Detail of Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale 1805
There has been much discussion of the sign being held up by the man outside Obama’s town hall yesterday who also happened to have a loaded pistol strapped to his thigh. The sign read, “IT’S TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY.”
William Kostric was totally within the laws of New Hampshire, he had a permit to “pack heat,” he was not violent in any way, and his side-arm was in full view along with his sign which was “edited” from a quote by one of the founders of this nation who was passionate about liberty. William Kostric’s sign was referring to a famous quote by Thomas Jefferson. So what’s the big whoop?
Let’s examine what Jefferson really wrote, the entire quote so nothing is taken out of context and let’s not forget when he wrote it and the circumstances under which he wrote it. (The most pertinent or interesting parts are in bold)
The "Tree of Liberty" letter
From Thomas Jefferson to William SmithParis, November 13, 1787
DEAR SIR, -- I am now to acknoledge the receipt of your favors of October the 4th, 8th, & 26th. In the last you apologise for your letters of introduction to Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to show civilities to all the Americans who come here, & will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, & how far I may go in my attentions to them. Can you send me Woodmason's bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la Fayette, & the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article. -- I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: & very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: & what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. -- You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers. -- The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.
Thomas Jefferson was not merely speaking of the right to bear arms he was addressing one of the major problems of his time, which was the exceedingly slow dissemination of information. “The people cannot be all, & always well informed.” This is no longer an issue today as we have instant information literally at our fingertips. Our biggest challenge today is to sift through all the misinformation to get to the truth. However we don’t need weapons to do this, we simply need the freedom of the information highway, the perseverance to seek out the truth, and the will to accept the truth when we find it.
Thomas Jefferson may be one of America’s greatest proponents of individual liberty, but the time of Jefferson has long since passed. This is a different world and we need to evolve our thinking with the changing times. The tenets of liberty which he so passionately stood for still ring true, but his methods to protect those liberties no longer meet the same test of time. To attempt to overthrow the U.S. government is against the law no matter who you quote to justify it, and Lincoln proved that no state shall be permitted to secede from the union. We have a freely elected government which is elected to keep the peace and preserve our democracy. We don’t need William Kostric to do it for us.
For more information: Protestor brings gun to Obama town hall
Comments
It was so much easier on the dudes sign. They talked funny then. So what does it mean?
Chad,
It means that as long as the people are well informed by a free press and a free flow of information, there is no reason to stage a revolution. In fact Chad, if you try to overthrow the government you will be arrested.
It also means, don't take things out of context, because if you do that you can twist it to make it mean whatever you want.
Timeless impulses in the nature of man are no different now than they ever have been: governments always have and always will destroy liberty and attempt to oppress the people.
Our republic was intended to protect individual rights--that is why the federal government was delegated only a few, specific powers, so that no matter how many people wanted universal health care for example, a majority could never tyrannize a minority because that power was not delegated.
Our government assumes many undelegated powers, and when it does so its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
The right remedy is for the States to interpose their power to protect the people from an unconstitutional, overreaching federal government. Yet, if the states fail to do so, and the federal abuses and usurpations continue, the people retain the absolute, indefeasible right of revolution.
PS. Lincoln's vicious war did nothing to answer a legal or moral question of secession. Force does not make
I love this idea that we need to "evolve" our way of thinking--this is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. But what does that really mean? We are a republic, not a democracy, and you need to understand what individual rights really are. That is, the individual is intended to be the supreme, not the loyal subject of an elected government. One should not vote to take away an individual's rights.
And you have a tainted and distorted view of history with your description of Lincoln.
Please, if you are going to write about gun laws, at least do your homework. NH does not require a permit for open carry.
Hank
Hank,
You are right. As I said, William Kostric was "totally within the laws of New Hampshire" and I was wrong in saying that he "had a permit" to 'pack heat', since in NH you don't need a "permit" to "open carry."
Man you guys in New Hampshire are so advanced! Hopefully if the United States is ever attacked, the aggressors will mistakenly land on the beaches of New Hampshire. (Just kidding).
Thanks for keeping me informed Hank, and thanks for the comment.
Damian,
If the individual really is supreme, then why are the gun rights people generally selective about my individual rights?
If it is my right to own and carry guns, it is also my right to have an abortion, it is also my right to smoke a joint on the courthouse steps, it is also my right to marry a same-sex partner, it is also my right to be a Muslim, it is also my right to have an assisted suicide. Don't you think?
You want gun rights, I want all the other rights you want to deny me and everyone else.
Thanks for your comment.
Its not yet time to water the tree, but its getting close.
I am very troubled by Duane's last post. That sounds like a promise that the water will soon flow.
I still do not see any point of anyone carrying a gun to a public rally where the topic is not about the right to bear arms. When so many people are meeting for a peaceful reason, to protest, then wouldn't the gun provoke fear or concern if anything would go awry?
