answer:The British Government, not the American government somewhat of a long story. While the USA were British colonies they were first set up in the early to mid 1600s with colonial charters going over legalities, all of them basically agreed that colonists retained all legal rights under English law of the 1600s as Englishmen, and that Parliament in England had no authority over them, that each colony could (and did) set up it’s own legislature. They (both colonists & legislature) were sworn as loyal to the English king, but not to the English Parliament. That made any attempt by the English (Or British after the act of union) Parliament to tax the North American colonies illegal. That would be ignoring the charters with the King, and the legal authority of the colonial legislatures. For several years this resulted in passive non-compliance and verbal and written protests of the illegality of the tax acts by Parliament. Note — this is critical — the amount of tax was not at all at issue. The issue was whether parliament had any authority at all to tax American colonists, or pass laws on them at all. Now pointing out that by English Tradition and law the people had a right to keep and bear arms dating back in England to the Saxon conquest of Roman Britain ~ 600 AD, that ended in England in the aftermath of WWI when the then Tory parliament wanted to disarm labor, and to legally do so had to disarm everyone. But that was ~ 150 years after the UK & USA split up. As I said in English speaking society to well after the time of the Revolution Englishmen had a right to keep and bear arms. Also, English speaking society then literally had no police as we understand the term meaning tax paid law enforcement officers. [LINKED_TEXT: Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the 18th Century[This is based on the version of the article on my hard disk, and so may differ in detail from the published version. It is published here with the permission of the University of Chicago Roundtable , where it originally appeared.] Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the 18th Century David Friedman The criminal justice system of England in the 18th century presents a curious spectacle to an observer more familiar with modern institutions. The two most striking anomalies are the institutions for prosecuting offenders and the range of punishments. Prosecution of almost all criminal offenses was private, usually by the victim. Intermediate punishments for serious offenses were strikingly absent. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that, in the early years of the century, English courts imposed only two sentences on convicted felons. Either they turned them loose or they hanged them. [1] Parts I and II of this essay describe the institutions for prosecution and the forms of punishment. In parts III, IV and V I argue that, contrary to the view of almost all modern commentators and many contemporary ones, these institutions may have made considerable sense. The shift in the early 19th century towards punishment by imprisonment and law enforcement by paid police, and the later shift to public prosecution, were driven by discontent with the performance of the existing institutions. But it is far from clear whether that discontent was justified. I will argue that both contemporary critics and modern historians have missed important elements in the logic of the system of private prosecution, elements that help explain why it lasted as long as it did and worked as well as it did. Part I: The Private Prosecution of Crime England in the 18th century had no public officials corresponding to either police or district attorneys. Constables were unpaid and played only a minor role in law enforcement. A victim of crime who wanted a constable to undertake any substantial effort in order to apprehend the perpetrator was expected to pay the expenses of doing so. Attempts to create public prosecutors failed in 1855 and again in 1871; when the office of Director of Public Prosecution was finally established in 1879, its responsibilities were very much less than those of an American district attorney, now or then. In 18th century England a system of professional police and prosecutors, government paid and appointed, was viewed as potentially tyranical and, worse still, French. Under English law, any Englishman could prosecute any crime. In practice, the prosecutor was usually the victim. It was up to him to file charges with the local magistrate, present evidence to the grand jury, and, if the grand jury found a true bill, provide evidence for the trial. [2] In some ways, their system for criminal prosecution was similar to our system of civil prosecution. Under both, it is the victim who ordinarily initiates and controls the process by which the offender is http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./England_18thc.html] [URL: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./England_18thc.html]England in the 18th century had no public officials corresponding to either police or district attorneys. Constables were unpaid and played only a minor role in law enforcement. A victim of crime who wanted a constable to undertake any substantial effort in order to apprehend the perpetrator was expected to pay the expenses of doing so. Attempts to