April 19, 1775 - Failed Attempt At Disarmament

It's March, 1770 in Massachusetts. Life under the British governor, General Thomas Gage, was becoming more politically stressful. The tensions between British rule and the colonials were getting worse. General Gage began pulling troops back from the frontier to secure the coastal cities, like New York City and Boston.

Gage, believing the reasons for the colonial unrest and the tensions they were now experiencing were the result of just a small number of colonial elites, took steps to halt their influence. He pulled in two full regiments to occupy the city of Boston. These troops were to protect British officials and enforce very unpopular Parliamentary legislation that the colonists rejected.

Gage made a tactical error. The unrest was not the result of elites, but was widespread among the populace. This error led to further mistakes based on a misunderstanding of colonial matters.

Among the soldiers quartered in Boston were the 29th Regiment of Foot, a regiment with a reputation for poor discipline and were quick to resort to violence to suppress dissent. They earned this reputation from their clashes in the French and Indian war, and their dealings with Canadian colonists.

It's March 5 and a mob gathers to harass a lone British sentry. As they hurled verbal insults, eight other soldiers came to his support. After a while, the soldiers of the 29th Regiment of Foot, acting on their own and without orders, fire into the unarmed civilians, killing five and wounding six others. The political tensions had now drawn blood.

News spread rapidly out from Boston to the other colonial cities. Unrest and dissent and the dissent follow the colonists as they spread to the interior regions, away from the cities. They take their distrust and their dislike of British rule with them. As they move away from the cities of the coastal lands, they move away from effective British rule. They find a taste of freedom.

In the towns and villages, colonists begin gathering in town meetings to handle their own affairs. They find a liking for local governance and the independence afforded by being away from the fortified coastal regions. Living in these frontier lands means you must be armed and know how to use your gun. Most colonists had muskets, powder, and ammunition. It is their way of life.

It's now 1772 and General Gage is very concerned. He believes these town meetings and local governance are a significant threat, more so than the elites in Boston and the other cities. He sees this prevalence of democracy to be more of a threat than any other.

It's April 19, 1775 and colonial militias are gathering arms. General Gage has been receiving reports that colonists were gathering weapons and has decided to act. Gage sends 700 British army regulars in secret to capture and destroy the weapons of the local colonist.

But there are always eyes upon those you distrust. The militia received words weeks earlier that Gage would be taking some action to disarm the colonists so they had moved their supplies and arms to new locations. 

And just last night, they received details of this British expedition and had mobilized the area militias. They are ready. They are waiting.

As the sun rises near Lexington, the first shots are fired. Shots that changed the world.

In all that fateful day in 1775, clashes between colonial militia and British soldiers went back and forth with each at times having to fall back in retreat. But in the end, the militia continued to grow as colonists heeded the call to action and came to their countryman's aid. The worst of the fighting took place in Menotomy and Cambridge that day.

By the next morning, Boston was surrounded by over 15,000 colonial militia. And so began the siege of Boston.

So why did I go down this historical narrative? To remind people something that should never be forgotten.

America was born among freedom loving armed citizens. Though they first settled the land as British colonists, they found the yoke of an oppressive government too much to bear.

But the prime stimulus that led to the bloody fighting of the American Revolutionary War was an order by the British government to disarm the colonists in hopes of preventing violence.

So the equation is this:

oppressive rule + attempted disarmament = violent response

I hope and pray, truly, that our federal government does not make the same mistakes as did the British governor General Gage in thinking forced disarmament would in any way prevent a violent response.

Learn from history.


Copyright 2013, Kevin Farley (a.k.a. sixdrift, a.k.a. neuronstatic)

My Kids Are My Kids, Not Yours.

It's like this. Kids are first and foremost the responsibility of their parents. My kids are my kids. I am ultimately responsible for them. They are not your kids. I do not cede my rights to you, or the state.

We, as people in a society, have a duty to look out for, and look after, other kids as they engage in our lives. This is part of the social norm. This is natural. This is what we are supposed to do.

But at the end of the day, the kids are not the children of the community or of the state. My children share my last name. Their last name is not ".gov".

As a Christian, we are taught that we should always come to our neighbor - or neighbor's kid - in need. We are part of a larger community and we have a responsibility, mandated by God - and that supersedes the state, to be kind and help others and their children.

And yet, my kids are my kids. Not yours. Not the state's. So if I raise them a certain way, with certain beliefs, and I teach them conservative values and to reject liberalism, that is none of your business and not for you to interfere with ever. The same goes for my friends that raise their children with liberal values that reject conservatism. How they raise their children is not up to you nor the state.

We are parents. This society has descended to the dismal state it is in now because too often people avoided their parental responsibility and allowed the state, through the school systems, to be the baby sitter, the belief shaper, and the model for their behavior.

And look what we have. Violence, addictions, strife, and the list goes on.
It is as if all these adults running around acting this way did not have parents tell them "no". It is as if they modeled their behavior all their lives on their peer group instead of their parents and other adults.

The problem you see, is that is what really happens when you avoid your parental responsibility and allow your child to be babysat by the state via the school system. When you shun your parental involvement in their lives, why do you expect them to behave with maturity? After all, they learned how to cope with life from other children all their lives.

And now we have "journalists" - if you could actually call them that anymore - telling us that our children are not really ours, they belong to the community. They not only do not see the problems, but actually want to expand the problem.

Why? Why would they do this?

Personally I believe it is their own frustration. And I will call it for what it really is. It is liberal frustration.

It is not a secret, nor can it be denied, that for the most part, the mainstream media and the state-run education system has an overwhelming liberal bias. I am sure that will irk a few people, but you know it's true. If it were not true, more liberals would be slamming the media and the educations system over their conservatism. But they don't because they are in liberal agreement.

So the liberal media, and the liberal educators, are frustrated that their message of liberalism is not more widely accepted. When they look around, they see conservative families and conservative adults reinforcing conservatism in their children. They don't like that. 

Those that want to control society don't want obstacles in their way. And simply put, parents with ideologies different than theirs are obstacles in their path to domination.

So what better way to eliminate the obstacles of conservative parents than to try to further the notion that the "community" and the state know what is better, or even best, for your children.

And this approach will win some followers. Why? Because once again, the state will start offering more "free stuff" to lure parents into handing over more control of their children.

I assure you this is not conspiracy theory rantings. This is my concern and observations from every day life. This issue is very apparent to me primarily because I love my kids and I fully accept the responsibilities of being their father.

Furthermore, I have always watched the "community" through the school systems openly attack my children's conservative values, beliefs, and ideas. My two oldest children (now adult) have numerous tales of being targeted because they did not go along with the liberal rants of a teacher or school administrator.

Sure, I want the community's members to look out for my kids when they are engaged socially with them. That is part of the common role of members of any society, we look out for one another. Likewise, I will look out for your kids as well. I would not let them walk headfirst into real danger. 

But otherwise, no Mr. and Ms. Community, you cannot have my children. Not now. Not ever. They are mine to love, to raise, to train, to teach, to encourage, to reprimand, and... and everything. They are a part of me.

So Melissa Harris-Perry, others at MSNBC, others at any media outlet, and all you educators, I have a message for you.

You are wrong.


For background information on this note, reference this article.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/04/09/critics-slam-msnbc-hosts-claim-that-kids-belong-to-community-not-parents/


Copyright 2013, Kevin Farley (a.k.a. sixdrift, a.k.a. neuronstatic)