George Washington Would Have Owned an AR-15

[rangerrebew]

April 7, 2018
George Washington Would Have Owned an AR-15
By Daniel John Sobieski

First the gun-control zealots insisted that the right to bear arms, the second of ten delineated individual rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights was not an individual right. Them when the U.S. Supreme Court said in Heller Vs. D.C. (2008) that it was in fact an individual right, the argument was that the ruling only applied to the federal enclave known as the District of Columbia. When the Supreme Court in MacDonald vs. Chicago said it was indeed a national right, the argument turned to “sensible restrictions” such as arguing the Founding Fathers did not anticipate semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/george_washington_would_have_owned_an_ar15.html#ixzz5BzMA7e1z
 

[catfish1957]

April 7, 2018
George Washington Would Have Owned an AR-15

I am as pro-second amendment as they come.  People publishing op-eds with Title lines like these aren't helping our cause.

[Smokin Joe]

If the Rights were limited to the technology of the day, the First Amendment would be limited to newspapers printed on hand operated screw presses. Photography, video, television, radio, would all not be so protected.

With that thought in mind, the Second Amendment was written to preserve the balance of power between the people and their government overwhelmingly in the favor of the people, who would regulate the domestic actions of the Army by the force, if necessary, of their overwhelming numbers and privately held arms. That didn't confine them to pointy sticks and long blades, but instead guaranteed that their right to own state-of-the-art arms as capable as those held by the standing Federal Army would go unmolested.

Otherwise, in the face of overwhelming force, the hopes of being able to preserve the Constitution against tyrannical depredations would be moot. (Not that people haven't thrown rocks in such instances, such as the Pratt Street Riots, but that didn't work very well, either.)

So, the thought remains, that even with the AR-15 and clones or the various look-alike semi-automatic firearms which mimic true military weapons in appearance but do not share their functional capabilities, the citizenry is seriously deprived of the very capability the Founder envisioned, rather than endowed with some undue martial presence as a result of the limited modern technology available to the average Joe, or George, in this case. After all, semi-automatic rifles are well over a century old, as designs go--the first successful ones designed by Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher in 1885 (source). We aren't too far ahead, as gun owners, we're a century and a quarter behind.

For there to be parity, George would have had to own an M-4 at the very least, and possibly a more capable weapon (something belt-fed). But at the least he would have a select fire weapon capable of full auto or three round bursts, and not just single shots, fired in sequence by squeezing the trigger for each round sent downrange.

[catfish1957]

For there to be parity, George would have had to own an M-4 at the very least, and possibly a more capable weapon (something belt-fed). But at the least he would have a select fire weapon capable of full auto or three round bursts, and not just single shots, fired in sequence by squeezing the trigger for each round sent downrange.

Point 1- Officers basically only kept and used hand guns during battle.  (Not even really an option until CW). They were there to think and lead, not rush with the bayonet.
Point 2- I seriously doubt any general or anyone for that matter would have needed something of this level of firepower to hunt.  Outside TR, were there really any high military ranked (POTUS) gun enthusiast? There may have been, but I can't think of them.

There are a lot of reasons to preserve the right to owning firearms as our constitutionally given right.  However, some of spokes-folks are going off the rails trying to get that point across.

[Elderberry]

Point 1- Officers basically only kept and used hand guns during battle.  (Not even really an option until CW). They were there to think and lead, not rush with the bayonet.
Point 2- I seriously doubt any general or anyone for that matter would have needed something of this level of firepower to hunt.  Outside TR, were there really any high military ranked (POTUS) gun enthusiast? There may have been, but I can't think of them.

There are a lot of reasons to preserve the right to owning firearms as our constitutionally given right.  However, some of spokes-folks are going off the rails trying to get that point across.

America’s 5 Greatest Hunting Presidents

https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2015/03/02/americas-5-greatest-hunting-presidents/

It should come as little surprise that a great many of our presidents are and were avid sportsmen, even though only about six percent of the American public hunts. In fact, by some reports more than half of the men in the Oval Office over the past 50 years were hunters—but the history of great hunting presidents stretches far beyond that. From the days of the original 13 colonies to the modern era, America has always carried the spirit of a frontier nation and it is an ideal embraced by many of our presidents. Here is our list of the five US presidents who were most likely to be found in the woods with a boomstick of some kind in hand.

1. Theodore Roosevelt

2. George Washington

3. Dwight D. Eisenhower

4. Grover Cleveland

5. Jimmy Carter

[Smokin Joe]

Point 1- Officers basically only kept and used hand guns during battle.  (Not even really an option until CW). They were there to think and lead, not rush with the bayonet.
Point 2- I seriously doubt any general or anyone for that matter would have needed something of this level of firepower to hunt.  Outside TR, were there really any high military ranked (POTUS) gun enthusiast? There may have been, but I can't think of them.

There are a lot of reasons to preserve the right to owning firearms as our constitutionally given right.  However, some of spokes-folks are going off the rails trying to get that point across.

Washington had considerable experience on the Frontier with folks hostile to him, back in his surveying days. I am sure such firearms would have been welcome, not just for accuracy, but effectiveness against multiple opponents (firepower).

But, lest anyone forget, the 2nd Amendment wasn't and isn't there to protect hunting.  For that matter, the 2nd Amendment was written not for the high ranking government official (although they are certain to be able to avail themselves of its protections, too, as citizens), but to protect a Right "...of the People...", meaning all of the citizenry. That includes a broad spectrum of trades and professions as well as economic levels; it is not merely for the wealthy or powerful.

Compared to the (modern) novelty of shooting a muzzle loader, plinking with an AR-15 is a joy. Muzzle loaders are fun, too, but a lot more work.

Compare the defensive capabilities, and the musket, after the first round, becomes a most capable club, but little else. The improvements in accuracy count, as well as the enhanced ability to deal with multiple assailants. I have little doubt Washington would have had great appreciation for that, especially during his tenure as general of the Continental Army, for his men and even possibly himself. It would have given the Colonials a significant edge over the British, especially when one considers that sharpshooters were a significant factor in at least one battle (Saratoga).

Swords were considered an officer's weapon in Washington's day, and to some extent until the 20th century, but few decried the improvements of the LeMat, the Colt's SAA or even the 1911 Colt when it finally came along. The M-1 Carbine was originally intended to be an officer's weapon, with more firepower than the 1911, but was adopted for jungle warfare as well.