A question for this group--

[jimmy the one]

38. redirected #2, prevention not disarmament

As is your wont, you (tortoise) too often don't denote what you are referring to, rather you simply post paragraphs+ & expect readers to magically interpret what you are driving at.
In your post 36 - note I don't know if it is your opinion or a copy & paste from history book - there is a lengthy review of what precipitated the rev-war and the early stages of it, & you rest back smugly with ad hominem as if your paragraphs validate all you contend, when they really don't. Your own post reaffirms my position, & makes yours leak like a sieve:

tortoise posted, or wrote: Among them was an act that gave the governor absolute authority over all judicial and official appointments and removals, as well as appointing sheriffs who then selected all jurors. Gage was appointed Governor of the Massachusetts Bay colony, and told to use his troops as necessary to quell the unrest.
Gage's first effort to disarm the colony came when he began to restrict withdrawals from the local powder houses, where gunpowder that had been imported was stored until merchants and provincial authorities made their withdrawals, without his express order. He rescinded this order after a couple of incidents that were publicized in the local papers.
Sep 1, 1774, Gage decided to seize all remaining powder in a powder-house on Quarry Hill. He had been informed by a brigadier general (Brattle), that all powder left in another powder-house in Charlestown was the King's property because all private powder had been removed, and his intention was to ensure that no more British gunpowder fell into the colonists hands.
He then began once again to restrict any withdrawals of ANY gunpowder, private or public, from the powder-houses. When the colonists aired their complaints in the Suffolk Resolutions, Gage wrote to Lord Dartmouth (the instigator of much of the unjust actions that led to war) that he thought it prudent to prevent the withdrawal of any powder at all, no matter who it belonged to. He also instituted search and seizure operations at the main entrance to Boston, impounding all firearms and associated material (bullets and powder) that were found.

Rebellion was in the air in the colonies after the boston tea party, & gage would've been remiss not to protect crown property from rebellious colonists, & this would've been approved by loyalists & perhaps most of indifferent neutrals.
------------------------------------
tortoise: Oct 19, 1774, the King and his ministers put in place a 6-month ban on exporting arms and ammunition from Great Britain, and importing arms or ammunition into the colonies.

tortoise remarks: (That would fall under the heading of disarmament, wouldn't it?)

Pretzel logic take 5. Technically no, since it was a preventive measure, not confiscatory or a RiF - reduction in force.
Rebellion was in the air; to ship arms to your potential enemy is not a wise idea. Duh. Cont'd next post.