# Founding Fathers influencing today's politics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2019, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345 "2019-08-28T06:48:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2019, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/181 "2019-09-04T17:02:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > As long as we’re reading the minds of the Founders, they’d be horrified at the destructive capacity of modern small arms, and horrified as to the prevalence and body count of mass shootings in America. And probably also horrified by race-mixing, gay people in public, and the way young people dress. Imagine trying to explain the role of the FCC to James Madison and asking him if it’s in accord with the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/182 "2019-09-04T17:18:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And probably also horrified by race-mixing, gay people in public, and the way young people dress. I bet they’d be horrified by murderers who were clearly guilty sitting on death row for 20-30 years before being properly executed. And of allowing mentally ill people to roam freely, bugging people for change and using the world as a vomitorium and toilet. And of people not using the bathroom that correlates to the genitalia nature’s god graced them with. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2019, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/183 "2019-09-04T17:26:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Again, what makes you think that we don’t have a currently well-regulated militia in accord with the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment? > > Regards, > Shodan This… > [@Abatis](#): > > Congress chose to override the militia laws that set-out that process and relieve all citizen impressment of militia duty. > > … > > The state and federal government were responsible for establishing the organizational hierarchy and regimen of training. Private citizens avail themselves of guns and ammo. But guns and ammo do not a militia make. Unless you can cite otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2019, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/184 "2019-09-04T18:00:15Z")
I thought that had already been [cited](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)). > [@](#): > > Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term “militia” is used to describe two classes within the United States:[8] > > Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.) > Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[10] Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/185 "2019-09-04T18:12:55Z")
I think the unorganized militia you’re citing is unorganized to the point of not existing. How can you call something an organization when many of the people who supposedly belong to it aren’t aware they’re members or even that the organization exists? What is the supposed function of this unorganized militia? Who are its leaders? What are the responsibilities that arise from being a member? Who can activate it? And, most germane to the thread topic, how can anyone define this militia as well-regulated? ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2019, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/186 "2019-09-04T19:03:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > As long as we’re reading the minds of the Founders, they’d be horrified at the destructive capacity of modern small arms, and horrified as to the prevalence and body count of mass shootings in America. And probably also horrified by race-mixing, gay people in public, and the way young people dress. Make that the way just about everybody dresses. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/187 "2019-09-04T19:24:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I thought that had already been [cited](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)). Yes, but however, as I have said, the National gd is now federalized and no longer a Militia. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2019, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/188 "2019-09-04T20:41:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I thought that had already been [cited](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)). > Regards, > Shodan Are you seriously endorsing the argument that people who own guns are part of the “Unorganized militia”? I gotta be honest, I sure hope you are. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/189 "2019-09-05T12:19:23Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The militia clause isnt there to limit the rights of individuals to bears arms it’s to limit the Federal governments right to a standing army by allowing the states to have militias. And yet we somehow \*do \*have both a standing army \*and \*the Guard. How can that be, except that you’re wrong? > [@](#): > > Now of course since every man was in the militia Cite? And not that “unorganized” (and certainly not well-regulated, even if existent) militia nonsense. > [@](#): > > the assumption was that they’d use those guns also in the militia. To the extent that’s true (and I agree), only militia use is covered by the Second, other uses simply not being addressed and left to statute. That’s how it \*was \*seen, without serious argument, until the individual-right misinterpretation was manufactured just a few decades ago. > [@DrDeth](#): > > In fact they’d be horrified. _They themselves_ reversed their decision on having a standing army very shortly after ratification. They’d be horrified at some things, sure, but hardly that. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > how does anyone really know what somebody else was thinking? By reading what they actually wrote, \*all \*of it and in context, and not by denial or handwaving if we don’t like what it says or doesn’t say. > [@](#): > > And the text of the Second Amendment does not have a single clear meaning. It \*was \*accepted as clear for most of our history. What changed, and why? