yadotme: Today, in history, Apr 19th, the British marched to Lexington and Concord, MA, to confiscate arms and munitions of it's own citizens. The "local, regulated militia" if you will... The base reason the founding fathers included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

That's from the 2ndA mythology bible, as well as revised rightwing history.
The british marched on concord to retrieve, in good part, their own british arms - whatever muskets were there which they had given the colonists after the french & indian wars ending 1763, or to retrieve arms & cannon stolen by the rebel colonists circa 1774.
So the british were not as much trying to confiscate rebel arms, as trying to retrieve their own property. In other words, it was the rebel colonists who confiscated in good part british arms, laundering them to their own.

In fact, British gen Gage was trying to retrieve british cannon which the rebels had stolen a year earlier:
Jim explains that rebels raided several forts and armories across Massachusetts. But their most audacious
theft was from Major Adino Paddock’s artillery arm of the Boston {tory} militia. That’s the theft.
Jim: Some rebels had broken into the gun houses and stole two brass cannons right out from the noses of the British soldier that were standing guard. And soon after when one of the British officers discovered that the guns were taken he said “by god the guns are gone, I’ll be damned if these people won’t steal the teeth out of your head while you’re watching”.
Elyse: So a brass cannon was stolen – from the {tory} militia..
Jim: It was very important both symbolically as well as strategically. A lot of the cannons that the colonists
had been stockpiling were old heavy iron guns of really not much use for an army in the field. What they
needed were lighter cannons and that’s exactly what these were.
Elyse: Losing these cannons would have infuriated the British Governor, Thomas Gage. He must have wanted
them back. But is that why he sent his troops to Concord? First I need to find out if the stolen cannons
were even there. I’m headed to the Massachussetts Historical Society which has one of the best collections
of documents and accounts from 18th century Boston.

(cont): Here are copies of some of Gage’s correspondence... They are intelligence reports and were probably written in French to hide their contents. This is from a royal spy in Worcester, MA, another place where rebels had arms. And it says here “the brass cannons which were once in Mr. Paddock’s hands never got here and are probably presently in Concord”. .. Jim told us the stolen cannons had belonged to Paddock’s group of the militia – so they really were in Concord and Gage knew it. But did he send troops there specifically for the cannons? I think I may have found our answer…This is a copy of Gage’s marching orders to seize weapons in Concord: four brass cannon and two mortars with a number of smaller arms in the cellar or outhouse of Mr. Barrett, so they were marching to Kate’s ancestor’s farm in Concord and the cannons were on the top of the list. But wait, it’s only a draft, I’ve found the orders that were actually given and they’re a bit different. He puts ammunition, and provisions before cannons. So we can’t say the stolen cannons were the only m
http://www-tc.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/static/media/transcripts/2011-04-21/206_cannon.pdf

yagotme: BTW, the "ragtag rebels" drove the British regulars back to Boston, inflicting more casualties on them than they received themselves.

Right, using unsophisticated (for then) guerrilla warfare; the british should've learned from braddock's mistake at ft duquesne (pittsburg) in french/indian war where native american indians & french using guerrilla tactics ambushed & massacred half the british coming to conquer them. British were used to fighting sophisticated'gentlemanly' warfare.

let's see if we can sort out some of the nuggets from the chaff:

"Elyse: Jim explains that rebels raided several forts and armories across Massachusetts. But their most audacious theft was from Major Adino Paddock’s artillery arm of the Boston militia. That’s the theft"

"Elyse: So a brass cannon was stolen – from the militia – which fits our story perfectly."

"He puts ammunition, and provisions before cannons. So we can’t say the stolen cannons were the only motivation for the march - but they were there and they were on Gage’s mind."

So, the initial plan was to retrieve the cannons taken by the rebels from the militia, but the final orders were changed to put ammo and provisions above the cannon. Sounds like I may still be a little right on the confiscation part...

yagotme: So, the initial plan was to retrieve the cannons taken by the rebels from the militia, but the final orders were changed to put ammo and provisions above the cannon. Sounds like I may still be a little right on the confiscation part...

Yagotme posted the very evidence which dooms his argument: "Elyse: Jim explains that rebels raided several forts and armories across Massachusetts. But their most audacious theft was from Major Adino Paddock’s artillery arm of the Boston militia.

You think the rebels took only cannon & muskets when they raided british forts & armories? and left whatever provisions alone?
.. the british at concord, raiding 'provisions', were giving payback to the rebels for their raiding british provisions earlier.

yagotme: The usual word salad,

Try this one with french dressing.
During the french & indian war of 1756-63, the british brought over ~20,000 muskets to america for the fight, giving a goodly part to the american colonists for their assistance (see george washington, ft necessity).
After the british/american victory over the french & indians (excepting certain iroquois esp mohawks), the british allowed the colonists to have some if not most all of those 20,000 muskets. The british gave the muskets in good faith to the colonists since they were allies & helped defeat the french, and after the colonists rebelled the british attempted to retrieve the musquettes since they were british to begin with.
Probably there were american/massachusetts/boston made muskets at concord, but likely a small percentage of total concord gunstock, since america did not have any firearm producing armories, and relied predominantly on local gunsmiths to produce muskets & pistols. American gunsmiths were slow in making even one musket, sometimes taking as long as 2 weeks for one, and 200 per year was an admirable high end output.
It wasn't until either 1775 or 1776 when the french, using 'enemy of my enemy my friend' philosophy, sent over 100,000 charlemage (iirc) musquettes to geo washington, & ~25,000 belgium (or was it dutch) musquetttes, that america was equipped to fight the revolutionary war.

yagotme: You're right. I gotcha.

at only "retrieving" only British original pieces and equipment, or was the intent to completely clean out the armory of all arms and equipment, due to the nature of the rebellion? I'm sure a competent British commander wouldn't leave a grain of corn left in the supplies of the rebels.

"American gunsmiths were slow in making even one musket, sometimes taking as long as 2 weeks for one, and 200 per year was an admirable high end output."

100 gunsmiths, 1 year, 150 guns per, 15,000 guns. How long did the colonists have gunsmiths? Decades?

yagotme: 100 gunsmiths, 1 year, 150 guns per, 15,000 guns. How long did the colonists have gunsmiths? Decades?

Faulty premise, 15,000 too high an estimate. Some gunsmiths made only a dozen per year, only when an order was placed.
Lucky if the colonies saw 2,000 new firearms in one year, prior to 1700 maybe.

Tenche Coxe - every man should be armed - was a gun dealer, sold firearms to both the militia & individuals, post war.
Buy one today, get a half pound of powder free.
He actually was sued iirc, for selling faulty muskets. or was it rifles. or pistols.

Hmmm. Italics not working today. nor emboldening.