a 1770's militia man?

Current Events » in reply to What about a rifle in the hands of a 1770's militiaman?

Publius — 7/18/2004 10:59:44 PM (archived)

Neither owned nor carried a gun. The reason for the Brits to march to Lexington and Concord was to get to the armorys where the guns were. This was also the reason for the ride of Paul Revere- to get the milita men to the guns.

BTW, you couldn't hit anything with one of those smooth bores. I have fired them and hitting anything would be a major accident. This account for the casualty of the one luckless black man killed and no one sure who shot him. Let us all weep for poor luckless Moses Atticus.

Publius

The whole thread (13 posts)

"The right to keep and bear..." - Tom Brosz - 7/16/2004 9:11:44 PM
- Please re-read, and don't remove from context........ - Publius - 7/17/2004 2:13:55 PM
  - What about a rifle in the hands of a 1770's militiaman? - Lee - 7/18/2004 3:46:07 AM
    - a 1770's militia man? - Publius - 7/18/2004 10:59:44 PM
      - So the civilians were better armed. - Lee - 7/19/2004 2:52:21 AM
      - re: 1770's militia man. - Tom Brosz - 7/19/2004 1:51:30 AM
- Would you feel as secure if they had AK-47s slung over their shoulders? - Art Martin - 7/16/2004 10:11:06 PM
  - A single shot revolver? - Lee - 7/17/2004 12:33:06 AM
    - re: A single shot revolver? - Art Martin - 7/17/2004 1:35:00 AM
      - No, just correcting you. - Lee - 7/17/2004 4:42:12 AM
  - But they didn't, did they? (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 7/16/2004 11:08:05 PM
- While I believe in the Right to Bear Arms, I wish to point out this caveat. - David F Mayer - 7/16/2004 10:06:33 PM
  - Who had most of the guns in Iraq? (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 7/16/2004 11:11:22 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (13 posts)