I respect people's right to bring a gun with them in public, and I respect my friend who has a permit to do so in Ohio. However, why do so at a place where there should be no need to ever defend yourself with lethal force? That is what police is for.
Finally, I seen something chilling on a video clip on TV (on mute). A man, at what looked like a rally or protest and dressed in business casual, had an assault rifle slung over his shoulder laying flat on his back! A handgun is one thing, but a rifle seems inappropriate! Plus, I thought that assault rifles (pistol grip +long ammo clip) were illegal to own. Any more info? T
After reading the Thomas Jefferson letter, it seem pretty darn clear that the sign saying “IT’S TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY.” was an explicit death threat against the President. Who else would he be calling a tyrant?
After reading the Thomas Jefferson letter, it seem pretty darn clear that the sign saying “IT’S TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY.” was an explicit death threat against the President. Who else would he be calling a tyrant?
Of course it's a threat. Tim McVeigh had the same quote on his tee-shirt when he was arrested after the Oklahoma bombing. They are all anarchist nuts.
Examiner, of course it is within your right to carry guns, have an abortion, smoke a joint, marry a same-sex partner, be a Muslim, and have an assisted suicide.
Anyone who would protect one freedom and deny another is indeed shallow--most of us who advocate liberty, advocate liberty in every way.
Ed, Thomas Jefferson defined tyranny as a government that exercises powers not delegated to it (arbitrary power). In this sense, our entire Federal government is currently a tyrannical regime. This man's expression of frustration can hardly be considered a death threat to the President, but it is a warning to the federal government to stop power grabbing.
RobG, Timothy McVeigh was a nut. Demanding that the government be strictly limited by the Constitution is only asking that our individual freedom be protected and not trampled. What makes you think these "anarchist nuts" are your enemy? People just don't want the government involved in their lives, and neither did Thomas Jefferson.
Do you mean to tell me that our political system of Government officials and large corporations are not only corrupt, but are intentionally stealing billions of dollars from the taxpayers pockets?????????. the REAL reason we got into this problem is that "WE THE PEOPLE", have not only ignored what blatent corruption has been taking place from our government systems, but have forgotten that THEY,(the Government) are employed by US., we are their employers, yet, over the course of just a few decades, we have become very afraid of our employees in Washington and throughout the entire political system, so this crisis that we seem to be trying to blame on everyone else, except ourselves is downright denial in the form of the American population. Speaking of a "Interesting read for Republicans and Democrats alike, Regardless of what you think", try this one on for a sizeable thought.
In our own Declaration of Independence, it is written within the first two paragraphs as follows, for the
follows, for the protection of the people from any corrupted Government:
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted amoung Men, deriving their just powers from the concent of the governed. That when ever any Form of Government becomes destructiove of these ends, it is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a desigh to reduse them under absolute Despotism, it is THEIR RIGHT, it is THEIR DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
To the One Patriot,
I just want to say that you cannot be a genuine citizen of the US when you base your beliefs on a document intended to break a relatively wwhat was a well organized colony (the 13 states) from the super controlling British government, who were out of touch due to old ideals and because the king was located far across the ocean.
The US is now governed by a the later document intended to fit the ideas of the citizens: The Constitution! In the Constitution, which we follow today, it is illegal to try to overthrow the government, and one that does so is considered to be a tyrant.
Still, either of these documents were made in the old world where blacks were considered to be a lesser race. Today it is wrong and unfair to think this. Try to focus on what is moral and fair TODAY, and not what was written hundreds of years ago!!!
I guess I will have a "part two" as well, although this is way off topic...
So, everyone should be free to believe what they like, right? If you have Christian, Jewish, or Catholic beliefs, good for you! However, it is unfair to take away from others by trying to "change" the government based on their own beliefs. If you do so, you are not only ruining lives, but you are inhibiting the freedoms and beliefs of others. You would be no better than how you think the government is.
It is always better to work with the government and come up with a deal or a compromise than just starting with violence and force. You are no better than a man living in old times by resorting to violence from the start instead of working things out intelligently. If you are concerned, and you want change, do so LEGALLY by running for office somewhere.
So, wake up and think about the new world and the changing times. Anyone who wants to change things by violence (I worry about the potential for assassination attempts) should be stopped! Thanks for listening to my opinion.
So, everyone should be free to believe what they like, right? If you have Christian, Jewish, or Catholic beliefs, good for you! However, it is unfair to take away from others by trying to "change" the government based on their own beliefs. If you do so, you are not only ruining lives, but you are inhibiting the freedoms and beliefs of others. You would be no better than how you think the government is.
It is always better to work with the government and come up with a deal or a compromise than just starting with violence and force. You are no better than a man living in old times by resorting to violence from the start instead of working things out intelligently. If you are concerned, and you want change, do so LEGALLY by running for office somewhere.