create public prosecutors failed in 1855 and again in 1871; when the office of Director of Public Prosecution was finally established in 1879, its responsibilities were very much less than those of an American district attorney, now or then. In 18th century England a system of professional police and prosecutors, government paid and appointed, was viewed as potentially tyranical and, worse still, French. American colonists in addition to needing to defend themselves from criminals, had to deal with hostile Indian tribes. They also found great utility in being able to hunt game. They used, and held as important, the right to keep and bear arms far more than Englishmen in England. The only defense of the colonists against criminals and hostile Indians was themselves in militias. On setting up these Colonies the British Government provided no military support at all. Colonists had their own arms and militia for self-defense, and that was all. To take their arms away, where hostile native tribes had tried before to exterminate them was just unthinkable to the colonists. As discussed the arguments over taxes that the colonists held the Parliament had no right to impose had been going on since the 1760s during the [LINKED_TEXT: French and Indian War - Wikipedia] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War] The European nations declared a wider war upon one another overseas in 1756, two years into the French and Indian War, and many view the French and Indian War as being merely the American theater of the worldwide [LINKED_TEXT: Seven Years' War] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War] of 1756–63; however, the French and Indian War is viewed in the United States as a singular conflict which was not associated with any European war. The Parliament held that American colonists owed Britain money for that, which American colonists held as absurd as English speaking colonists on the east coast of North America outnumbered French colonists in Quebec about 33:1. The French colonists were not a credible threat to the English colonies. The colonists had not asked for British Troops, and what the British did was conquer the French colonies in what is now Canada, they were not defending the existing British colonies. Finally in 1774- 1775 the arguments over taxes boiled over when the British government sent troops to Boston and soon after tried to confiscate arms belonging to the colonists. The first battle took place on 19 April 1775. [LINKED_TEXT: Battles of Lexington and Concord - WikipediaThomas Gage The British Army 's infantry was nicknamed " redcoats " and sometimes "devils" by the colonists. They had occupied Boston since 1768 and had been augmented by naval forces and marines to enforce what the colonists called The Intolerable Acts of 1774, which had been passed by the British Parliament to punish the Province of Massachusetts Bay for the Boston Tea Party and other acts of protest. General Thomas Gage was the military governor of Massachusetts and commander-in-chief of the roughly 3,000 British military forces garrisoned in Boston. He had no control over Massachusetts outside of Boston, however, where the implementation of the Acts had increased tensions between the Patriot Whig majority and the pro-British Tory minority. Gage's plan was to avoid conflict by removing military supplies from Whig militias using small, secret, and rapid strikes. This struggle for supplies led to one British success and several Patriot successes in a series of nearly bloodless conflicts known as the Powder Alarms . Gage considered himself to be a friend of liberty and attempted to separate his duties as governor of the colony and as general of an occupying force. Edmund Burke described Gage's conflicted relationship with Massachusetts by saying in Parliament, "An Englishman is the unfittest person on Earth to argue another Englishman into slavery." [12] The colonists had been forming militias since the very beginnings of Colonial settlement for the purpose of defense against Indian attacks. These forces also saw action in the French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763 when they fought alongside British regulars. Under the laws of each New England colony, all towns were obligated to form militia companies composed of all males 16 years of age and older (there were exemptions for some categories) and to ensure that the members were properly armed. The Massachusetts militias were formally under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but militia companies throughout New England elected their own officers. [13] Gage effectively dissolved the provincial government under the terms of the Massachusetts Government Act , and these existing connections were employed by the colonists under the Massachusetts Provincial Congress for the purpose of resistance to the military threat from Britain. [14] British government preparations A February 1775 address to King George III , by both houses of Parliament, declared that a state of rebellion existed: We ... find that a part of your Majesty' s subjects, in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme Legislature, that a rebellion at this time actually exists within the said Province; and we see, with the utmost concern, that they have been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements entered into by your Majesty's subjects in several of the other Colonies, to the injury and oppression of many of their innocent fellow-subjects,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord]The Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the [LINKED_TEXT: American Revolutionary War] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War].