Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lol, can you ideologues ever not take a specific statement and try to make it universal?So the founding fathers are just whiners now?He was applying a professional standard to amateur volunteers.In a letter to his nephew, Lund Washington, plantation manager of Mount Vernon, General George Washington writes on this day in 1776 of his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the American militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief root of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British
Washington blames militia for problems - Sep 30, 1776 - HISTORY.com
This amounts to whining and little more.
But that would require them to think outside of their Marxist ideology.You'd think that after Hitler's Germany, Mao's China and Stalin's USSR, Progressives would understand that the greatest threat to life and freedom is an armed government and unarmed citizens.
You can laugh at my explanation all you want, but I spoke of a specific situation regarding one Founding Father and you dilated that into ALL the Founding Fathers, which is not funny, just stupid and dishonest.Lol, can you ideologues ever not take a specific statement and try to make it universal?So the founding fathers are just whiners now?He was applying a professional standard to amateur volunteers.In a letter to his nephew, Lund Washington, plantation manager of Mount Vernon, General George Washington writes on this day in 1776 of his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the American militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief root of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British
Washington blames militia for problems - Sep 30, 1776 - HISTORY.com
This amounts to whining and little more.
That is a 'Straw Man' argument as well as a 'Red Herring' and a 'Liberal Dishonesty' fallacy.
You would, but you would be wrong.You'd think that after Hitler's Germany, Mao's China and Stalin's USSR, Progressives would understand that the greatest threat to life and freedom is an armed government and unarmed citizens.
What was their experience with mass shootings?
The early American citizens were never so stupid as to create gun free zones, so of course there were no mass shootings. But there could ahve been mass kn ifings or mass swordings, I guess, like they frequently have in China and Japan.
I see a lot of mentions of militias.
George Washington though the militias we're useless.
Bullshit. Provide a link with context.
Militias were not musket armed should-to-shoulder rank and file marching troops, like the Continentals were. The militias were muzzle loading rifle firing skirmishers, never intended to march into the thick of the battle like line troops. He may have wished he had more line troops than rifle skirmishing militia, but you fight with what you have.
The militia forces were great for controlling the roads and byways of the colonies as they denied to Gage and other British generals the ability to provide unescorted logistical support to his troops. This greatly limited the range of British operations and kept them hemmed in to the urban areas or convoys of forces that had a much smaller footprint than they would have had without the militias.
So you want to be ready to run down and guard the road when your imagined war breaks out with our own government? What kind of fight are you going to put up against the most powerful military in the world?
Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the Fist Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.
The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”
Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”
Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”
That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.
The other defensive option would have been a standing army.
But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”
Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.
Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”
Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.
Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. Want proof? In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, line twelve reads that Congress has the power: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
“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.”
What was their experience with mass shootings?
The early American citizens were never so stupid as to create gun free zones, so of course there were no mass shootings. But there could ahve been mass kn ifings or mass swordings, I guess, like they frequently have in China and Japan.
I see a lot of mentions of militias.
George Washington though the militias we're useless.
Bullshit. Provide a link with context.
Militias were not musket armed should-to-shoulder rank and file marching troops, like the Continentals were. The militias were muzzle loading rifle firing skirmishers, never intended to march into the thick of the battle like line troops. He may have wished he had more line troops than rifle skirmishing militia, but you fight with what you have.
The militia forces were great for controlling the roads and byways of the colonies as they denied to Gage and other British generals the ability to provide unescorted logistical support to his troops. This greatly limited the range of British operations and kept them hemmed in to the urban areas or convoys of forces that had a much smaller footprint than they would have had without the militias.
So you want to be ready to run down and guard the road when your imagined war breaks out with our own government? What kind of fight are you going to put up against the most powerful military in the world?
How have Iraq and Afghanistan been doing?
What was their experience with mass shootings?
The early American citizens were never so stupid as to create gun free zones, so of course there were no mass shootings. But there could ahve been mass kn ifings or mass swordings, I guess, like they frequently have in China and Japan.
I see a lot of mentions of militias.
George Washington though the militias we're useless.
Bullshit. Provide a link with context.
Militias were not musket armed should-to-shoulder rank and file marching troops, like the Continentals were. The militias were muzzle loading rifle firing skirmishers, never intended to march into the thick of the battle like line troops. He may have wished he had more line troops than rifle skirmishing militia, but you fight with what you have.
The militia forces were great for controlling the roads and byways of the colonies as they denied to Gage and other British generals the ability to provide unescorted logistical support to his troops. This greatly limited the range of British operations and kept them hemmed in to the urban areas or convoys of forces that had a much smaller footprint than they would have had without the militias.
So you want to be ready to run down and guard the road when your imagined war breaks out with our own government? What kind of fight are you going to put up against the most powerful military in the world?
How have Iraq and Afghanistan been doing?
Do you really want to try to compare the US to Iraq or Afghanistan?
What was their experience with mass shootings?
The early American citizens were never so stupid as to create gun free zones, so of course there were no mass shootings. But there could ahve been mass kn ifings or mass swordings, I guess, like they frequently have in China and Japan.
I see a lot of mentions of militias.
George Washington though the militias we're useless.
Bullshit. Provide a link with context.
Militias were not musket armed should-to-shoulder rank and file marching troops, like the Continentals were. The militias were muzzle loading rifle firing skirmishers, never intended to march into the thick of the battle like line troops. He may have wished he had more line troops than rifle skirmishing militia, but you fight with what you have.
The militia forces were great for controlling the roads and byways of the colonies as they denied to Gage and other British generals the ability to provide unescorted logistical support to his troops. This greatly limited the range of British operations and kept them hemmed in to the urban areas or convoys of forces that had a much smaller footprint than they would have had without the militias.
So you want to be ready to run down and guard the road when your imagined war breaks out with our own government? What kind of fight are you going to put up against the most powerful military in the world?
How have Iraq and Afghanistan been doing?
Do you really want to try to compare the US to Iraq or Afghanistan?
" What kind of fight are you going to put up against the most powerful military in the world?"
The same kind of fight going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and happened in Viet Nam.
Hit an run, IEDs, snipers, etc.
Don't you think Americans would be up for it?
Lol, the debate puts your lies to clear light of day. Note how they separated the right to keep and bear vrs the right to have a militia.The Founding Fathers Versus The Gun Nuts
Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the Fist Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.
None
The meme said George Washington said that "when government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern." Experts say there’s no evidence that Washington ever said that -- and there are indications that Washington, if anything, favored the arming of trained militias rather than wide swaths of the population. We rate the claim False.
None
The meme said George Washington said that "when government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern." Experts say there’s no evidence that Washington ever said that -- and there are indications that Washington, if anything, favored the arming of trained militias rather than wide swaths of the population. We rate the claim False.
You are a troll...so what you claim has no merit....you are a troll.....your brain doesn't function properly..
See Post # 34None
The meme said George Washington said that "when government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern." Experts say there’s no evidence that Washington ever said that -- and there are indications that Washington, if anything, favored the arming of trained militias rather than wide swaths of the population. We rate the claim False.
You are a troll...so what you claim has no merit....you are a troll.....your brain doesn't function properly..
So you prefer to run with lies. Not surprising.
