For those of you who may not realize, today (Oct. 25th) is St. Crispin and Crispinian Day. Why am I writing about it for a gun blog? Because this day oddly enough has a very interesting history of instances where few stood against many.
Often, gun control zealots like to dismiss the most important reason behind the Second Amendment, stating that A) the government would never become tyrannical and B) even if they did civilians wouldn’t be able to up against the US Military. It goes to show the need for the Second Amendment to be applied to the heretofore demonized weapons like automatic guns and semi automatic rifles.
President Obama claims that weapons like the AK 47 belong in the hands of soldiers not criminals. That they belong on the battlefield and not on the streets.
Of course with his desire for a so called “assault” weapons ban that would make law abiding citizens who have those guns criminals ipso facto.
But would the access to these weapons make a difference against the might of the US Military being used by a despotic and tyrannical government? It has been said that at most 3 percent of colonists were roused to fight the Kings army, the most powerful in the world at the time. If that 3% holds true today, then so long as we are not disarmed tyranny shall not rule openly in these United States.
But back to St. Crispin Crispinian Day. Below are two accounts of two battles that happened on this day. Both had instances of a few charging against many. The first were equally armed…the second, not so much.
The first occurred in 1415 at the Battle of Agincourt and was immortalized in Shakespeare’s play “Henry V”. Henry and his band of English had landed in France to deal with the disputed area of Normandy and Aquitaine. The French, of course, didn’t care for this to much and the final climax of the campaign came at Agincourt.
Henry had a scant 6500 men with him. Only 1500 of which would be carrying a sword while the rest were long bowmen. The French on the other hand had upwards of 30,000 men, 10,000 of which were Knights and other heavily armored men at arms. 1200 of which were mounted upon horses. The rest a mix of bowmen, crossbowmen and foot soldiers.
Few stood against many and even though they were outnumbered and had less armor and weapons the English stood their ground and won the day. This was done because even if though they had more, the French were fighting with swords and the English were fighting with swords. The French had bows and arrows and the English had bows and arrows. If the French had disarmed the English before the battle and said they could fight with knives and throw stones at the French the battle would have turned out much differently.
All told, the English lost 112 lives that day while the estimate of French losses number 7,000 to 10,000.
Why was this possible? Because when placed on even footing, those with the will to fight and win can carry the day. Just as those American’s who are willing to fight against tyranny can win against a military whose heart may not be in to the subjugation of its own.
Now lets take a look at the other immortalized battle on this day. This one occurred in 1854 at the battle of Balaclava between the English and the Russians. You may know of it as the “Charge of the Light Brigade”. Here, we see what happens when there is a disproportionate balance of weaponry between two opposing forces.
On one hand you have the Light Brigade. They are a cavalry unit who received miscommunicated orders to attack. They were supposed to be harrying a retreating aspect of the Russian forces to which their light arms would be an asset, but due to the fog of war the order came to attack the main force of entrenched heavily armed Russians with overwhelming cannonades.
The English attacked and made a good show of it actually reaching the Russian lines, but after the withering and crushing bombardment, by the times they reached the line they had to retreat as they had lost more than half their number.
If the English were better equipped with weapons equal to the Russians then their fates may have been different as well.
All in all, despite what lip service the President gives to the Second Amendment, even if he means it, he only extends to the most meaningless aspect of the Right itself.
Obama’s stated view of the Second Amendment:
I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation—that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.
It’s no wonder why the President is seeking to ban firearms and what he deems to be “assault” weapons. He thinks that if you don’t hunt with it, then you shouldn’t have it.
Such is not the case. Even if it is only a few percent of us, the armed people remain a free people and this day has proven both that with equal arms few can stand against many as well as that an under-armed force can get obliterated regardless of their bravery or willingness to die for their cause.
I cannot reiterate enough how important it is that the Second Amendment is never confused or misconstrued to be made into a right that protects hunting. It is insulting to the Patriots who have died to protect the right against tyranny. They did not die to protect deer season.
And even if only a few of us are willing to fight for liberty, take heart…”one man with courage is a majority” -Thomas Jefferson.
On that thought Happy Crispin Crispinian Day. Below is the link to Henry V’s St. Crispin’s Day Speech.