George Washington - January 8, 1790

[jerseyben]

State of the Union AddressGeorge Washington​

January 8, 1790

An excerpt:
​

Source: http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/uspressu/SUaddressGWashington.pdf

"Among the many interesting objects which will engage yourattention that of providing for the common defense will meritparticular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the mosteffectual means of preserving peace.A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite;and their safety and interest require that they should promotesuch manufactories as tend to render them independentof others for essential, particularly military, supplies.The proper establishment of the troops which may bedeemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration.In the arrangements which may be made respecting itit will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable supportof the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.There was reason to hope that the pacific measures adopted​

with regard to certain hostile tribes of Indians would have
relieved the inhabitants of our southern and western frontiers

from their depredations, but you will perceive from theinformation contained in the papers which I shall direct tobe laid before you (comprehending a communication fromthe Commonwealth of Virginia) that we ought to be preparedto afford protection to those parts of the Union, and,​

if necessary, to punish aggressors".


Now, I ask you to read the language used IN FULL CONTEXT and tell me what you think the quote means.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[onfire]

What the quote means depends on what side of the aisle your on. It's how it's interpreted One side get's the meaning, the other side are liberals. right.(That's the way stocky would answer you Correct)

 

[jerseyben]

What the quote means depends on what side of the aisle your on. It's how it's interpreted One side get's the meaning, the other side are liberals. right.(That's the way stocky would answer you Correct)

That's one way to respond.

Or you could just respond to my post without inserting politics into it...

 

[jerseyben]

Is there a problem with my attempt to have meaningful discussion DIRECTLY related to 2nd Amendment?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It does not say the right of the militia shall not be infringed, it says "the people"....


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[onfire]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It does not say the right of the militia shall not be infringed, it says "the people"....


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Now as I see it this IS the RIGHT answer. But to some it's how you define the word IS (I think someone said that before)

 

[diggummup]

Only recently have guns/gun ownership been an issue in this country. The question we should be asking ourselves is why now? Why now after more than 200 years is it all of a sudden a bad thing (for some) to own guns? Political agenda and propanganda mixed with media hype, that's why. Banning/controlling them won't help a damn thing. To the contrary, all it will do is make criminals out of once law abiding citizens. The problem, is the mind set of those who use them for the wrong reason/s. Taking away the needle from a heroin addict won't keep the addict from using. Just as taking away a gun from some jackass that's hell bent on killing one or a group of people won't stop them. Where there's a will, there's a way. The less guns we as private citizens have, the more we are at risk by any number of bad things perpetrated by those that do have them, whomever that may be. I mean really, you don't think (or want) the government is going to round up everyone's guns do you?

 

[0121stockpicker]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It does not say the right of the militia shall not be infringed, it says "the people"....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

But no less an authority than Justice Antonin Scalia has written, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”.

 

[jerseyben]

(In the past) several have taken it upon themselves to interpret what my stance is on this topic.

I would like to state for the record that I support gun ownership as well as the 2nd Amendment. I do believe that it is open to interpretation, if the leglislative and judicial processes are followed. I would not be opposed to restrictions placed on gun ownership as long as it was reasonable and it went along with the majority of what the poeple want. I do not support gun fanaticism or extremism of any kind.

Most importantly, I think the people of America need to take responsability for themselves and their own personal actions. That means do not blame the Government and do not rely on the Government.

 

[0121stockpicker]

(In the past) several have taken it upon themselves to interpret what my stance is on this topic.

I would like to state for the record that I support gun ownership as well as the 2nd Amendment. I do believe that it is open to interpretation, if the leglislative and judicial processes are followed. I would not be opposed to restrictions placed on gun ownership as long as it was reasonable and it went along with the majority of what the poeple want. I do not support gun fanaticism or extremism of any kind.

Most importantly, I think the people of America need to take responsability for themselves and their own personal actions. That means do not blame the Government and do not rely on the Government.

Funny how some people on this site do that?? Like by calling you a "liberal" or "Obama lover" it somehow immediately invalidates anything you have to say? Pretty funny.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

But no less an authority than Justice Antonin Scalia has written, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”.

No one is talking about jets, bombs grenades, flame throwers or any of the such. We are talking firearms.

Supreme Court can not invalidate any of the Bill of Rights, if they try to this country will end up in CW. They can try to restrict or limit to a small degree, but if they try to push to far in restricting what our rights are there will be extreme resistance back.

Anyone who thinks it is impossible for this to happen is wrong...


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

No one is talking about jets, bombs grenades, flame throwers or any of the such. We are talking firearms.

Supreme Court can not invalidate any of the Bill of Rights, if they try to this country will end up in CW. They can try to restrict or limit to a small degree, but if they try to push to far in restricting what our rights are there will be extreme resistance back.

Anyone who thinks it is impossible for this to happen is wrong...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Why wasn't there this "civil war" when the fawb was passed. Lasted what, 10 years?? Plenty of time for some good old violent uprising? Frankly I didnt really hear anyone making that big of a deal about it at all??

 

[Crispin]

Honestly, I think he was talking about the appropriate establishment of a military. I like the quote and thank you for posting it. However, I think to take the one sentence that is bold and underline without looking at the rest of the document is a bit misleading. It is important to remember that Individual words and lines can be twisted or misinterpretated. The essence and whole of a document but be considered to truly make an attempt to understand its meaning. Placing over emphasis on one word or line is metaphorically, "putting all one's eggs in one basket."

Crisp

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Why wasn't there this "civil war" when the fawb was passed. Lasted what, 10 years?? Plenty of time for some good old violent uprising? Frankly I didnt really hear anyone making that big of a deal about it at all??

Stock your liberal living in the most liberal state in the country, there is no surprise you don't hear anything.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[jerseyben]

Picker, forgive me if I am mistaken but havnet you publically stated several times in the past that you are a registered Republican?

 

[0121stockpicker]

Stock your liberal living in the most liberal state in the country, there is no surprise you don't hear anything.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I guess I missed that civil war?? The protests, the recalls, the Supreme Court challenges, etc, etc. seems like a lot of the gun radicals missed it also?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Picker, forgive me if I am mistaken but havnet you publically stated several times in the past that you are a registered Republican?

If I say I am a liberal, based on my postings how many would agree..?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

If I say I am a liberal, based on my postings how many would agree..?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

But TH if you were a liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, libertarian, etc, etc. it does not chance the validity of what you are saying what so ever does it?? 1 plus 1 is 2 regardless if you are liberal or conservative, moderate, fascist, etc. or is that not the case?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

But TH if you were a liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, libertarian, etc, etc. it does not chance the validity of what you are saying what so ever does it?? 1 plus 1 is 2 regardless if you are liberal or conservative, moderate, fascist, etc. or is that not the case?

Only if the reader agrees what your calling is 1 plus 1 and not 1 plus 2.

Politics is not simple math....

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[0121stockpicker]

That's right but the statement is the statement regardless of who is making it. We are not politicians, we are people discussing issues / correct.

It is a common debate exercise to debate a topic and them turn around and debate the other side. Would either side argued be any less valid based upon what the speakers believe?? Of course not. This is why there is never a need for personal comments and it is meaningless to any discussion. Best.