# 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:** 7
**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 3, 2019, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/121 "2019-09-03T15:11:47Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Amazing how these discussions about the founders invariably revolve around guns. I’m of the opinion that no person has ever changed his mind about gun control, just as no person has ever changed his mind about abortion. Arguments about guns always generate more heat than light and we find ourselves in alternate realities that cannot be bridged. With that in mind, I’m sure that some will disagree with everything I write but that’s to be expected. > > My two cents: > I don’t care if the founders would be for or against gun control if they were reanimated today. They lived in different times. Madison never gave a thought to whether his children would be murdered in school, Jefferson did not worry about attending a theater and looking for the exits in case a mad gunman started blazing fire. If they had, the 2nd would look much different, if it existed at all. > > The founders were not ones to waste words. In my opinion, a correct interpretation of the 2nd is that the militia (National Guard) has the right to bear arms. I don’t buy the notion that “well regulated” means “in good working order”, that’s one of those things that gets repeated because people think it’s true and people think it’s true because it gets repeated. I also don’t buy that “the militia” meant all white males, even in the old days the militia was something you joined and something that was regulated. > > The notion that we need guns to rein in or overthrow a corrupt government is silly. Poland and East Germany got rid of their communist masters without firing a shot. Armed insurgents with the help of foreign powers have not ousted the despotic Syrian regime. Of all the things that make governments fall, weaponry isn’t one of them. > > There are weapons that were made for the purpose of killing lots of people quickly. There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have such weapons. > > People who have unstable mental conditions, certain criminal histories, or who have proven to be a danger to others have no right to own guns. Opposition to background checks or waiting periods is simply foolishness. > > Other countries have video games and mental health problems. No other nation has so many mass murders. I believe guns are the reason. > > People who think that we can’t lift a finger on guns until every other means of murder have been eliminated are morons. Yes you can come at me with a knife, but I’ve got a lot more of a chance than if you come at me with a gun. And if you compare accidental shootings with drownings in swimming pools, you’re batshit crazy. Well said. But I’ve no doubt somebody is about to bring up “natural rights” as a way to reducing your argument to something akin to neo-fascism. You know, like in Canada. ---
**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 3, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/122 "2019-09-03T16:08:09Z")
My personal opinion is that the second amendment was intended to placate southerners and westerners. There were concerns that the new federal government, based in Philadelphia or New York, would not help in cases of Indian uprisings or slave revolts. The states wanted to retain the option of fielding their own local forces if the national government refused to send troops. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/123 "2019-09-03T16:31:21Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I think it’s fair to say that people in America are “well armed”. In your opinion, do we have a “well regulated militia”? If so, in what way is it “well regulated”, effective, and to what purpose? Yes, the militia is well regulated, in the way the Constitution says. If you think it is not, then by all means pressure the government to change that so as to fulfill their Constitutional duty to make sure that we do. Keep in mind that whether or not it is well-regulated does not affect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because the Second Amendment does not say that the right can be infringed if the militia is not operating as it should. If the militia is not working as it should, that’s bad. But the Second Amendment says that it can’t work as it should, however defined, unless the people’s right to keep and bear arms is not infringed. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/124 "2019-09-03T16:33:17Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Jefferson did not worry about attending a theater and looking for the exits in case a mad gunman started blazing fire. Lincoln should have, though. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 3, 2019, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/125 "2019-09-03T16:34:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, the militia is well regulated, in the way the Constitution says. And in what way is that? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/126 "2019-09-03T16:39:22Z")
It’s funny to hear people talk about the intentions of the Constitution as if these are facts rather than just what a handful of relatively recent political appointees happen to have said. ---
