# 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:** 13
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/241 "2019-09-06T20:56:13Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Posts #211, #212, #215… > > You appear to be explicitly stating that the RCBA is an unalienable right, separate and apart from any connection to the idea of a citizen militia. Is that an incorrect interpretation of your position? If so, please clarify. An unalienable right that can be exercised (or not) separate and apart from any connection to the idea of, or any actual structure of [government] _organized_ militia. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/242 "2019-09-06T21:04:08Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > It says you have a right to “Life”. Implied is the right to defend your life. Where does the DoI mention the specific means by which you must defend it, i.e. gun? Wrong question . . . Where was the power granted to the federal government to allow it to condition the right to self defense, to allow the government to exclude the use of firearms? Do you understand what the implications are of a right being unalienable or at a minimum, retained? That means that no aspect of the right was placed into the hands of government, it remains in the hands of the people. This is a situation of two retained rights, the right of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms (retaining the use of arms for self defense of person and political self defense, and a myriad of other lawful uses). ---
**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 7, 2019, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/243 "2019-09-07T01:40:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But when a guy comes in to your house with a gun, you use a baseball bat? Am I the kind of person that keep his gun unloaded and safely stored in a gun safe, or am I the kind of person that sleeps with a loaded gun under his pillow? ---
**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 7, 2019, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/244 "2019-09-07T01:54:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think part of the confusion is that you’re treating the militia clause as either/or. The militia clause can be meaningful without necessarily constraining or contradicting the individual right to bear arms. I don’t feel I’m treating it as an either/or. In fact, one of the main reasons I feel the individual right interpretation is better is because it includes everything the militia interpretation would include and a number of other things that the militia interpretation would not include. ---
**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 7, 2019, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/245 "2019-09-07T02:09:57Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > An unalienable right that can be exercised (or not) separate and apart from any connection to the idea of, or any actual structure of [government] _organized_ militia. Fair enough. But there is no “organized militia”. Given sufficient stretch of imagination, one car argue there is an “unorganized militia”. There isn’t. We know that. But let’s just say we’re feeling generous in our interpretation of the armed citizenry in the modern era. > [@Abatis](#): > > Wrong question . . . > > Where was the power granted to the federal government to allow it to condition the right to self defense, to allow the government to exclude the use of firearms? Well, we exclude some types of firearms. Without getting into state v. federal laws, some parts of the country are more strict than others with respect to gun control laws. So it’s not like restrictions on firearms are anomalous. > [@Abatis](#): > > Do you understand what the implications are of a right being unalienable or at a minimum, retained? That means that no aspect of the right was placed into the hands of government, it remains in the hands of the people. Homer Simpson: Just because I don’t agree, doesn’t mean I don’t understand. > [@Abatis](#): > > This is a situation of two retained rights, the right of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms (retaining the use of arms for self defense of person and political self defense, and a myriad of other lawful uses). I don’t suppose it would influence your point of view if I were to point to democratic societies that happen to enjoy all the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, but without the special protection of rights to guns. As a Canadian living in Canada, I’ve never felt that my right to life was in question due to legal and cultural barriers to gun ownership. Living in America, I have to admit that I feel much less safe, in no small part due to the ubiquity of guns, low legal bar for access, and the culture that promotes it. Perhaps the right question is…: Are you sure that the unalienable right to life is better served by everyone having access to guns, or, by only very few having access to guns? ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/246 "2019-09-07T04:23:49Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > But there is no “organized militia”. Given sufficient stretch of imagination, one car argue there is an “unorganized militia”. There isn’t. We know that. Correct, the framer’s constitutional militia is no more . . . and logically, I can see how you can feel that means that the “unorganized militia” is zombie without a soul and is something we should relegate to the status of burning witches and bloodletting. No matter how strongly one feels that to be true, that is a conclusion that does not reside in the realm of constitutional law right now. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > But let’s just say we’re feeling generous in our interpretation of the armed citizenry in the modern era. Generosity has nothing to do with it. The right does not exist because of any benevolence of the citizens or the government. Even if we all agree that the 2nd Amendment’s purpose, to perpetuate the general militia principle is moot today, that does not impact the people’s right to arms because the citizen has always possessed the right to arms and the right has always existed without reference to or reliance on the Constitution or anything established by the Constitution. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Well, we exclude some types of firearms. Without getting into state v. federal laws, some parts of the country are more strict than others with respect to gun control laws. So it’s not like restrictions on firearms are anomalous. Much of the disparity in federal and state laws is a vestige of the 2nd Amendment not being enforceable on the states. No provision of the Bill of Rights was enforceable on state laws until the 14th Amendment was ratified (1868) and the 2nd wasn’t “incorporated” until 2010 :eek: :smack:. The legal operation of challenging state and local laws has been in a holding pattern since then and many people have many opinions why. Pretty much all agree that the pace of 2nd Amendment cases accepted by SCOTUS will pick up after Kennedy has left the Court. