Washington Said What?

[Howey]

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, 1790

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

More proof the uneducated gun nuts really, really, really! have no idea what the Founding Fathers meant hundreds of years ago. Let's leave interpretation to the experts, ok?

Ron Chernow, whose "Washington: A Life" won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for biography, helped us translate that into 21st-century-ese.

"In this passage, Washington is talking about national defense policy, not individuals arming themselves, and the need for national self-sufficiency in creating military supplies," Chernow told us by email.

John Woolley, co-creator of the American Presidency Project at the University of California-Santa Barbara (where we first saw the speech), also said Washington was speaking about external threats and "not being dependent on imported weapons."

"He said that as a practical matter, the young and vulnerable USA needed to be prepared to mount an effective defense against other" nations, Woolley told us by email. The Senate and House both issued formal responses, Woolley said, and "there is no hint in either of these that the members of Congress thought there was something in that speech about gun rights."

Washington’s address goes on to say that peaceful measures having failed in regards to "certain tribes of hostile Indians" on the southern and western frontiers, "we ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of the Union."

The "common defence," being prepared for war and having the ability to protect against hostile tribes all refer to outside threats.

Edward Lengel, editor in chief of the Papers of George Washington project at the University of Virginia, told us by email, "Washington never said, to my knowledge, anything about arms providing a safeguard against any so-called ‘tyranny’ of government.’ "

In reading the "armed, but disciplined" quotation, Lengel said, "emphasis should be on the word ‘disciplined,’ by which Washington was taking a backhanded swipe at the militia, which he considered undisciplined and next to useless in combat[Proving, again, comments I made a few weeks ago]. Washington was all for an ordered, professional standing army under the command of a strong central government."

But an army was expensive, as Washington wrote in a May 2, 1783, memo to a congressional committee that asked for his advice on how to organize the military in peacetime.

"We are too poor to maintain a standing Army adequate to our defence," he said, and suggested a small regular army supplemented by a well-organized militia -- a part-time force of volunteers, called up in emergencies. The Militia Acts of 1792 tracked with the memo’s description, calling for white men 18 to 45 years old to be enrolled in a militia. A cost-cutting provision required them to provide their own arms and ammunition.

Lengel said, "The idea of resistance to tyranny being dependent on a nation of gun-wielding individuals acting at their own behest or even on local initiative would have been anathema to Washington."

"Indeed, during the (Revolutionary) war he very frequently lamented the crimes carried out by armed civilians or undisciplined militia against their unarmed neighbors. The solution to these crimes, as he understood it, was to increase the power of the government and the army to prevent and punish them -- not to put more guns in the hands of civilians."

Mary Thompson, research historian at Washington’s Virginia home, Mount Vernon, told us via email, "Washington’s actual quote is in regard to the people serving in the militia as an arm of the government," rather than as an armed resistance to government.

In fact, she said, Washington called up militias to put down just such a rebellion a few years later.

During the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, she said, "citizens of Western Pennsylvania rose up to fight a new tax on the whiskey they produced." Washington was "concerned that success by the rebels would lead to a diminishment of the central/federal government," and directed state militias to counter the insurrection -- "citizen-soldiers," she said, "acting on behalf of the government against their fellow citizens."

Gohmert’s rendering, "George Washington said a free people should be an armed people," seemingly tracks Washington’s words to the nation: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."

Contrary to Gohmert’s characterization, though, Washington was not speaking about citizens arming themselves in case of government tyranny. Quite the opposite: The president and former general was calling for disciplined troops to fight on behalf of the government.

There goes that argument!

btw...anyone heard from STY?

 

[Damocles]

More proof the uneducated gun nuts really, really, really! have no idea what the Founding Fathers meant hundreds of years ago. Let's leave interpretation to the experts, ok?
















There goes that argument!

btw...anyone heard from STY?

Um. No it doesn't. The argument he was speaking of national defense is in the 2nd Amendment itself. It's like you don't pay any attention to the board at all, unless you are typing.

