Some of my Tory stance is a joke, but I do have to admit that I have a good grasp of the colonial mindset on the cusp of the War for Independence. Additionally, I have long felt that they would believe their struggle has been betrayed by later generations. Hell, you don’t need to go beyond the actual rebellion to see Benedict Arnold voicing those exact sentiments as his reason for switching sides. The colonists were British and demanding their rights as British citizens.
As I have said before, the Rebels had the neat slogans, but the Torys had the better arguments.
As I write this, a Large British Corporation’s, BP, actions are destroying the ecology of the Gulf of Mexico and US Legislators are apologising for the American people’s demand that BP accept responsibility and pay to remediate the damage. Well, the patriots were appalled at the tea party with Benjamin Frankin calling it “an act of violent in-justice”. So….
And since we are in the season when people read the Declaration of Independence, I thought I would highlight their defintion of tyranny.
One Standing armies: Do you really believe the Second Amendment is about gun rights? Find me an authentic quote from the revolutionary that uses that exact term and I’ll change my tune. The real issue was standing armies, which is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence:
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
OH, they do mention bearing arms:
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
That doesn’t sound much like an individual right to me.
But, if we are getting into tyranny, a big gripe was interference with local legislatures and their laws. That was a good portion of the Declaration’s Complaints:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
I find it amusing that the Heller-McDonald decisions have used the Second Amendment, which was a federalism provision (applied to the Federal Government only) to overturn long standing laws which were “the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”
And, even if you disagree that these laws were “the most wholesome and necessary for the public good”, the place to change them was in the local legislature, not the court system.
And not by a public interest group which isn’t a citizen of that jurisdiction.
So, 234 years of mistakes, it’s take to return to mother Britain!