Jump to content


George Washington was a Socialist Too!


Recommended Posts

It is an annoying habit of politicians and activists on the right to loudly denounce almost anything they don't like as "unconstitutional" -- including progressive taxes, civil rights statutes, environmental protections, and now healthcare reform. So Republican lawyers and attorneys general around the country are preparing challenges to the healthcare reform bill on constitutional grounds, perhaps hoping that a Supreme Court majority will strike down the legislation with the same flagrant disdain for legal precedent and democratic order displayed in Bush v. Gore.

 

Along those lines, one of the favorite complaints against the healthcare reform bill is that the founding document doesn't permit the federal government to order anyone to buy a product or service. That supposedly renders illegitimate the individual insurance mandate that is part of the bill.

 

As every fervent advocate of gun rights ought to know, however, that argument suffers from a glaring historical flaw. Only a few years after the nation's Founding Fathers ratified the Constitution, Congress approved the Militia Act of 1792, which was duly signed by George Washington, then the president and commander in chief.

 

Establishing state militias and a national standard for their operation, the Militia Act explicitly required every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45, with a few occupational exceptions, to "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.."

 

Within six months, every citizen enrolled and notified of his required militia service had to equip himself as specified above. There was spirited debate in Congress as to whether the state ought to subsidize the purchase of arms for men too poor to afford their own, so that everyone could serve his country. Subsidized or not, however, the founders saw no constitutional barrier to a law ordering every citizen to buy a gun and ammo.

 

Quotations and facsimiles of the Militia Act can be found on hundreds of right-wing blogs, of course, where it is often cited to demonstrate that the founders would have despised gun control. Few if any of these Second Amendment zealots seem to have realized yet how ironic it is for them to quote this venerable statute alongside their anguished protests against the constitutional validity of any federal mandate.

 

Or maybe Washington was a socialist, too.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/25/militia/index.html

 

(I just had this emailed to me. I found it entertaining.)

Link to comment

Ah yes George Washington...that first president with an "R" next to his name...

What's that have to do with anything? I just think it's funny considering the chicken littles running around saying "this is unprecedented in American history and our founding fathers would be horrified!"

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

I've read this a couple times, and I don't see what one has to do with the other. In the Washington case, it was a mandate to have a firearm. No where does it say you have to purchase it. There were many ways to get firearms back then. Also, if you did have to purchase it, it would be a one time purchase, not recurring.

Link to comment

I've read this a couple times, and I don't see what one has to do with the other. In the Washington case, it was a mandate to have a firearm. No where does it say you have to purchase it. There were many ways to get firearms back then. Also, if you did have to purchase it, it would be a one time purchase, not recurring.

Once or in perpetuity, the point is that it's an example of how the government has mandated that you acquire something. And I'm not sure what you mean by "There were many ways to get firearms back then." You either bought a gun or bartered for it, or in very rare cases manufactured it by yourself. The means isn't the point, because you're still transacting for it (cash, barter or in time to make).

Link to comment

I've read this a couple times, and I don't see what one has to do with the other. In the Washington case, it was a mandate to have a firearm. No where does it say you have to purchase it. There were many ways to get firearms back then. Also, if you did have to purchase it, it would be a one time purchase, not recurring.

Sure . . . just like there are many ways to get insurance. You could have it given to you . . . or trade eggs from chickens that you raise . . . etc.

 

The concept is the same. The government is requiring you to purchase something. The point is that this isn't a new idea.

 

I'm not saying I like it. I'm just saying that it's not as revolutionary as Glenn Beck and others would have you believe.

Link to comment

Ah yes George Washington...that first president with an "R" next to his name...

What's that have to do with anything? I just think it's funny considering the chicken littles running around saying "this is unprecedented in American history and our founding fathers would be horrified!"

Carl your example has nothing to do with anything.

How so?

Link to comment

2 thoughts:

 

1) this should put to rest any argument against the 2nd amendment and the CITIZENS' right to own firearms.

 

2) the difference is it "required" all able bodied white men to do so, but it did not take a firearm from the guy who has 10 and give it to those who have none, and it did not require the wealthy or "cadillac plan-ers" (with the exception of union members, of course) to flip the bill for others. This took no taxpayer money out of the pockets of individuals and put it in government coffers.

 

Besides, I would assume that the overwhelming majority of the able bodied while males from that time period all had firearms (see Minute Men-Revolutionary War), so this would not be a big stretch.

 

Nice try, but apples to oranges.

Link to comment

2 thoughts:

 

1) this should put to rest any argument against the 2nd amendment and the CITIZENS' right to own firearms.

 

2) the difference is it "required" all able bodied white men to do so, but it did not take a firearm from the guy who has 10 and give it to those who have none, and it did not require the wealthy or "cadillac plan-ers" (with the exception of union members, of course) to flip the bill for others. This took no taxpayer money out of the pockets of individuals and put it in government coffers.

 

Besides, I would assume that the overwhelming majority of the able bodied while males from that time period all had firearms (see Minute Men-Revolutionary War), so this would not be a big stretch.

 

Nice try, but apples to oranges.

 

Actually . . . regarding the bold . . . this is exactly what Washington did. He required SOME to spend money out of their own pockets to benefit the REST. Apples and apples my friend. Both are unfunded mandates. I'd be more happy about what Washington did than what Obama did . . . but both are requiring private citizens to do something that they may or may not want to do.

 

Edit: I think your strong feelings for gun rights, and your strong feelings against federally mandated health insurance might be clouding your thoughts. You said the majority of able bodied white males had firearms . . . well 5 out of 6 Americans have health insurance. Again, apples to apples. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.

Link to comment
the difference is it "required" all able bodied white men to do so, but it did not take a firearm from the guy who has 10 and give it to those who have none, and it did not require the wealthy or "cadillac plan-ers" (with the exception of union members, of course) to flip the bill for others. This took no taxpayer money out of the pockets of individuals and put it in government coffers.

 

Actually, it did take money from taxpayer pockets - they had to pay for a gun. It did put money in the government coffers by forcing the citizens to pay for a gun the government would otherwise have had to pay for.

 

And I don't get the analogy of the guy who has 10 firearms and giving it to those who have none. How does that apply here?

Link to comment
the difference is it "required" all able bodied white men to do so, but it did not take a firearm from the guy who has 10 and give it to those who have none, and it did not require the wealthy or "cadillac plan-ers" (with the exception of union members, of course) to flip the bill for others. This took no taxpayer money out of the pockets of individuals and put it in government coffers.

 

Actually, it did take money from taxpayer pockets - they had to pay for a gun. It did put money in the government coffers by forcing the citizens to pay for a gun the government would otherwise have had to pay for.

The difference is, citizens were not giving money to the gov't to purchase guns, that is the government control of taxpayer money.

 

And I don't get the analogy of the guy who has 10 firearms and giving it to those who have none. How does that apply here?

Because people with so-called cadillac plans, buisness owners that don't offer insurance to employees, or people who use tanning facilities, etc, are going to be taxed for what they have or what they do, and that money will go to purchase insurance for those who don't currently have insurance.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...