So, wake up and think about the new world and the changing times. Anyone who wants to change things by violence (I worry about the potential for assassination attempts) should be stopped! Thanks for listening to my opinion.
So, everyone should be free to believe what they like, right? If you have Christian, Jewish, or Catholic beliefs, good for you! However, it is unfair to take away from others by trying to "change" the government based on their own beliefs. If you do so, you are not only ruining lives, but you are inhibiting the freedoms and beliefs of others. You would be no better than how you think the government is.
It is always better to work with the government and come up with a deal or a compromise than just starting with violence and force. You are no better than a man living in old times by resorting to violence from the start instead of working things out intelligently. If you are concerned, and you want change, do so LEGALLY by running for office somewhere.
So, wake up and think about the new world and the changing times. Anyone who wants to change things by violence (I worry about the potential for assassination attempts) should be stopped! Thanks for listening to my opinion.
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. – Thomas Jefferson (1781)
Dear Examiner intellectual prostitute and treason whore,
Perhaps you would not feel so sure that the time of Jefferson('s words) have passed if you were capable of looking at the huge monstrous evil lies of 9/11 without the distortions/aberrations of hatred.
evidence: 911blimp.net (facts are stubborn things...)
Once you're aware that what you thought you knew about 9/11 is not just false but impossibly false, and you're rid yourself of your brainwashed flat-earth-disease certainty, then...
analysis: 911U.org (the dots only connect one way...)
(the kind of energy capable of reducing large sturdy steel skyscrapers to NANOparticles in under a minute could, if put to peaceful constructive purposes, potentially solve all of our planet's energy, economic, and ecological concerns! -- it's that last part that makes the complictly silent keeping of such huge monstrous evil lies a crime not just against humanity but against all of Earth's living creatures...)
Clearly, you seek
It truly is time to water the tree, your goverment lies to you the news lies to you and you take it just like sheep head down not paying attenion to whats going on around you.people are are tired of hearing bull from the people who are here to watch out for us the guy with the gun has every right to be there to stand up for himself and speek his mind.Its amazing how you only tolarate free speech when it agrees with your view.
HEY TONY GET A LIFE, GET A JOB GET, OUT OF MOMS BASEMENT, TAKE A BATH ,FIND A GIRLFRIEND OR BOYFRIEND,JOIN THE REAL WORLD NOT THE ONE ON MTV IM SURE MSNBC WOULD HIRE YOU
I just find it weird that anybody needs to take a gun everywhere. Again, I handle guns often and respect all who own them, but there is a time and place to have them for protection. Do you bring yours to Church? What about a football stadium? A library? A school?
A rally is a safe place that would not require personal protection. There should be a police force present at the rally to protect you, unless you do not even trust them. Do you? I understand bringing a gun to make a statement, but in these crazy times of terrorist attacks and threats of assassinations, maybe for just a couple of hours, the guns should be left at home, or at least the car truck you drove there in (so you have it on the ride there or home).
I am just trying to have a civilized conversation. I was hoping we could discuss this in a casual manner. Thanks.
-Tony
Im sorry I did not reply to Tom. When it comes to free speech, I agree that we shall make any statement we wish, but why not bring an unloaded gun instead? Why not just leave the ammo in the car?
When trying to have a discussion or when trying to negotiate (or even debate), it can be intimidating to have a gun displayed. It can make others literally afraid to speak their mind (which everyone has the right to do I thought), afraid that what they might say may anger another person(the person with the gun). A loaded gun may inhibit free speech more than what some person on the internet who disagrees may. Am I inducing fear or limiting free speech, or anyone else that is afraid of a total stranger with a gun at a health reform rally? I am just asking. I would love to discuss this further. Thanks.
-Tony
Sir, surely you are mistaken. The right to bare arms is most assuredly to protect the citizenry from a corrupt government and just because times change does not mean principles should. It is fully constitutional for a state to secede from the union also as anyone familiar with the actual constitution will tell you. The federal government has been disregarding the constitution for years under the guise of "changing times" and I for one and not impressed with the results.
I never thought the president after such an unconstitutional failure like George Bush would be worse but we are surely in a time of national unrest and I for one see no problem with the citizenry arming themselves and challenging their government when it breaks the promises of the document intended to keep shackles on itself. After all legal channels and peaceful means are exhausted of course.
Do yourself a favor and read the arguments during the ratification of the constitution.
Sorry you're wrong. Our nation was founded on violence. Honestly, do you think it’s a good thing that people in government can pull any sort of crap they like, order people around, turn their lives upside down, and never fear any personal retribution, no matter how far they go? I don’t. I think Jefferson was right: For liberty to endure, it helps a great deal if the people running the government think there are lines they dare not cross. If they think there aren’t they need to be corrected once in a while.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!