RSS

Where few stood against many

25 Oct
Where few stood against many

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.

http://artofmanliness.com/2008/09/13/manvotional-2-we-few-we-happy-few-we-band-of-brothers/

 

 

 
8 Comments

Posted by on October 25, 2012 in Uncategorized

 

8 responses to “Where few stood against many

  1. Bryan

    October 25, 2012 at 11:58 am

    The media likes to tag any firearm with “assault weapon”. Shortly after the Aurora shooting, several Idaho media outlets were claiming (with photographs of the firearms) that he was armed with (first) three AK47 rifles, then (later) three AR15 rifles, (finally) four assault weapons; listing the AR, the Remington 870, and the two Glocks.

    Those in power don’t like having the little man armed with anything that has the possibility of tipping the balance of power. The ones that aren’t a part of that fear are fed from that table, deepening their fear of the invisible “threat” the nation faces. They will feed their outlets who in turn fail to check facts, and inflame the people who have no knowledge outside of a hollywood SF department.

    The failure to utilize fact sources and therein blindly swallow the party line is criminal, and perpetrated by both the liberal and conservative sides of the coin. The NRA has ‘told me’ to get rid of my friends that don’t carry firearms because “sooner or later, they’ll get you into a fight you don’t want to be in.” Most of these people are either ambivalent towards personally carrying, or own a couple wall-hanger pieces that they shoot now and then. They support my right to own whatever I bloody well choose, but just don’t care to spend the money to purchase a firearm that they have no interest in using.

    On the opposite side, several former acquaintances were so vehement in accusing me of being complicit in blood trade because I was a firearms owner, something stoked by the liberal side of the coin, that they were on the verge of physical violence to get their point across–why I am “a neanderthal murderer while they were peaceful intellectuals.”

    Education is the key. Get kids out and learning. Give the next generation a responsible enjoyment of the shooting sport, something not encompassed entirely by video games. More people that understand how our rights stand are a weapon in the fight to keep our rights intact, as well as being able to point out to some of the less bright bulbs that allowing free ownership does not equate to every person on the block owning a SCUD missile and rocket launchers.

     
    • Tony Oliva

      October 25, 2012 at 12:19 pm

      Valid points Bryan. I try to limit my term of “assault” weapons because that is just a red herring that the media and gun control zealots like to toss around to raise ratings and promote fear.

      I had anti gun friends before when I was in college. I say I “had” them because it wasn’t that we weren’t friends after they found out i carried, but that they lost their fear of guns that had been instilled in them. I personally credit open carrying with that, both among my friends and just regular people through the day that found it interesting that a person could open carry and go about his business. I feel that sometimes people need to be reminded that this is America, and as such one shouldn’t feel shamed or scared into exercising their rights.

      As for your so called peaceful intellectuals I have to ask, can you really consider them your friends? If they are going to be hypocritical to the point of violence because they disagree with you so much, then I question whether they respect you enough to allow you to have a differing mindset.

      But you are absolutely right about education. One way or another, getting the message out there, teaching kids early, and letting people know that just because someone has a gun doesn’t mean they are some lunatic or that they should have a badge to match.

       
      • Bryan

        October 25, 2012 at 8:53 pm

        I did at one point consider them friends, before I realized how extremist they could be in order to enforce their views. More than a few times as the group of people I thought I could trust shrank as someone or other decided they had to fall back on might-makes-right, and on more than one occasion I ended up having to take a few punches because I wouldn’t back down from my ideals. People like that with political power behind them are even worse for a community when it leads to more and more restrictive regulation about who can do what where–above and beyond firearms rights, into not being able to smoke or enjoy a beer outside because your neighbors might be offended.

        Last time someone called a Glock an assault weapon, I pointed out that the Lee Enfield rifle I’m ‘permitted to’ own is, by strict definition, a military grade ‘assault weapon’. Shut them up nice and quick.

         
  2. Brandon Crawley

    October 25, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    I would like to add the fact that there are approx. 70-80 million gun owners in America as where the government employs about 3 million personnel total, including reserves.

     
    • Tony Oliva

      October 25, 2012 at 12:29 pm

      Absolutely valid point Brandon. But just as there were only 3% of colonists back in 1776 willing to stand up for what they believe in, so too do I doubt that if the need arose 80 million gun owners would do the same.

      Most likely a great number of them would convince themselves it liberty wasn’t worth it, that tyranny won’t be so bad, or that as long as I keep my single shot shotgun for hunting that’s all I really need.

      But even then, you’re right…there are still more of us then there would be of them.

       
    • James Maskovyak

      October 26, 2012 at 12:42 am

      And who is to say that those 3 million would fight against the 70 or 80 instead of with them? Not all in uniform are mindless. It is the constitution which we signed up to defend.

       
      • Tony Oliva

        October 26, 2012 at 9:08 am

        Exactly. Military personnel are only required to follow lawful orders. I doubt the shredding of the Constitutional rights would fly for many in the military as a lawful order.

         
  3. DSmith556

    October 25, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    If I may do a little historical nit-picking, while your point about Agincourt is valid, the fact is, the battle was won due to terrible tactics on the part of the French. They moved heavily-armored knights and heavy infantry across soggy ground in a narrow space – the longbowmen just mowed them down like that much grass. However, to bring up another modern weapon comparison, the English longbow was the Middle Ages’ sniper rifle.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 357 other followers

%d bloggers like this: