Sarah Palin, Paul Revere And the Importance Of An Armed Populace

Forbes ^ | 06/17/2011 | Bill Flax

[billflax]

The latest Sarah Palin controversy over Paul Revere distracts from the essential lesson of this pivotal slice of American lore. Whether Paul Revere warned the British not to tangle with the heavily armed minutemen or whether she botched the tale makes engaging blog banter, but other than Palin’s credibility, it’s largely moot.

It matters greatly though why the British marched and how the Colonists responded. Dissension had been brewing between the colonies and London for some time, but it only cascaded into violent revolution when the British sought to seize the colonial magazine at Concord.

The minutemen understood something lost on most Americans today, that disarming the people is always the necessary precursor to tyranny. When the British disembarked to seize the Colonists’ stores of powder and ammunition, the militia resisted. Americans in 1775 wanted government to leave them be. Many Americans today want the state to care for us.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I have a feeling our next war WILL be within our own borders.

We have actually had two Civil Wars so far. The Revolution was a Civil War. The next one would be our third.

[dools0007world]

Your totally and completely wrong. I wrote my post as I did to see what Romneybot, Paulbot, RINO or other miscreant would repeat Tina Fey’s line on SNL. Fey, impersonating Palin, said she could see Alaska from her front porch—not Palin.

And Palin was historically accurate when she said P. Revere warned the British during his famous midnight ride—that is unless Revere lied when he penned it in a diary.

I would be very interested in why people like you hate—its the only accurate word I think of—Palin so much that you accept any criticism of her at face value. Can you help me out on that point?