Debating guns with conservatives often presents obstacles not encountered in normal, fact-based discussions. And so it was last Friday night as liberal former New York City Public Advocate Mark Green debated guns with Fox's Sean Hannity (Hannity, 1/4/13.)
To make the case that gun ownership was not just a right, but something akin to a sacrament, Hannity quoted George Washington, telling Green: "George Washington: 'Rifles and pistols are equally indispensable.' 'They deserve a place of honor with all that's good.'"
The words are part of a well-worn favorite conservative passage known as the "Liberty Teeth" quote. It reads in its entirety:
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the moment the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms, go all goes; we need them every hour.
The quote is a hoax, and a well-known one. As Extra! pointed out ("The Right's Library of Fake Quotes," 4/10), Walter Williams, a conservative writer and Hannity friend, used it in a syndicated column (Washington Times, 1/25/01). That was years after it had been widely debunked, including in Playboy magazine, where it had been quoted (12/95) and subsequently become the subject of a lengthy correction (12/95), after the editor of the Papers of George Washington project at the University of Virginia called it "either a complete fabrication or a case of misattribution."
The "liberty teeth" quote is so well known as a fraud that the pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation, in inveighing against the use of bogus quotes as "counterproductive," to the cause, cites it as the prime example, and "perhaps the most infamous bogus saying attributed to a Founding Father."
Perhaps Sean Hannity uses the same crackerjack Fox News research team as Bill O'Reilly.
About Steve Rendall
There is nothing in that quotation that sounds remotely like anything ever said by George Washington. The part about rifles quoted on Fox News in this case doesn't even make sense in terms of era: the smooth-bore musket was the weapon familiar to Washington from his wars; the rifle became militarily important, and ubiquitous, decades later. It would be too much to hope for to think someone like Mark Green might have actually called the fathead on it.
My reaction is, so what if it had been authentic?
How do the views of a patrician slave owner who lived more than two hundred years ago have any bearing on a debate about the effects of a gun saturated society in the 21st century?
But it is a hoax, and so poorly constructed as to be laughable. Why would Washington, in an era in which the notion of gun control would be seen as something from an alternate universe, inveigh against it?
Unless, of course, in addition to his sterling moral fiber, he was imbued with the gift of prescience.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph …
i wish all journalists and serious well known bloggers would stop reporting on what Sean Hannity says on his show. If people want to know what Hannity says, they should have to endure listening to his show. The guy loves publicity; don't give it to him.
i dream of the day when i use a search engine to search on recent news links for Sean Hannity and the only links that appear are from FOXNews.com. Recently, there are less and less outside links showing up for Rush. The same is true of Rush Limbaugh, most of his recent links are from his own site. Let's keep this trend going.
In addition to rifles, did prarie wagons exist in the 18th C? What this quote illustrates is the lengths to which these guys will fabricate history in order to support their point of view. Reminds me how someone doctored a Wikipedia entry on Paul Revere's famous ride in order for it to jive with something Michelle Bachman had publically mis-stated (or was that Sarah Palin? I get the two confused in my mind).
This is a classic "Straw Man" fallacy, using a bozo like Hannity to prove guns are bad. Why are gun control arguments restricted to the ideological–rather than logical–realm?
LOL! When is any debate with a CONservative ever fact based?
A dead give-away in this bogus quotation is the term "prairie wagon", which wasn't in usage in Washington's time, but only later in the 19th century. Washington died in 1799.
There are plenty of genuine statements by the founders that indicate that they intended to provide a RIGHT that was not to be infringed when the wrote the second amendment. Finding a bogus on being used by the right no more disproves the underlying truth then if the gun banners were found to have a bogus quote of their own would automatically make their arguments wrong. No, the thing that makes the gun banners wrong is that the whole of the writings of the founders tells us that they intended the second amendment to protect an EXISTING RIGHT to bear arms and that further, that right was not to be infringed. All the rest is just attempts to miss-direct the discussion away from that fact. Discussions of what guns are "suitable for hunting", or of "is there a need" or "times have changes" are just nonsense thrown up to try and hide the FACT that the second amendment is not about who "needs" and "what kind" and "where used". If you gun banners don't like OUR RIGHTS then try and change the constitution.