The 2nd Amendment reads, in more modern language, "Because we may need armed citizens as part of a militia and take up defense of the nation, the right of individuals to own and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In this Amendment the use of "The People" is the true indicator of who gets the right, the reason listed as part of national defense makes it clear that the arms are not for "A Great Tradition of Hunting" as Obama might want you to believe or for shooting skeet as he wants you to believe he does "all the time" at Camp David. (The photo op President not having a picture of him shooting the guns before making that silly statement is laughable.)

 

[Howey]

The 2nd Amendment reads, in more modern language, "Because we may need armed citizens as part of a militia and take up defense of the nation, the right of individuals to own and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I cited four separate examples from Washington historians, experts in the field; and all you can come up with is:

"Because we may need armed citizens as part of a militia and take up defense of the nation, the right of individuals to own and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Which historian does that quote belong to, Damo?

 

[Damocles]

I cited four separate examples from Washington historians, experts in the field; and all you can come up with is:



Which historian does that quote belong to, Damo?

That isn't "all I can come up with", I simply pointed out that I agreed with the historian that he was speaking of national defense and then explained (slowly for the extremely obtuse) why it doesn't take a genius to understand that. The first part of the Amendment makes it clear that it is for national defense.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

In order to pretend that it isn't an individual right, for the purpose of national defense, one must pretend that the use of "The People" in that Amendment is different than in every other Amendment and use in the Constitution. It's absurd.

Obama's constant, "Great Tradition of Hunting" notwithstanding, the People are meant to be able to own weapons good enough to participate in the nation's defense.

 

[Crashk]

"the People are meant to be able to own weapons good enough to participate in the nation's defense."

But only if you are part of the 'well regulated militia' which is used in the defense of the country, and to keep your slaves from rebelling.

 

[Howey]

That isn't "all I can come up with", I simply pointed out that I agreed with the historian that he was speaking of national defense and then explained (slowly for the extremely obtuse) why it doesn't take a genius to understand that. The first part of the Amendment makes it clear that it is for national defense.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

In order to pretend that it isn't an individual right, for the purpose of national defense, one must pretend that the use of "The People" in that Amendment is different than in every other Amendment and use in the Constitution. It's absurd.

Obama's constant, "Great Tradition of Hunting" notwithstanding, the People are meant to be able to own weapons good enough to participate in the nation's defense.

But your fellow gun nuts on here are saying it's to defend us from our tyrannical government. And that's obviously not true.

Which is it?

It's obvious from reading those quotes that a. Washington was, at a minimum, uncomfortable with "a nation of gun-wielding individuals acting at their own behest"; and b. His intent was that "The People" were only allowed to carry guns for personal protection and to support the central government itself against outside threats, not the government itself.

Which is in direct conflict of what you gun nuts are saying.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

But your fellow gun nuts on here are saying it's to defend us from our tyrannical government. And that's obviously not true.

Which is it?

security of a free state can be threatened by your government, as you idiots were so willing to whine about during the reign of Bush 2.

 

[Damocles]

"the People are meant to be able to own weapons good enough to participate in the nation's defense."

But only if you are part of the 'well regulated militia' which is used in the defense of the country, and to keep your slaves from rebelling.

You have to work on your understanding.

In order to form a militia, the people must have the arms to use while in the militia.

And there is nothing at all about slavery in the 2nd Amendment you add it in an attempt to make it about race because if it is about race you believe you can stop people from pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in the Great Tradition of Hunting and shooting skeet lover's dismissive argument.

Now while you are just making crap up, and pretending you don't understand English, because you dislike that the Amendment is actually quite clear, we'll just continue agreeing with the Historians and understanding that "The People" means individuals in every part of the constitution, including this one.

 

[Damocles]

But your fellow gun nuts on here are saying it's to defend us from our tyrannical government. And that's obviously not true.

Incorrect, George Washington himself utilized arms to do just that, defend his nation against its own government.

Which is it?

Again, George Washington himself utilized arms to defend his country against its own government. You have to be deliberately obtuse not to recognize that and assume that the revolutionary war was against some other government than the one that ruled here.

It's obvious from reading those quotes that a. Washington was, at a minimum, uncomfortable with "a nation of gun-wielding individuals acting at their own behest"; and b. His intent was that "The People" were only allowed to carry guns for personal protection and to support the central government itself against outside threats, not the government itself.

Which is in direct conflict of what you gun nuts are saying.