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Homer Simpson: Just because I don’t agree, doesn’t mean I don’t understand. But if Homer was to say that he thinks the government should amend or rescind Newton’s Law of Gravity so fewer people would be injured or killed in falls, we would say he _doesn’t_ understand that a “law” can recognize a “thing” exists without one needing to believe the “thing” was created, granted, given or established by the law and worse, thinking that changing or removing words in the law would change the “thing” . . . . > [@QuickSilver](#): > > I don’t suppose it would influence your point of view if I were to point to democratic societies that happen to enjoy all the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, but without the special protection of rights to guns. Correct. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > As a Canadian living in Canada, I’ve never felt that my right to life was in question due to legal and cultural barriers to gun ownership. Living in America, I have to admit that I feel much less safe, in no small part due to the ubiquity of guns, low legal bar for access, and the culture that promotes it Is your right to life an enforceable right in Canada? IOW, can the government be held responsible for a criminal act against you? I know in the USA, it is a fundamental principle that no government agent can be held responsible for any citizen’s personal security, even if the agent (police) are aware of an imminent threat to you. So, essentially, there is no enforceable right to life in the USA, there is no right to be or feel safe. In the USA, your right to life is the right to defend your life and be held immune from arrest and criminal prosecution for a “justifiable” homicide. And your “gun culture” comment puzzles me. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Perhaps the right question is…: Are you sure that the unalienable right to life is better served by everyone having access to guns, or, by only very few having access to guns? Again,the right to life is really the right to defend your life because government takes no responsibility for a criminal attacking you. When one fully understands the _UNALIENABLE_ right to life, one understands that the most brutal violation a government can do (outside of genocide or other extra-judicial execution) is to force citizens to be defenseless. It is an especially egregious violation if the government abdicates its duty to prosecute and remove criminals from society and forces citizens to face them empty-handed. You call out a “gun culture” that promotes guns, I denounce the government’s hug-a-thug culture that is nothing but a system that just processes criminals thorough a revolving door, back out into society. . ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/247 "2019-09-07T05:10:15Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Fair enough. But there is no “organized militia”. Given sufficient stretch of imagination, one car argue there is an “unorganized militia”. There isn’t. We know that. … As a Canadian living in Canada, I’ve never felt that my right to life was in question due to legal and cultural barriers to gun ownership. Living in America, I have to admit that I feel much less safe, in no small part due to the ubiquity of guns, low legal bar for access, and the culture that promotes it. > … Well, you can say that all you like but by federal law there is a unorganized militia here in the USA. Not in Canada, maybe. It doesnt do much, but technically it’s there. There are lots of guns in Canada, dont fool yourself. Every farmer I know in Sask has a couple of shotguns, a .22 and likely a deer rifle or two. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/248 "2019-09-07T13:41:22Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > Yes they did Thank you. Next? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/249 "2019-09-07T13:50:33Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It is very clear here By a 5-4 vote along partisan lines and contrary to precedent. You surely can understand how a ruling can be wrong and wrongly arrived at, can’t you? > [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’ve heard of _Army of One_, but not _Nation of One_. It’s called the Sovereign Citizen approach. A mark of, let’s be indulgent here, a lack of seriousness. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ve read it. I didn’t find the text you apparently feel is there. Already cited and quoted, although to many it’s inconvenient and therefore ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/250 "2019-09-07T13:53:50Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Thank you. Next? Talk about confirming my argument, that you guys choose to . . . “take three words, pluck them out and “interpret” them in bias confirming isolation, divorced from the entirety of the framer’s explanations.”! What the framers “told us” emphatically rejects the conclusion you’ve come to, from reading three words and closing your eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/251 "2019-09-07T14:58:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > By a 5-4 vote along partisan lines and contrary to precedent. What was contrary to precedent? I know that was the party line coming from the liberal media and DailyKos and ThinkProgress etc. but have you ever read Breyer’s dissent (which the other liberals signed on to)? He said that the individual right interpretation is the starting point for understanding and applying the 2nd Amendment. He says the individual right interpretation was the holding that has been represented consistently in the Supreme Court’s precedent and is represented in _ **all three opinions issued that day** _ and that the _ **entire** _ Court subscribes to the individual right interpretation and then, just to be clear, Breyer cites the majority opinion and Stevens’ dissent as equal and _ **also** _ agreeing on this point. [INDENT]"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: INDENT The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting)." [/INDENT][/INDENT] So, what precedent was abridged? No doubt _Heller_ disrupted / abrogated lower federal court opinion that had went off the constitutional rails in 1942, (inserting the “state’s right” and “militia right” perversions), but lower court opinion is not “precedential” for the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/252 "2019-09-07T15:40:03Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > Wrong question . . . > > Where was the power granted to the federal government to allow it to condition the right to self defense, to allow the government to exclude the use of firearms? The same powers that allow current gun control legislation, the Commerce Clause. > [@Abatis](#): > > What was contrary to precedent? "The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. ``` Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;2 we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).3 No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses." ``` From [Steven’s dissent](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html) > [@Abatis](#): > > He said that the individual right interpretation is the correct one, that the individual right interpretation was the holding that has been represented consistently in the Supreme Court’s precedent and represented in all three opinions issued that day – that the entire Court subscribes to the individual right interpretation and then, just to be clear, Breyer cites the majority opinion and Stevens’ dissent as equal and also agreeing on this point. > “The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: > (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).” I like how you have the part of Breyers introduction where he says he has four propositions, and then just cite the one you like. Here’s the rest: "2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) ; see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). ``` (3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178. (4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897) ; ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court)." ``` Also, as Stevens says: “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.” ---
**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 7, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/254 "2019-09-07T15:45:20Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > Correct, the framer’s constitutional militia is no more . . . and logically, I can see how you can feel that means that the “unorganized militia” is zombie without a soul and is something we should relegate to the status of burning witches and bloodletting. No matter how strongly one feels that to be true, that is a conclusion that does not reside in the realm of constitutional law right now. > > Generosity has nothing to do with it. The right does not exist because of any benevolence of the citizens or the government. Even if we all agree that the 2nd Amendment’s purpose, to perpetuate the general militia principle is moot today, that does not impact the people’s right to arms because the citizen has always possessed the right to arms and the right has always existed without reference to or reliance on the Constitution or anything established by the Constitution. > > Much of the disparity in federal and state laws is a vestige of the 2nd Amendment not being enforceable on the states. No provision of the Bill of Rights was enforceable on state laws until the 14th Amendment was ratified (1868) and the 2nd wasn’t “incorporated” until 2010 :eek: :smack:. The legal operation of challenging state and local laws has been in a holding pattern since then and many people have many opinions why. Pretty much all agree that the pace of 2nd Amendment cases accepted by SCOTUS will pick up after Kennedy has left the Court. > > But if Homer was to say that he thinks the government should amend or rescind Newton’s Law of Gravity so fewer people would be injured or killed in falls, we would say he _doesn’t_ understand that a “law” can recognize a “thing” exists without one needing to believe the “thing” was created, granted, given or established by the law and worse, thinking that changing or removing words in the law would change the “thing” . . . . > > Correct. > > Is your right to life an enforceable right in Canada? IOW, can the government be held responsible for a criminal act against you? > > I know in the USA, it is a fundamental principle that no government agent can be held responsible for any citizen’s personal security, even if the agent (police) are aware of an imminent threat to you. > > So, essentially, there is no enforceable right to life in the USA, there is no right to be or feel safe. In the USA, your right to life is the right to defend your life and be held immune from arrest and criminal prosecution for a “justifiable” homicide. > > And your “gun culture” comment puzzles me. > > Again,the right to life is really the right to defend your life because government takes no responsibility for a criminal attacking you. When one fully understands the _UNALIENABLE_ right to life, one understands that the most brutal violation a government can do (outside of genocide or other extra-judicial execution) is to force citizens to be defenseless. It is an especially egregious violation if the government abdicates its duty to prosecute and remove criminals from society and forces citizens to face them empty-handed. > > You call out a “gun culture” that promotes guns, I denounce the government’s hug-a-thug culture that is nothing but a system that just processes criminals thorough a revolving door, back out into society. This is like the proverbial dissection of the frog in high school bio lab: There is nothing new to be learned, and the frog needlessly dies of it. The differences between gun rights supporters and gun control supporters are fundamental and irreconcilable as I see them. I’m encouraged, however, by the socio-political trend leading away from the former, towards the latter. That folks continue to insist that right to life can only be assured at the point of a gun, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, tells me that they simply love guns. Their professed love for unalienable rights extends only for their own life, without the slightest consideration for the society in which they live. The same society and government on which they depend for so many things, which demonstrably ensure their right to life, on a daily basis; Far more so than their guns. It would be far more honest if they just came out and admitted that they are intentionally taking advantage of the social safety offered to them by society without consideration for others, and using anachronistic justifications to do so. I won’t hold my breath. Energy is far better spent on continued advocacy in line with those who believe that civil society without guns is a far better way of assuring the right to life for all. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/255 "2019-09-07T19:33:36Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > By a 5-4 vote along partisan lines and contrary to precedent. You surely can understand how a ruling can be wrong and wrongly arrived at, can’t you? > > … What Precedent? > **[Second Amendment | Text, Meaning, Definition, & History](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment)** > > The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right ‘to keep and bear Arms.’ _Until 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States had never seriously considered the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment. In its first hearing on the subject, in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prevented the states from “prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.” More than four decades later, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), the Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment as enshrining that the duty of individuals “to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution” and holding that “the common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution.” Meanwhile, in United States v. Miller (1939), in a prosecution under the National Firearms Act (1934), the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment by merely holding that the “possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” was not “any part of the ordinary military equipment” protected by the Second Amendment._ Presser v. Illinois _the Second Amendment prevented the states from “prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security_ So that’s pretty close toHeller. Do you mean Miller, which wasnt even defended? “\* the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment”\* So basically SCOTUS in Heller was following the precedent of Presser, however, in reality there had been no significant 2nd Ad cases up until Heller. And Heller was caused by three cities deciding to push the boundaries are hard as they could by banning all handguns and for most purposes, all guns for home defense. DC, Chicago and to a lesser extent SF are the cause for Heller and rather than not liking “partisan lines” you should blame them for pushing the Supreme Court so hard it had to reluctantly rule on the 2nd. And Heller is very reasonable. All it does it say you have the right to own a gun for sefl & home defense. It doesnt say you get to own machineguns or mortars or even “assault weapons”. It doesnt allow concealed carry or many other things, and it explicitly allows for a whole range of gun control laws. It was a good ruling and it’s not gonna be overturned. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/256 "2019-09-07T19:40:41Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The same powers that allow current gun control legislation, the Commerce Clause. > > “The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption…” Talk about bad decisions. Miller wasnt even defended, Miller having _" kicked the bucket, 'e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!!_". Because as has been pointed out, if Miller had been defended, the Court would have ruled the other way- a sawed off shotgun actually having been a normal weapon used by calvary during the Civil war, etc. So the only reason we have Miller- a bad decision- is because Miller died. Otherwise his right to own a sawed off shotgun would have been Oked by SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/257 "2019-09-07T19:44:32Z")
If I could travel back in time and ask the Founding Fathers everything, it would change nothing for me and I seriously doubt it would change any minds. They were ahead of their times, but their times are long past. How you feel about white men having a disproportionate amount of power will dictate which half of the previous sentence you focus on. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2019, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/258 "2019-09-07T19:51:30Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > If I could travel back in time and ask the Founding Fathers everything, it would change nothing for me and I seriously doubt it would change any minds. > > They were ahead of their times, but their times are long past. How you feel about white men having a disproportionate amount of power will dictate which half of the previous sentence you focus on. - "white men having a disproportionate amount of power\* "? disproportionate ? There weren’t many asians or latinos or free blacks back then. Since free whites were about 99% of the voting blocs back then, their power was pretty proportionate . And not much left in the Constitution gives a edge to white males anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2019, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/259 "2019-09-08T02:13:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > - > > "white men having a disproportionate amount of power\* "? disproportionate ? There weren’t many asians or latinos or free blacks back then. Since free whites were about 99% of the voting blocs back then, their power was pretty proportionate . > > And not much left in the Constitution gives a edge to white males anymore. If you think something like the Tea Party movement isn’t about preserving white male privilege you have not been paying attention. Therein lies the adoration. In casual conversation with modern Americans the Founding Fathers wouldn’t come off as worthy of respect. They were exceptional for their time, take them out of it and they are not. Which is all something to remember every time you see a 250 year old quote used to reinforce an opinion about a current situation. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2019, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/260 "2019-09-08T11:41:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Miller wasnt even defended The individual-rights concept not having been invented yet, and there being no significant group yet created to support it. It would have been like a legal argument that the sky is actually green. > [@](#): > > Because as has been pointed out, if Miller had been defended, the Court would have ruled the other way It has been _asserted_, not “pointed out”, and unfortunately not with any historical support. To clarify, \*Miller \*confirmed what had been the common understanding that the Second has no applicability outside militia use. \*Heller \*reversed that. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2019, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/261 "2019-09-08T12:43:56Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Talk about bad decisions. He asked for precedent. Not precedent that you had to agree with the ruling. How cool if we could just pretend that court decisions that we disagree with simply don’t count? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=14)