[LINKED_TEXT: [9]] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord#cite_note-9] The battles were fought on April 19, 1775 in [LINKED_TEXT: Middlesex County] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlesex_County,_Massachusetts], [LINKED_TEXT: Province of Massachusetts Bay] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Massachusetts_Bay], within the towns of [LINKED_TEXT: Lexington] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington,_Massachusetts], [LINKED_TEXT: Concord] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord,_Massachusetts], [LINKED_TEXT: Lincoln] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln,_Massachusetts], [LINKED_TEXT: Menotomy] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington,_Massachusetts] (present-day Arlington), and [LINKED_TEXT: Cambridge] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge,_Massachusetts]. They marked the outbreak of armed conflict between the [LINKED_TEXT: Kingdom of Great Britain] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain] and its [LINKED_TEXT: thirteen colonies] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies] in America. ( . . . ) In late 1774, Colonial leaders adopted the [LINKED_TEXT: Suffolk Resolves] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffolk_Resolves] in resistance to the [LINKED_TEXT: alterations made to the Massachusetts colonial government] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Government_Act] by the British parliament following the [LINKED_TEXT: Boston Tea Party] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party]. The colonial assembly responded by forming a Patriot provisional government known as the [LINKED_TEXT: Massachusetts Provincial Congress] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Provincial_Congress] and calling for local militias to train for possible hostilities. The Colonial government exercised effective control of the colony outside of British-controlled Boston. In response, the British government in February 1775 declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion. About 700 [LINKED_TEXT: British Army] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_the_American_Revolutionary_War] [LINKED_TEXT: regulars] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_army] in Boston, under [LINKED_TEXT: Lieutenant Colonel] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_colonel_(United_Kingdom)] [LINKED_TEXT: Francis Smith] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Smith_(British_Army_officer)], were given secret orders to capture and destroy Colonial military supplies reportedly stored by the Massachusetts [LINKED_TEXT: militia] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia] at Concord. Through effective [LINKED_TEXT: intelligence] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_intelligence]gathering, [LINKED_TEXT: Patriot] [URL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(American_Revolution)] leaders had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations. The colonists chased the British troops back to Boston killing more British than Americans were lost.: This was a shocking and totally outrageous act by the British government to American colonists, to try and disarm colonists was to leave them and their children vulnerable to attack by anyone, including Indians. Monstrous!! Colonies that had been holding that Massachusetts people were a bunch of hotheads about taxes, on hearing of the events at Lexington & Concord now their militia marched to the aid of Massachusetts from surrounding colonies. In addition later during the war — to even more offend, insult and horrify the colonists — the British started paying Indians allied with the British government for American colonist scalps, including women and children. [LINKED_TEXT: Murder of Jane McCrea Helped Defeat a British Army: Propaganda in the American RevolutionThe Death of Jane McCrea, 1804 by John Vanderlyn. “In the history of the Revolutionary War, perhaps no single incident is recorded which, at the time of its occurrence, created more intense sympath…http://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/murder-of-jane-mccrea-artful-propaganda-that-defeated-a-british-army/] [URL: http://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/murder-of-jane-mccrea-artful-propaganda-that-defeated-a-british-army/]On July 27, 1777, in Argyle, New York, north of Saratoga, John Allen’s family was attacked and brutally murdered by a party of Native Americans aligned to British General ‘Johnny’ Burgoyne. Husband John, his wife Eva Kilmer, their three small children; daughters Eva and Elizabeth and baby John, and Eva’s younger sister Catherine Kilmer, were killed. So too were three African American slaves on loan to the family; Tom, Sarah, and another whose name is lost to history. Nine in all. That same day, a young women was taken by a pair of Native Americans who so too were allied with the British. Shortly thereafter, Jane McCrea was shot and scalped. Two terrible atrocities. Yet the first was instantly forgotten while Jane’s death horrified a nation. It solidified the Continental Army’s determination to stand firm while stirring thousands of revengeful militiamen to march north and drive out the British army along with their hoard of ‘savages.’ Not to lessen the terror all victims experienced before a painful death, but the question arises… Why was McCrea’s murder so different than the hundreds of settlers who, throughout the American Revolution, died at the hands of both whites and Native Americans. How could one life impact an entire nation when hundreds of others who succumbed to the same fate did not? Perhaps the answer is instinctive, emotions that one could argue stem back to the time when humanity lived in caves. Within weeks of Jane’s demise, an embellished take on the story had already spread throughout the colonies. [LINKED_TEXT: The Rhetoric and Practice of Scalping - Journal of the American RevolutionScalping, the removal of the scalp from the head often for use as a trophy, is usually regarded as a uniquely sanguineous Indian practice...https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/09/rhetoric-practice-scalping/] [URL: https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/09/rhetoric-practice-scalping/]The best-known case of scalping during the Revolution is the tale of Jane McCrea, a women who was engaged to a Loyalist lieutenant when she was abducted, scalped, and shot by Indians under the command of British Lt. Gen. John Burgoyne. Continental commanders immediately realized that the incident could be used to garner greater popular support and military recruits for their cause. To this effect, Maj. Gen. Horatio Gates wrote a scathing letter to Burgoyne in September 1777, with copies sent to Congress and many Philadelphia newspaper presses, primarily blaming the British for the incident:[LINKED_TEXT: [9]] [URL: https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/09/rhetoric-practice-scalping/#_edn9] That the savages of America should in their warfare mangle and scalp the unhappy prisoners, who fall into their hands, is neither new nor extraordinary; but that the famous Lieut General. Burgoyne, in whom the fine gentleman is united with the soldier and the scholar should hire the Savages of America to scalp Europeans and the descendants of Europeans; nay more, that he should pay a price for each scalp so barbarously taken, is more than will be believed in England until authenticated facts shall in every Gazette, convince mankind of the truth of the horrid tale – Miss McCrea, a young lady lovely to the sight, of virtuous character and amiable disposition, engaged to be married to an officer in your army; [she] was … carried into the woods, and there scalped and mangled in the most shocking manner … [by] murderers employed by you.[LINKED_TEXT: [10]] [URL: https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/09/rhetoric-practice-scalping/#_edn10] The offense, was that the British government was not only employing Indians against colonists, but paying them cash rewards for scalps of colonist women and children as proof of their murder. If that is not heinous enough — I don’t know what would be. In any case the bill of rights in the US Constitution are all based on actual wrongs done by the British government to English speaking colonists in what became the USA. Every one of those rights have counterparts of tyrannical acts by the British government on colonists. The bill of rights if you read closely basically says the US government cannot do those things, it is forbidden from behaving like that.

answer:Yes and no. The magnetic fields on the drive platter weaken over time, even if it’s unused. Eventually, some of them may become so weak that the HDD is unable to “read” them. This process is called bit rot. If properly stored, the HDD can last 30 years (there are reports of some HDD’s still working even after that long), but there’s no guarantee that after all that time your data will still be 100% intact. That’s the reason that retro-computing enthusiasts, like Adrian of Adrian’s Digital Basement, are so careful to make a backup of old hard drives if they still work. There may be some data on there that is still useful someday, for archival purposes if nothing else.

answer:With the 40% of registered Republicans (as of 3 months ago who supported Trump more ten the party). It’s less now. That’s less then 10% of the population. What of it? They’re loud to be sure but what else of significance?

answer:Generally speaking, there is one, long verbal irony in Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” To make his point, he uses the irony inherent in his suggestion that Ireland could allay its devastating food shortage by eating babies! If you are interested in more detailed information, check out this website: [LINKED_TEXT: https://www.enotes.com/topics/modest-proposal/summary#:~:text=A%20Modest%20Proposal%20is%20a%20satirical%20essay%20by,and%20that%20their%20skin%20will%20make%20fine%20leather.] [URL: https://www.enotes.com/topics/modest-proposal/summary#%3A~%3Atext%3DA%20Modest%20Proposal%20is%20a%20satirical%20essay%20by%2Cand%20that%20their%20skin%20will%20make%20fine%20leather.]