’s greed. This gluttony thrives at the expense of our personal freedoms and their human decency. The recent events surrounding the bailout of Bear Stearns should have made this perfectly clear.
As the economy has worsened there has been an interesting event occurring under much of the media’s radar. That is, that weapon sales are increasing. It seems that for the moment some are thinking outside the box and preparing for the worst.
The events of 1775 are in many ways analogous to our situation today. Anyone who has been in combat, been shot at, or had friends die due to hostile fire prays they will never have to face that chaos again, especially in their home country, by having to take up arms against their own.
While peace is always preferable, reality says armed conflict cannot always be avoided; especially when the state participates in secret state agreements, or due to deteriorating economies which would produce food riots. Then there is the real threat of martial law resulting from an angry world which will increasingly seek retribution for the unmitigated disasters perpetuated by the US government’s vile activities; laughingly called "foreign policy."
In the wake of Lexington and Concord a woman whose name has been lost to history wrote a British officer she deemed a friend concerning the American rebel’s preparedness for conflict:
"All ranks of men amongst us are in arms. Nothing is heard now in our streets but the trumpet and the drum; and the universal cry is u2018Americans, to arms!’ We are making powder fast and do not want for ammunition… The God of mercy will, I hope, open the eyes of our king that he may see, while in seeking our destruction, he will go near to complete his own."
I echo the lady’s closing sentiments; as do many others I am sure. However, they cannot be realized without an unwavering commitment to freedom and preparation for conflict.
Before you write these thoughts off as too radical, consider these questions. Why hasn’t the Federal government through its alphabet agencies shut down and arrested the various criminal gangs operating in this country? Could it possibly be because of the allegiance each member has to the gang coupled with the gang’s commitment and ability to resist with extreme force?
Every revolutionary family had personal weapons in 1775. This didn’t concern the British as much as their growing supply of munitions, which included cannons. It is the supply of munitions that allow for a protracted conflict; a weapon without ammunition is an expensive club, at best.
During the years I was involved in the firearms industry I witnessed, more than once, people who would buy a weapon for protection but would rarely purchase any more than a minimal supply of ammunition. I often wondered how they expected to defend themselves when the four major components of defense with a weapon (weapon familiarity, controlled fire, accuracy and self/unit confidence) can only be achieved by repeated practice.
Military officers who have witnessed unit disintegration during combat know exactly what I am talking about. For those who have no first-hand knowledge of that unpleasant event, a study of Custer’s left flank on Calhoun Hill at the Battle of the Little Bighorn will make the point crystal clear.
Indian warrior’s testimony after the battle said that members of the 7th Cavalry "were crying like babies, shooting wildly in the air, feigning death and acting as if they were drunk." A Sioux warrior called Runs-the-Enemy described the flight of troopers from their defensive picket positions as "a buffalo stampede."
The simple fact is that combat in any form is extremely stressful for all involved. It is only because of tough, relevant, prolonged, and progressive training resulting in competence, confidence, and cohesion, which gives one a chance to survive. Anything less spells disaster.
Now, before going any further, understand that there is a huge difference between a personal act of self-defense with a weapon and a protracted campaign as was undertaken during the Revolutionary War or that we may face.
Personal self-defense with a weapon is often called a gunfight and has the following components.
First, 95% of all gunfights occur when the opponents are within 0—21 feet of each other. Of these, 20% find that the opponents are 10 to 21 feet apart, 20% when the opponents are 5 to 10 feet from each other, and 55% of the time gunfire occurs when the combatants are within 5 feet of each other.
Second, a man with a knife can cover the distance of 21 feet in 1.5 seconds or less while the average time it takes to draw a handgun from a concealed location by a trained person is closer to 2.0 seconds.
Third, most gunfights transpire in low light or minimal light conditions and last between 3 and 5 seconds.
Fourth, during those 3 to 5 seconds of the gunfight only 3 or 4 shots will be fired on average and of those shots fired only 1 in 4 will strike either one of the combatants.
One can readily construct any number of scenarios around the previous statistics and each will prove the absolute necessity of being trained and proficient with a weapon.
However, in the case of an armed revolution there may be gunfights but the bulk of the fighting will take the form of a firefight and probably urban firefights. Some of the differences being, prolonged time, increased distance, weapons in service, rounds expended, available cover, target acquisition, tactical movements and personnel involved during the fighting.
The French called what could very well take place in this country la petite guerre or "little war" which relies heavily on surprise raids and guerilla tactics for the purpose of tying down large groups of the opponent’s men and resources.
Unfortunately, there is one major problem facings civilians versus a standing military. That is resupply of ammunition. In a civilian force there will likely be little standardization of weapons thus, a "unit" (in whatever size or form) may have within its ranks various calibers of weapons ranging from 22 rimfires, and 223’s to 30-30’s, 30-06’s, 270’s all the way up to a number of belted magnums.
Unless the weapons used are capable of firing ammunition that is common to the conflict, the overall problem of resupply is self-evident.
It should be a foregone conclusion that if the Supreme Court rules against the Second Amendment the Federal government, like the British in 1775, will seek to cut off the availability of manufactured ammunition to the US public.
This leaves only two options at the moment. First: to stock up with factory manufactured ammunition for the weapons owned or Second: invest in the machinery and components needed to reload our own ammunition.
Neither of these options will be inexpensive. However, of the two the second will give you the greatest chance of survival since ammunition components (primers, brass casings, powder, and bullets) can be traded if not needed.
The machinery includes the bullet press, caliber dies, powder scales, bullet puller, trim dies (for each caliber), powder dispenser, brass tumbler, cleaning media, case lube, lube pad, case trimmer, and deburring tool; all with reasonable care last for years. Also, most manufactures of dies have standardized their threads so their dies can be used in a number of presses.
There are a number of excellent reloading systems in the market place, which have been designed to fit just about any pocket book. The real trick is safety and that starts with knowing what you are getting into. So buy a reloading book from one of the bullet manufactures and study it closely before you jump into reloading. It is not a hard process but it does require meticulous attention to detail.
If reloading doesn’t fit your lifestyle, buy the manufactured ammunition, but do something now. We very well could be the generation that experiences what our founding ancestors went through.
It is a fact that the future of this country remains in the hands of those mental descendants of King George III, about whom the British historian J.H. Plumb said:
"Had he been born in different circumstances, it is unlikely that he could have earned a living except as an unskilled laborer."