ewv, there is no justification for the insulting "neanderthal" term for jabuttrick. As a matter of fact, jabuttrick is a descendant of the Buttrick Family of Concord, MA. Yes, you are right the vast majority of the time, but the insults are unbecoming.

Those men who wrote the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence rembered that the reason their ancestors were evicted from or left England was because of an overbearing church-state relationship where anyone at any time for any reason could be taken from his home, brought up on charges and executed for no aparent reason besides questioning authority.

That's not really very fair. If it were Major MyLastName then I would at least be curious. But my ancestors at that time were in Virginia - not Mass.

Great great great . . .uncle Major John. His brother was also there but did nothing of significance (sort of like me!).

That would seem to be the issue that we are discussing. So stating it to prove it isn't actually an argument. I'm going based on what the 2nd Amendment actually says. And it does not restrict itself to government. Unlike the 1st Amendment which does.

So your position is that the War started before the battle? Or contemporaneous with it?

Correct. And we all agree that "[t]he battle started at the North Bridge."

This is an excellent point that is often misunderstood.

Maybe through great great great ... grandfather Neanderthal Buttrick?

Nonetheless, as I said, she (along with others) was prophetic. That was my point.

All of the Bill of Rights and all of the Constitution are about government functions and limitations, not individuals.

So is Major Buttrick related to jabuttrick?

The 2nd Amendment does not mention any government or person in particular who cannot infringe on the right. It says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Chap 15 "Is Atlas Shrugging?"

[Lecture given at The Ford Hall Forum, Boston, on April 19, 1964. Published in The Objectivist Newsletter, August 1964.]

"[A]lthough the political aspects of Atlas Shrugged are not its central theme nor its main purpose, my attitude toward these aspects—during the years of writing the novel—was contained in a brief rule I had set for myself: 'The purpose of this book is to prevent itself from becoming prophetic.'"
...
"The political aspects of Atlas Shrugged are not its theme, but one of the consequences of its theme. The theme is: the role o! the mind in man's existence and, as a corollary, the presentation of a new code of ethics—the morality of rational self-interest."
...
"The story of Atlas Shrugged shows what happens to the world when the men of the mind—the originators and innovators in every line of rational endeavor—go on strike and vanish, in protest against an altruist-collectivist society."

"The story of Atlas Shrugged presents the conflict of two fundamental antagonists, two opposite schools of philosophy, or two opposite attitudes toward life. As a brief means of identification, I shall call them the "reason-individualism-capitalism axis" versus the "mysticism-altruism-collectivism axis." The story demonstrates that the basic conflict of our age is not merely political or economic, but moral and philosophical—that the dominant philosophy of our age is a virulent revolt against reason—that the so-called redistribution of wealth is only a superficial manifestation of the mysticism-altruism-collectivism axis—that the real nature and deepest, ultimate meaning of that axis is anti-man, anti-mind, anti-life."

The Bill of Rights restricts the power of the Federal government, and since the 14th Amendment state government, not private property owners in what they allow on their own property. The progressive statists have reversed that without amending the Constitution.

The battle started at the North Bridge, but the vast majority of the fighting that decimated the British was on the way back to Boston. Almost 500 minutemen had arrived in Concord in time for the initial fight, but many, many more continued to stream in from the surrounding area throughout the day, shooting into the British retreat all the way back to Boston.

The "one event" referred to was the escalation in the British march from Boston to Concord against the revolutionaries, which started the war at the North Bridge.

The more detailed discussion of the historical events resulted from the incorrect assertions you insisted on in your own responses.

Xthinker has it right. It does not matter whether Isaac Davis was shot and killed after the colonials fired (as ewv asserts) or before any colonial fired (as I assert). Neither does it matter which individual Minuteman fired the first shot at the Bridge (there remains a split of thought on that issue). What matters is that there, at the North Bridge, Americans first used lethal force in resistance to the British. Let's give them some credit. The "all one event" theory proves too much since it would support the strange view that the Boston Massacre, for instance, might be viewed as the start of the war. In reality some American, let's not worry about who, had the courage to level his musket and fire at uniformed British soldiers with intent to injure or kill. That act had enormous significance. Let's honor it.

Where did she say this?

She said so. A lot of people read Atlas Shrugged and see nothing but a 'prediction' with no idea how she could be so accurate, and see no difference with any other prediction. They don't see that the 'prediction' was a consequence of her philosophical observations as she tried to prevent it from becoming true by urging adoption of a radically different philosophy.

It would seem like the ultimate boundary, wouldn't it?

I didn't say there is disagreement over the sequence of events or their significance. I said that the minutemen at Concord knew what had happened in Lexington 4 to 5 hours earlier, which they did because they had been told by the Lincoln company, and that the minutemen were not just "passive observers" and their preparations were not "irrelevant to the start of the war". They had been organized and trained, had been alerted that the British were coming that day in their escalation against the revolutionaries at Concord, and were quickly there to actively defend the town if necessary (which is why they were called "minute men"). The bridge was on the main road leading from the north into the town, and they were maneuvering on the hillside overlooking the river and bridge, confronting the British.

Between 9 and 10 AM Major Buttrick and Captain Davis, seeing smoke rising from the vicinity of the town and knowing what had happened at Lexington, advised that they should "march into the middle of the town for its defence, or die in the attempt". "Colonel Barret then gave the order to Major Buttrick to lead an advance over the Bridge and to the centre of town", but "not to fire unless fired upon".

The company leading the advance towards the bridge was one of three companies from Acton, led by Captain Isaac Davis. They were not "passive observers" and their preparations were not "irrelevant to the start of the war". They were advancing on the British over the bridge.

The first volley from the British slightly wounded Luther Blanchard, the fifer from the lead Acton company, then very near the Bridge. That is when Major Buttrick gave the order to fire on the British. The names of all 38 men in Davis' company as well as the other companies are recorded. The opening volley against the British killed one private and wounded Lieutenants Hull, Gould, Kelly, and Sutherland, and several other British soldiers.

The British responded to the fire, killing Captain Davis and Abner Hosmer of the lead Acton company and wounding Davis' brother Ezekiel and another private, and Joshua Brooks of the Lincoln company. There were additional causualties before the British retreated back into the town. The two British who were killed at the bridge, one immediately and the other quickly after, are still buried there. (The annual Patriot's Day celebration in Concord every April 19, now with political correctness, gives equal time to the British.)

Also, btw. in Pennsylvania a store owner's sign has no force of law if a person is licensed to carry. So if i were licensed to carry and a store puts up a no guns sign, i could ignore the sign. However, if the store owner or manager sees the gun and asks me to leave then I would have to leave. If i say no at that point, I would be in violation of trespassing statutes - not firearms statutes.

I hear you say that. But that's not what the 2nd Amendment says. It does not limit who may not infringe the right.

If the store owner wants to restrict access to his property to those that are not carrying weapons it is his right and not a 2nd amendment violation. It is also your right to not patronize his establishment.