**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 3, 2019, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/127 "2019-09-03T16:52:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, the militia is well regulated, in the way the Constitution says. If you think it is not, then by all means pressure the government to change that so as to fulfill their Constitutional duty to make sure that we do. Keep in mind that whether or not it is well-regulated does not affect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because the Second Amendment does not say that the right can be infringed if the militia is not operating as it should. > > If the militia is not working as it should, that’s bad. But the Second Amendment says that it can’t work as it should, however defined, unless the people’s right to keep and bear arms is not infringed. > > Regards, > Shodan In service of what? You forgot to mention. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/128 "2019-09-03T16:52:56Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’m of the opinion that no person has ever changed his mind about gun control, just as no person has ever changed his mind about abortion. If I show you that you’re wrong, would that cause you to re-evaluate any of the other things that you’re convinced about? ---
**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 3, 2019, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/129 "2019-09-03T17:03:54Z")
> [@Jay\_Z](#): > > Over time, the Constitution HAS taken more of a “handed down by God” aspect. May not be right, but I have seen it with my own eyes. > > As far as the militia stuff goes, it seems to me that there was either an affinity for it, or the Founders thought it would work better than it did. A militia is completely ineffective as a fighting force. It’s why we have the largest effective standing army in the world. The militia never, ever worked. > > Rights conflict with each other. People were required to turn in their guns in the old Western towns. It made sense for people to have guns out in the frontier, out of town, when you might have to be your own law, or protect yourself from animal predators. Guns in town were more likely to be used to rob the town or shoot someone else in a drunken argument. They are two different life situations. Controlling the gun population in the town made the town better, made more people want to move to the town. The gun control of the town did not extend outside its borders, rules were different outside the town. > > It’s clear that 2A meant that some arms were allowed. Did the founders mean that the right to bear arms was absolute, it should trump every other right? You may have the right to free speech. But I can own private property, individually or with a group, and prevent you from setting foot on that property and exercising your free speech right. If the right to bear arms is more absolute, if the rulings are that jurisdictions cannot assemble and make any law controlling the right to bear arms even to a small extent, that is a different matter. Obviously in the old West no one went to the Supremes and sued based on their right to bearing arms should trump all jurisdictions. Today they are doing that. You’d be allowed to have your guns in town, everyone would, the robbery rate and drunking shooting rate would skyrocket. Until the 14th amendment the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government and states were free to establish churches, quarter soldiers, and regulate guns as they saw fit. Most of the the Western town’s antigun laws were passed during a period before case law clarifying that the Bill of Rights did apply to them. They still only apply to governments so private entities can restrict any rights they want to. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/130 "2019-09-03T17:04:20Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > … > > The founders were not ones to waste words. In my opinion, a correct interpretation of the 2nd is that the militia (National Guard) has the right to bear arms. I don’t buy the notion that “well regulated” means “in good working order”, that’s one of those things that gets repeated because people think it’s true and people think it’s true because it gets repeated. I also don’t buy that “the militia” meant all white males, even in the old days the militia was something you joined and something that was regulated. … > > Other countries have video games and mental health problems. No other nation has so many mass murders. I believe guns are the reason. > > People who think that we can’t lift a finger on guns until every other means of murder have been eliminated are morons. Yes you can come at me with a knife, but I’ve got a lot more of a chance than if you come at me with a gun. And if you compare accidental shootings with drownings in swimming pools, you’re batshit crazy. The National Gd would drive the Founders crazy. It is now a part of the Army, _exactly_ what the Founders didnt want. So the modern national guard is the _exact opposite_ of a Militia. Militias were mostly raised by states, and a few states still have them. Militias were also raised by some large cities and a few individuals. The Militia act did make all able bodies men part of the Militia. Other nations dont have the media that glorifies the shooters like we do. Peer reviewed published studies by noted sociologists have shown the in America, the media is what is causing the mass shootings. I have cited them several times. How about the 500000 Americans who die every year from smoking, 50000 of them by second hand smoke? And tobacco isnt protected by the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/131 "2019-09-03T17:34:22Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If I show you that you’re wrong, would that cause you to re-evaluate any of the other things that you’re convinced about? Nope. I don’t believe I am wrong and there is nothing that you could tell me that would change my mind. Why should I be the only person to change his mind about gun control? > [@DrDeth](#): > > Other nations dont have the media that glorifies the shooters like we do. Peer reviewed published studies by noted sociologists have shown the in America, the media is what is causing the mass shootings. I have cited them several times. > How about the 500000 Americans who die every year from smoking, 50000 of them by second hand smoke? And tobacco isnt protected by the Constitution. The media causes them? Hardy har har. I don’t think the shooters are glorified at all. Their names and faces get attention, just as Booth and Oswald did. When their motivation becomes known, such as the racist attacks inspired by one Donald J. T\*\*\*p, that becomes public. But to say they are glorified is an overstatement. I think it’s a logical fallacy to state that nothing can or should be done about gun violence as long as other means of death are possible. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/132 "2019-09-03T17:43:04Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > … > The media causes them? Hardy har har. I don’t think the shooters are glorified at all. Their names and faces get attention, just as Booth and Oswald did. When their motivation becomes known, such as the racist attacks inspired by one Donald J. T\*\*\*p, that becomes public. But to say they are glorified is an overstatement. > > I think it’s a logical fallacy to state that nothing can or should be done about gun violence as long as other means of death are possible. Yes, and that;s what they want. They are suicides that want to make a name for themselves, and the media give it to them. It’s what we call “science”. > **[The Media Is an Accomplice in School Shootings](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crucial-conversations/201204/the-media-is-accomplice-in-school-shootings?fbclid=IwAR3mGMFLyVaQIqRHHMTUdJ-mmFXmPMP0elXGyZKr4gl68rJRTObuojybVyc)** > > A call for a “Stephen King” law The Media Is an Accomplice in School Shootings - School shootings are a contagion. And the media are consistent accomplices in most every one of them. There’s really no useful debate on the point. The consensus of social scientists since David Phillips’ groundbreaking work in 1974 is that highly publicized stories of deviant and dangerous behavior influences copycat incidents. Phillips’ and scores of subsequent studies showed, for example, that suicide rates spike in the week after an inappropriately publicized celebrity suicide. Contrast this trend with no increase in suicides in the week following a media strike that unintentionally suppresses such coverage. The same is true of school massacres. On Groundhog Day, Feb 2, 1996 a 14-year-old boy walked into his Moses Lake, Washington, Junior High School algebra class and started shooting. He killed his teacher, two classmates and severely wounded another student. Subsequent media coverage obsessed over the color of his clothes, his insidious planning and the inventory of his arsenal. In addition, they practically offered a how-to guide for concealing and deploying weapons in a coat. But what got the most attention was the fact that after shooting his teacher, he delivered a line from the Stephen King novel Rage with charismatic panache. Suddenly, the invisible adolescent was a cultural icon. Within a week, another shooting occurred that clearly echoed that of Feb 2. Then another on February 19. Another on March 11. Yet another on March 13. Along with other similarities, more than one of the apparent copycats also cited King’s novel as a creative resource.\* > **[03-Lee.pdf](https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/153/2018/12/03-Lee.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3nyYZ8pS4pNOXS1OKyFnf_44_abrmB19KaOPkhRNt-pHzwQqHI2r9fjYM)** > > 381.02 KB [https://psmag.com/news/does-the-media-cause-mass-shootings](https://psmag.com/news/does-the-media-cause-mass-shootings) _A growing body of research suggests that increasingly intense media coverage of mass shootings is partly responsible for their acceleration in the United States…With this in mind, it’s safe to posit that increased exposure to media reports surrounding mass murders have precipitated the rise of copycat killers. There seems to be a correlation between the rise in mass murders and structural expansions in the media with the emergence of the 24-hour cable news cycle_ > **[Mass Shootings: The Role of the Media in Promoting Generalized Imitation](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296697/)** > > Mass shootings are a particular problem in the United States, with one mass shooting occurring approximately every 12.5 days.Recently a “contagion” effect has been suggested wherein the occurrence of one mass shooting increases the likelihood ... \*A mass shooting is a complex and destructive act that occurs as a result of many factors. One factor that is relevant to the spread of mass shootings and other “contagious” behaviors is generalized imitation. In instances of mass shootings, the media appear largely responsible for providing the model to imitate. Although there are a variety of strategies that could function in tandem to alter the likelihood of a mass shooting, changing the way the media report mass shootings is one important step in preventing and reducing imitation of these acts. Furthermore, it is likely that media-prompted imitation extends beyond mass shootings. A media effect has been shown with suicide, is implied in mass shootings, and may play a role in other extreme events such as home-grown terrorism and racially motivated crimes. The responsibility for these acts does not reside with the media, but the media are an important vector for the spread of such behaviors.\* ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/133 "2019-09-03T17:53:19Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > In service of what? You forgot to mention. Maybe I don’t understand your question. Having a militia is in service of the security of a free State. The right to keep and bear arms is so we can have a militia. TRtKaBA is, according to the Constitution, a necessary pre-condition for a well-regulated militia. If the militia isn’t acting to secure a free state, then it should be fixed so it does. But, again according to the Constitution, it can’t be fixed by infringing on tRtKaBA. Maybe you don’t agree. That’s fine, but then according to the Constitution, you’re wrong. TRtKaBA is necessary by definition. You need to convince a large majority that you are right and the Constitution is wrong. That can happen - slavery is an example of how people figured out the Constitution was wrong, and fixed it. But the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You don’t get to say it’s wrong all by yourself, or even with a lot of other people. You need enough other people to amend the Constitution. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 3, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/134 "2019-09-03T17:53:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > How about the 500000 Americans who die every year from smoking, 50000 of them by second hand smoke? And tobacco isnt protected by the Constitution. It’s their “natural right”. Would you deny them their natural rights? This entire thread is about the inherently inviolable nature of natural rights, which do not require Constitutional protection. Except when they do. And those that are explicitly protected are of the same intrinsic value, unchanging, despite march of time and social progress, immune from revision. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/135 "2019-09-03T17:56:20Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > It’s their “natural right”. Would you deny them their natural rights? This entire thread is about the inherently inviolable nature of natural rights, which do not require Constitutional protection. … No it’s not. And the “natural right” is the right to defend yourself as SCOTUS has made clear. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/136 "2019-09-03T18:06:10Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Nope. I don’t believe I am wrong and there is nothing that you could tell me that would change my mind. Why should I be the only person to change his mind about gun control? That’s kind of the point. You asserted that no one has changed their mind. I asked if I demonstrated that people have changed their mind, would you re-evaluate. You’ve answered in the negative. It’s your prerogative to have a faith based position, of course. ---
**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 3, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/137 "2019-09-03T18:14:45Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Maybe I don’t understand your question. Having a militia is in service of the security of a free State. The right to keep and bear arms is so we can have a militia. > > TRtKaBA is, according to the Constitution, a necessary pre-condition for a well-regulated militia. If the militia isn’t acting to secure a free state, then it should be fixed so it does. But, again according to the Constitution, it can’t be fixed by infringing on tRtKaBA. In what way does the current armed populace (a well-regulated militia, according to the Const. and you) function in service of the free State? What efforts have been made to maintain it regulation and readiness since the inception of the TRtKaBA? What steps are being considered by its supporters to fix and maintain it? > [@Shodan](#): > > Maybe you don’t agree. That’s fine, but then according to the Constitution, you’re wrong. TRtKaBA is necessary by definition. You need to convince a large majority that you are right and the Constitution is wrong. That can happen - slavery is an example of how people figured out the Constitution was wrong, and fixed it. But the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You don’t get to say it’s wrong all by yourself, or even with a lot of other people. You need enough other people to amend the Constitution. > > Regards, > Shodan I hope to see TRtKaBA significantly restricted or abolished in my lifetime. Seems the numbers of people who agree with that position are growing in size and vigor. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/138 "2019-09-03T18:24:29Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > In what way does the current armed populace (a well-regulated militia, according to the Const. and you) function in service of the free State? What efforts have been made to maintain it regulation and readiness since the inception of the TRtKaBA? What steps are being considered by its supporters to fix and maintain it? > > I hope to see TRtKaBA significantly restricted or abolished in my lifetime. Seems the numbers of people who agree with that position are growing in size and vigor. They protect their own homes and families. That would mean abolishing the 2nd Ad for no good purpose. ---
**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 3, 2019, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/139 "2019-09-03T18:31:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No it’s not. And the “natural right” is the right to defend yourself as SCOTUS has made clear. And there it is. Thank you for saying so, on the record. ---
**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 3, 2019, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/140 "2019-09-03T18:34:22Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > They protect their own homes and families. From who?.. Ze Germans? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=8)