Hannity and O'Reilly just keep spouting the same tired old rhetorical rubbish they want everyone else to believe in. If they say it, it must be true just don't ask them to back it up with inconvenient, and irrelevant, fact. This pair stopped being a joke years ago now they are just tiresome gits.
No, the thing that makes the gun banners wrong is that the whole of the writings of the founders tells us that they intended the second amendment to protect an EXISTING RIGHT to bear arms and that further, that right was not to be infringed. – Jim None
And like most fools (of the Sarah Palin Type) your full of it. Just like when Palin tried to say "Paul Revere" was warning us that the British couldn't take our rights away by firing off his gun and riding around yelling", you gloss over several facts. One of which is, there was no 'rights' at that time, that is why it was added in after the fact, this is why it is the "Second Amendment of Ten". And you can argue all you want, the Founding fathers did not want Armed Rebellious groups, they wanted an Armed Militia – that which they would control – to control the populace of the have not's. There is a reason we do not hear of Shay's Rebellion, this is what the then newly minted government wanted to avoid. But the British Government and the Confederacy States of the time did not allow that right available to the people, and so it was added in later; you can't protect something that isn't there. So go back to school and learn some real history, not the FuxSnooze "we wish it was that way so we can sound smart". We don't need any more Palins trying to make up history on the spot according to their demented memory.
Padremellyrn–why do you resort to insults? If you could frame a valid argument (and learn how to contract "you are"), you might not feel so defensive. In the meantime, look up "militia" and how it was defined during the drafting of the Bill of Rights. "The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service." That is, every man jack in the Union.
The real difficulty I find debating the right is their infinite capacity for deflection. When that fails, they most often resort to name calling. The ultimate retort of the inarticulate.
Isn't it nice that one side gets to keep quoting garbage like this whereas the left would be pounced on and would have to apologize.
Ah, well. Another fallacy gone flat.
Maybe they could do better next time by invoking The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? That one is still popular with the right wing fringe even after myriad rounds of debunking. You just can't make this stuff up… and go away.
If, as some may argue, that the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning, is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms. The only way to describe one’s right as a private individual, is not as a “militia” but as a “person” (“The individual personality of a human being: self.”). “Person” or “persons“” is mentioned in the Constitution 49 times, to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional rights. Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there are reason?. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining an individual’s right to bear arms as a “person”?
Merriam Webster “militia”, “a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
=
Article 2, Section 2 “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States;…”
=
In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to “people“ in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a “militia”. “People” is mentioned a total 9 times.
=
It’s not enough to just say that “person(s)” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every “person” be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person”.
“..No Person shall be a Representative..”
“..whole Number of free Persons,..”
“..three fifths of all other Persons…”
“..No person shall be a Senator…”
“..And no Person shall be convicted…”
“..no Person holding any Office…”
“..Names of the Persons voting for…”
“…of such Persons as any of the States…”
“…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…”
“…And no Person holding any…”
“…or Person holding an Office of Trust o…“
“…and vote by Ballot for two persons,…”
“…List of all the Persons voted for,…”
“…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes…”
“…and if no Person have a Majority,…”
“…the Person having the greatest Number…”
“…No person except a natural born Citizen,…”
“…Any Person be eligible to that ….”
“…No Person shall be convicted of …”
“…except during the Life of the Person attainted….”.
“…A Person charged in any State…”
“…No Person held to Service…”
“…The right of the people to be secure in their persons,…”
“…and the persons or things to be seized….”
“..No person shall be held to answer…”
“..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense….”
“…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…”
“…the person voted for as Vice-President,…”
“…all persons voted for as President,….”