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/190 "2019-09-05T14:20:29Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > In a few states we do, but the National Guard is part of the standing army, it has been Federalized. It is not, in any way shape or form a “militia” as the Founding Fathers thought of one. In fact they’d be horrified. It is endlessly fascinating to me that so many Republicans are hard core for the people having guns to defend themselves from the government, but at the same time are huge boosters of the United States having a gigantic standing army and controlling the state militias. If you brought the Founding Fathers to today and they saw that, they would think they’d failed; they thought a massive standing army a huge threat to liberty. They would rush back to 1789 and alter the Constitution to prevent that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/191 "2019-09-05T14:45:07Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > they thought a massive standing army a huge threat to liberty. That was a close decision, one that they themselves reversed very quickly. The debate is, for better or worse, best remembered for Gerry’s quip “A standing army is like a standing member. It’s an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure.” > [@](#): > > They would rush back to 1789 and alter the Constitution to prevent that. The US established the standing Regular Army in 1791. There were no major objections raised, and no need seen to amend or drop the Second. That said, can we drop the “Founding Fathers” term? It implies that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were holy prophets of some kind rather than just men who meant well and did their human best, and were guided by God rather than their own experienced understanding of human nature. The document is not Scripture; they intended that it be amended as deficiencies were discovered through use, and could be tossed and replaced entirely if it got unwieldy - they even added the procedures for doing so. Jefferson famously observed that there ought to be a new one every 20 years or so. Several mentions have been made in this thread of how astonished, even horrified, they’d be to see it today - but the thing that might astonish them the most would be that we’re still using it. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/192 "2019-09-05T15:34:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That was a close decision, one that they themselves reversed very quickly. The debate is, for better or worse, best remembered for Gerry’s quip “A standing army is like a standing member. It’s an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure.” The US established the standing Regular Army in 1791. There were no major objections raised, and no need seen to amend or drop the Second. There is a difference in degree, though, between the army that was created in 1791 and what exists today. It was apparent in 1791 that the USA needed some kind of standing army to ensure there existed some kind of continuous line of professionalism, especially after St. Clair’s Defeat. That assumption had already been made about the navy, which for both technical and logistical reasons is a way more difficult thing to raise, and it’s why the U.S. Constitution treats the navy differently. Even after 1791, though, there remained in American politics a profound aversion to maintaining a large standing army. The USA was not professionally prepared for the War of 1812 and even as late as the Mexican-American war the army was very small. The regular army in 1846 could muster a force of maybe one to two thousand men. The vast, vast majority of soldiers who served in it were militia and hastily summoned volunteers. Going into the Civil War, as I am sure you know, the army remained quite small and was heavily focused on engineering projects and pacifying the West. The hundreds of thousands who joined for the war were almost a different organization, which is why when discussing men’s ranks there’s a confusing range of distinctions between a guy’s regular rank and his “brevet” rank and his permanent rank. I am sure Thomas Jefferson would have agreed that some sort of professional army was needed, but for much of American history, the idea was that the standing army existed to provide a base of leadership and skill, and that in times of crisis, the bulk of an army would be filled with volunteers and militia. What the USA become in the 20th century where there was ALWAYS an enormous armed forces was absolutely not what they wanted, and was in fact what they feared. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/193 "2019-09-05T16:21:52Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I am sure Thomas Jefferson would have agreed that some sort of professional army was needed, but for much of American history, the idea was that the standing army existed to provide a base of leadership and skill, and that in times of crisis, the bulk of an army would be filled with volunteers and militia. We don’t disagree about that. Yes, Article 1, reinforced by the 2nd, was to ensure that we could put a capable military into action when needed, and the government quickly came to understand a standing core military was needed which could organize and lead and “well-regulate” it. That’s been a common arrangement throughout history. But there’s nothing in that committee-compromise document, begging for amendation, about an individual right \*not \*related to those uses. > [@](#): > > What the USA become in the 20th century where there was ALWAYS an enormous armed forces was absolutely not what they wanted, and was in fact what they feared. The USA became the dominant power in the world then, both economically and militarily (they’re intertwined), while strengthening its democracy both at home _and abroad_ at the same time. I have never seen a reason to believe they would have \*feared \*that, although they would have worried about the cost and deplored the many cases in which we have acted from lower impulses. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/194 "2019-09-05T17:25:03Z")
