George Washington - socialist?

Joe Conason seems to think so:

Quotations and facsimiles of the Militia Act can be found on hundreds of right-wing blogs, of course, where it is often cited to demonstrate that the founders would have despised gun control. Few if any of these Second Amendment zealots seem to have realized yet how ironic it is for them to quote this venerable statute alongside their anguished protests against the constitutional validity of any federal mandate.

Or maybe Washington was a socialist, too.

His point is that the Militia Act of 1792 required all militiamen to acquire suitable arms, at their own expense. While I can sort of agree with this, his context (or lack thereof) doesn't support his claim.

Given that the historical evidence is that the founders were frightened of a standing army, and that they wanted the citizens to be able to (yea, even responsible for?) defend the country, the desire of the founders to have all militiamen adequately armed kinda has a lot of common sense attached to it. I'd also point out that keeping and bearing arms in a security context is specifically written into the constitution ...... the requirement the keep health insurance is not.

There's also the sticky bit about the militia expenditure being a one-time thing, as opposed to the health insurance mandate, which would presumably make economic demands on your pocketbook for your entire life.

There is also the possibility that wealthier patriots could subsidize these militia purchases for those not as financially able to obtain arms. As an example, I'm going to need to start saving my pennies, since my son will be 21 next year, and I intend to buy him a pistol for his birthday, though it could just as easily be a military-grade rifle.

I don't see George Soros handing out free health insurance chits.

pm