The Brooklyn subway shooting will lead to more talk of stricter gun control/confiscation, despite the shooter being an angry black man.
And here I thought that only white men were mass shooters. Oh, you didn’t know he was black? Well, that’s understandable, if you only get your news from left-leaning sources. I read at least a half a dozen posts through Wednesday and not once was race mentioned. Not that it should be, but, well … you know.
And as far as I know, the alleged shooter, Frank James, is no relation to the infamous outlaw Frank James, brother of Jesse James. Although, the shooting did occur on a subway TRAIN, and the James gang were train robbers. I’m just saying.
I’m not making light of this situation, and this isn’t about race anyway. It’s about another crisis the leftist elites will surely not let go to waste, as they will invariably push for more gun control. As if things could get more restrictive in New York City, or the state of New York, or most Northeastern states.
Up here in the Northeast where I reside, plenty of New Yorkers and New Englanders believe no one should own a gun.
Thankfully, my state of New Hampshire isn’t completely gone and hasn’t begun adopting restrictive gun laws like its neighbors, particularly Massachusetts and Connecticut. There are still many in this state who appreciate the right to “keep and bear Arms,” which means to “own” and “hold it or carry it with you.”
Many conservatives believe, that all gun laws are all restrictive and that states never had them until the progressives took over. But the original colonies, the New England states, have always had laws concerning guns, going all the way back to the colonial era, even back to the 1600s.
Today, the mention of the words “gun law” is synonymous with gun restriction. After all, no state would ever pass a law encouraging the “keeping” and “bearing” of Arms, would they?
Not today, but things were a lot different way back then.
Those who lived in the original New England colonies thought differently about guns and the responsibility of their citizens. Leftist Massachusetts is a perfect example of the pendulum wildly swinging from one extreme to the other.
The Massachusetts Bay colony “required” that every able-bodied man (adult male) own a weapon. In 1632 a Plymouth colony statute ordered that “every free man or other inhabitant of this colony provide for himself … a sufficient musket … 2 pounds of powder and 10 pounds of bullets with a fine of 10 shillings per person who was not armed.”
Just imagine a Massachusetts state legislator suggesting such a thing today. He would be run out of the state.
The 1632 statute added specifics to a 1630 order requiring that every town in the colony make sure that every person, servants included, be “furnished with good and sufficient Armes.” The residents had to reimburse the towns “when they shall be able.” In other words, the town would provide you with a firearm and you would pay the town back, “when … able.”
Apparently, they didn’t have much fear of more guns bringing more violence. On the contrary. They held the correct belief that more guns equaled less potential for violence.
But, you may say, we conservatives are always arguing against the government forcing us to do things – so the forced purchase of anything is unconstitutional. Well, you’d be correct, except there was no United States or Constitution in 1630.
By 1636 people in the colonies were also required to bring their guns to church. Those Bible-thumpin’, gun-totin’ radicals. By the time of the Revolution, preachers (the Black Robed Regiment) were even conducting drills with the armed parishioners after services concluded.
By 1650, every Connecticut resident above the age of 16 was required to be armed. But what if one couldn’t afford it? Surely, like many government programs, there must’ve been a “gun subsidy” program for the poor.
Well, yes and no. If you didn’t have the money, you were to bring “corn or other salable items” the issuing militia clerk could then sell to pay for your weapon – or you could work it off. There’s your subsidy for you. Try doing that today for any government giveaway.
Still, during the colonial period, authorities wished to know who was armed. In Rhode Island, the militia would go door to door not to confiscate weapons, a la New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, but to make sure every household had enough gun powder and bullets.
Could you imagine a knock on the door? You open it and an officer says that he’s from the sheriff’s office and is just checking to see that you are properly armed and have enough ammo.
Those were the good old days – except for the whole Indian attack thing, cold and starvation, lack of indoor plumbing and such.
Listen to an audio version of this column:
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.