Well, I don’t think the international order of the 20th century would have been all that comprehensible at all. The results of winning the Second World War would surely have pleased the Framers. I am one hundred percent certain they still would have found the existence of a massive standing army very frightening. They wouldn’t have really understood the modern American attitude towards armies at all, really. Americans in the late 18th century did not, generally speaking, see soldiers as heroes, or armies as forces of good. Of course, the realities of modern war are different than they were in 1789. Modern wars are fast and have a degree of individual lethality that changes the relationship between economy and military. The weapons needed by even a smaller industrialized nation’s armed forces are complex and expensive beyond the imagining of Washington, Napoleon, or Wellington. Having al all-militia army that bring a lot of the guns with them is just not a thing that will work for pitched battles in 2019; Cletus isn’t showing up for reserve duty in his own Abrams or Raptor. So the vision of having little to no professional army at all is just not realistic now, even if you and I agree the US armed services doesn’t need to be as bloated as it is. But… the other side of that is to call the Second Amendment into question. Its purpose was primarily the defense of the USA against foreign aggression, and personal firearms are no longer in any way part of American preparation for war. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/195 "2019-09-05T17:37:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > And yet we somehow \*do \*have both a standing army \*and \*the Guard. How can that be, except that you’re wrong? > > Cite? And not that “unorganized” (and certainly not well-regulated, even if existent) militia nonsense. > To the extent that’s true (and I agree), only militia use is covered by the Second, other uses simply not being addressed and left to statute. That’s how it \*was \*seen, without serious argument, until the individual-right misinterpretation was manufactured just a few decades ago. > > _They themselves_ reversed their decision on having a standing army very shortly after ratification. They’d be horrified at some things, sure, but hardly that. > > By reading what they actually wrote, \*all \*of it and in context, and not by denial or handwaving if we don’t like what it says or doesn’t say. > It \*was \*accepted as clear for most of our history. What changed, and why? The Guard is part of the standing army. for the nth time, the National gd is no longer part of the Militia. What happened is that the USA decided to go overseas during WW1, and thus we needed a standing army to meddle in overseas affairs. This became very helpful in WW2, where we prevented the Axis from winning. Yes, it’s the unorganized militia, which was (and still is, kinda) the law and has been since the uSA was born. No “nonsense” there. No, again, the 2nd started out as a bare bones right to bear arms but the “no standing army” faction insisted on the Militia clause. They did, then dissolved it to a great extent. Actually the uSA standing army was tiny except during wartime up thru the WW2. Read about how tiny and unprepared our Army was at the start of WW1 and WW2. However, altho a few states still have one, the Militia is now Obsolete. Scotus has ruled that we have a Right to protect ourselves and our homes, just like we have a right to privacy, etc. So all this argle bargle over “militia” is pointless. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/196 "2019-09-05T17:40:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That was a close decision, one that they themselves reversed very quickly. The debate is, for better or worse, best remembered for Gerry’s quip “A standing army is like a standing member. It’s an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure.” The US established the standing Regular Army in 1791. There were no major objections raised, and no need seen to amend or drop the Second. … Yes, but except in times of war the Standing army was small and feeble. The FF had no issue with that, as long as it was so small and feeble the various state militias outnumbered it decisively. The point was that the Militias were a counterpoint to the Standing army. Now we have a huge powerful expensive standing army, and only a few feeble state militias. (the National gd is not a militia) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/197 "2019-09-05T17:47:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Now we have a huge powerful expensive standing army, and only a few feeble state militias. (the National gd is not a militia) You’ve said this several times now. Is anyone here asserting that it _is_? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/198 "2019-09-05T17:52:14Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You’ve said this several times now. Is anyone here asserting that it _is_? Many people, read the thread. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/199 "2019-09-05T17:52:19Z")
The Dick Act, the [Militia Act of 1903](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903), asserted it. That’s also where this “unorganized militia” nonsense started, as a sop to the states’-rights people (there were still plenty of Confederate veterans around). You can claim it’s unconstitutional if you want, but it’s getting pretty late. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/200 "2019-09-05T18:23:27Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think the unorganized militia you’re citing is unorganized to the point of not existing. How can you call something an organization when many of the people who supposedly belong to it aren’t aware they’re members or even that the organization exists? What is the supposed function of this unorganized militia? Who are its leaders? What are the responsibilities that arise from being a member? Who can activate it? And, most germane to the thread topic, how can anyone define this militia as well-regulated? As stated by George Mason, the militia is everyone who doesn’t work for the government. A militia is a group of people that organizes militarily for a short period and then disbands when the threat is over. A militia can be organized by a city, state, or a private citizen. The function is to fight battles for the country when the need arises. The founding fathers were skeptical of standing armies and saw the need for an armed populace to serve as a militia in case the government ever became tyrannical and used an army to oppress the citizenry. As to whether the militia is currently well regulated, probably about one third of Americans own guns and even fewer know how to use them but over 100 million armed citizens is a formidable force. If people saw the government actually becoming tyrannical more people would get guns and learn how to use them. The purpose of the second amendment is to allow that to happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=11)