This is but one of many examples of how libtards attempt to rewrite history. As I’m normally a student of history, and not an expert, I normally don’t address it. I am, however, a subject matter expert in this particular area, so I stepped up to the plate to address this with the author. The editorial in question was written in response to a recently distributed meme. Unfortunately instead of finding out how George Washington really felt about an armed citizenry, the author cheated. Here’s my response to his revisionist history i.e. LIES:
You are correct when you state that George Washington probably never said “when government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern.”
However, your comment that “Experts agree that the former president was referring to a trained militia to defend the country, not necessarily armed citizens” is patently FALSE. Furthermore, although there’s no record of Washington having uttered that particular quote, he spoke and wrote many times on the issue. The body of his commentary is crystal clear and stands opposed to your “experts agree…” claim.
“Following the revolution but previous to the adoption of the Constitution, debates over militia proposals occupied a large part of the political scene. A variety of plans were put forth by figures ranging from George Washington to Baron von Steuben. All of the proposals called for a general duty of all citizens to be armed.” (Sources: The most extensive studies of these militia proposals are John McAuley Palmer, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson: Three War Statesmen (New York, 1930); Frederick Stern, Citizen Army (New York,1957); John Mahon, The American Militia: Decade of Decision 1789-1800 (Univ of Florida, 1960).)
“The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages is a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to guarantee a State right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but rather to protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.”
“Other figures of the period were of like mind. In the Virginia convention, George Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted “to disarm the people—that was the best and most effective way to enslave them”, while Patrick Henry observed that “The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun”. Nor were the antifederalist, to whom we owe credit for a Bill of Rights, alone on this account. Federalist arguments also provide a source of support for an individual rights view. Their arguments in favor of the proposed Constitution also relied heavily upon universal armament. The proposed Constitution had been heavily criticized for its failure to ban or even limit standing armies. Unable to deny this omission, the Constitution’s supporters frequently argued to the people that the universal armament of Americans made such limitations unnecessary.”
Thus, while our Second Amendment does indeed stress the ideal that armed citizens be well-trained and remain proficient (this is the precise meaning of the term “well-regulated”), nearly all of our Founding Fathers considered the entire body of armed citizens as the “militia,” and protected their right to keep and bear arms by means of the Second Amendment, an absolute moratorium against any infringement.
If you believe otherwise, you’ve either been sold a load of manure or are trying to do the same. For further details, please refer to the attached Congressional Report.
“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.” – Second Amendment to the United States Constitution