"Militia", what that meant then.

[Shell B]

The colonists had no legal right to the gunpowder stored in colonial magazines.

Are you referring to the Powder Alarm? There were several kerfuffles over gunpowder and weapons. Each had its own unique circumstances. In Massachusetts, Gage was a prick, but they did indeed use propaganda to fire people up after he decided to get tight-fisted with powder stores. In the end, legal right to anything doesn't really have bearing, though. The entire fight was over the perceived immorality of deciding laws for a people who were't represented within the governing body, particularly given that the United States had distinctly different needs from Britain. Their objections stemmed from long before powder became the issue of the day.

The colonial government was not confiscating weapons (or powder) from personal use at the time either...though, obviously, the rebels were capable of working up the public into a row as if they did and were. 

They knew that it was the plan, which is what led to Lexington and Concord. They knew it was important to keep a hand on it. They were right. By the time the misnamed Battle of Bunker Hill occurred, they were so low on ammunition that they had to give up Breed's Hill, in spite of the fact that they had inflicted many more casualties than the redcoats. Sure, the redcoats meant to confiscate the stuff peacefully before the war began, but, again, these weren't really the initial objections. This came after many years of taxation and property issues.

On a broader stage, the famous "taxation without representation" takes it's place in the history of war propaganda....not a sober assessment of truth.

Hmmm, the words "no taxation without representation" as used in the decades leading up to the American Revolution were initially used by James Otis, an intellectual who could hardly be counted among the time's propagandists. He was outspoken, which led to him nearly being beaten to death by a tax collector or soldier in the street. However, I'd challenge you to read anything he wrote for the paper or accounts of his lengthy courtroom diatribes and find lies used to stir people up. The colonists were indeed being taxed without representation by Parliament. The Intolerable Acts did even worse. It was absolutely true that there were no colonists in Parliament. Moreover, Parliament was reducing the ability for local governments to convene, even replacing colonial officials with the "king's men," and restricting public gatherings.

It's always good to remember that our founding fathers were propagandists, first and foremost...and whatever else second to that.  It was a necessity of their position and their goals.

I disagree that propaganda was first and foremost at all.

My points is that the objections that led to the unrest before the American Revolution occurred were more often founded than not. They were very well laid out by keener minds than mine and the "propagandists" who founded the nation. You can read the words right out of their mouths for years, if you choose. I did. I don't disagree that some, such as Samuel Adams (massacre, my ass), were not averse to dramatizing anything to rally people for the cause, but to act as if the rebellion was pure propaganda is nonsense.