“…all persons voted for as Vice-President…”
“…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …”
“…and if no person have such majority,…”
“..the persons having the highest numbers …”
“… The person having the greatest number of votes…”
“..and if no person have a majority,…”
“…But no person constitutionally ineligible…”
“…All persons born or naturalized …”
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,…”
“…nor deny to any person within …”
“…number of persons in each State,….”
“…No person shall be a Senator or …”
“..and such person shall act accordingly….”
“…of the death of any of the persons from…”
“…death of any of the persons from…”
“…No person shall be elected to the office…”
“…and no person who has held the office of President,…”
“..to which some other person was elected…”
“…shall not apply to any person holding the office…”
“..prevent any person who may be holding…”
=
Excerpts in reading Emerson v. United States (1999), or Miller v. United States (1939), one can be struck with the many thoughts, interpretations of what the second amendment means, but more important how it came about and ended. However, even still, I am left with the thought if the Framers had treated Amendment 2 with the same obedience, and reverence to explain the 49 Constitutional references to “person”, there would be no controversy in what is perceived as a right to bear arms.
=
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
United States v Emerson
“The American colonists exercised their right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights. Indeed, the English government's success in luring Englishmen to America was due in part to pledges that the immigrants and their children would continue to possess "all the rights of natural subjects, as if born and abiding in England."
=
“A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.”
=
“The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights" which he proposed to be added to the Constitution. HALBROOK, supra at 223 n. 145 (citing James Monroe Papers, New York Public Library (Miscellaneous Papers of James Monroe)).”
=
307 U.S. 174 United States v. Miller
Structural Analysis
“Furthermore, the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right. "After all, the Bill of Rights is not a bill of states' rights, but the bill of rights retained by the people." David Harmer, Securing a Free State: Why The Second Amendment Matters, 1998 BYU L. REV. 55, 60 (1998). Of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, only the Tenth concerns itself with the rights of the states, and refers to such rights in addition to, not instead of, individual rights. Id. Thus the structure of the Second Amendment, viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, evinces an intent to recognize an individual right retained by the people.”
=
After debating by the Framers on the proposed right to bear arms, from these few references, some credence is given to the “intent” to “to bear arms”. Analysis of structural statutory construction, “..viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights,..” individual citizens, a person, to “bear arms“ however proposed and debated, there is reference to “person” mentioned 49 times, is this not to be considered when looking at the context of the entire Bill Of Rights? Right to bear arms was debated and proposed, but the Second Amendment remains silent.
=
Jones v Smart [1785} 1 Term Rep.44,52 (per Buller, J.) “[W]e are bound to take the act of parliament, as they made it: a casus omissus can in no case be supplied by a Court of Law, for that would be to makes laws.” (Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts) Antonin Scalia/ Bryan A. Gardner .West.
=
What am I missing?
I don't think you missed anything. It's SCOTUS that's missing. How it could rule on the Second Amendment, out of context no less, is beyond reason. For all of it's claim of "original intent of the founders" this court is wholly uninformed of history and reading the Constitution in full contest.
We do not have three equal branches when one unelected branch, SCOTUS, can nullify laws passed by duly elected representatives of the people.
Ho hum…..The reason for the second Amendment is beyond dispute.To form a wall of protection against tyranny.Nothing to do with personal protection or hunting.Or in fact anything Washington did or did not say in relation to his remarks at the time.Hannity's words are just an opinion.The ONLY thing that matters in the wording of the constitution.And It does not allow the president to tinker as he is now doing.Can you imagine if he were trying to shave down the 1rst amendment in the same way?Mr Emanual said "never let a tragedy go to waste"Well the president did not.We told you so.We told you so.We told you so.He always believed in empowering the fed over the individual.It is deep in his core.Away we go
The idea of an unabridged right to keep and bear arms is a modern interpretation, beginning in the 70's. Prior to then, the accepted interpretation is that the right to keep and bear arms is a "right held in common", I.e. not an individual right. Even after the Constitution was adopted, states limited the right to only those who belonged to a regulated, most often state, militia.