Again,what is obvious is the man himself utilized weapons to defend the nation against its own government.

 

[Howey]

security of a free state can be threatened by your government, as you idiots were so willing to whine about during the reign of Bush 2.

We did? Cite.

In order to form a militia, the people must have the arms to use while in the militia.

Not really. STY's Texas militia can't have guns.

Now while you are just making crap up, and pretending you don't understand English, because you dislike that the Amendment is actually quite clear, we'll just continue agreeing with the Historians and understanding that "The People" means individuals in every part of the constitution, including this one.

Again, which is it? First you say we need to agree with the historians, but I point out the historians don't agree with you.

Incorrect, George Washington himself utilized arms to do just that, defend his nation against its own government.

At the time there was no "nation". Therefore, Washington didn't take arms up against "his nation". He took them up against the British government.

 

[Crashk]

"In order to form a militia, the people must have the arms to use while in the militia."

and these weapons were to be stored in an armory and used in the defense of the country by a well regulated militia.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

We did? Cite.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...orner-In-The-USA&highlight=naomi+wolf+fascism

At the time there was no "nation". Therefore, Washington didn't take arms up against "his nation". He took them up against the British government.

this is how you fail. at the time that washington took up arms, these were british colonies, thus it was washingtons government.

 

[Howey]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...orner-In-The-USA&highlight=naomi+wolf+fascism

this is how you fail. at the time that washington took up arms, these were british colonies, thus it was washingtons government.

One thread, three posts. That's all you have.

Colonies aren't a nation, dear. . Each had a separate government. Fail.

 

[Damocles]

"In order to form a militia, the people must have the arms to use while in the militia."

and these weapons were to be stored in an armory and used in the defense of the country by a well regulated militia.

No they weren't. The Amendment itself says that the people have the right to keep and BEAR those arms. Not that the government has the right to confiscate and carefully control and dole out arms that they store where you have no access.

You have to be literally and completely incompetent in English to not understand you cannot keep and/or bear an arm that has been confiscated by force and stored where you have no access to it.

 

[Damocles]

One thread, three posts. That's all you have.

Colonies aren't a nation, dear. . Each had a separate government. Fail.

Incorrect, all were subject to the rule of the king. While each had an adjunct government that exercised the power of the king, it was the power of the king that ruled over this land. Fail is the incapacity to understand that it was their own government that they fought in the Revolutionary War. It must be by definition in order to be a Revolution.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

One thread, three posts. That's all you have.

no, of course you could also do your own search for 'fascism, fascist, and bush' on these boards and see the dozens of threads started and posted on during the bush years, but that might be too much for you to handle.

Colonies aren't a nation, dear. . Each had a separate government. Fail.

wrong, do you need a history lesson?

 

[Liberty]

One thread, three posts. That's all you have.

Colonies aren't a nation, dear. . Each had a separate government. Fail.

You really need to study history.

The people in the states thought much differently about the USA than we do today.

To them, the USA was no different than the UN is to us today.

But gov't schools don't teach this.

 

[Howey]

wrong, do you need a history lesson?

Are you saying each of the thirteen colonies didn't have their own government? Who needs a history lesson?

http://americanhistory.about.com/od...nial-Governments-Of-The-Thirteen-Colonies.htm

You really need to study history.

The people in the states thought much differently about the USA than we do today.

To them, the USA was no different than the UN is to us today.

But gov't schools don't teach this.

There was no USA back then and there was no UN.

 

[kamastone]

lol, gun nuts!

We did? Cite.



Not really. STY's Texas militia can't have guns.



Again, which is it? First you say we need to agree with the historians, but I point out the historians don't agree with you.



At the time there was no "nation". Therefore, Washington didn't take arms up against "his nation". He took them up against the British government.

"Gun Nuts":
Do you mean that in the, "off your rocker" kinda way? Or, that we're just nuts about guns?! LOL

I'll tell you what, educate yourself about the Holy Bible and human rights first to get an understanding of how, as a human being and Christian, as our forefathers were, and then maybe, you'll have an understanding of what they were talking about!

There's more to their quotes, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than what some self-proclaimed historian says there is. With the right knowledge you will be able to understand more instead of what you really want it to mean like most people do. Gun nuts or not!