He might’ve been more interested in some antibiotics for syphillis lmao
Lol all the sex jokes, this one hits.
Guys, they’d be overjoyed their government the hammered out in overnight binge drinking sessions lasted 200+ years.
All the present problems are our problems. They gave us the amendment system for a reason.
Not universally. Jefferson would have been horrified that the same government he established was still trucking along. 50 years was the longest he wanted it to last, and called for dramatic change at that point
Do you honestly want to live in a country where the established foundations of government changed every 50 years? That kind of chaos and instability would be crushing. There are places like that right now, and first world countries they are not.
Hmm… Sounds to me like someone understood the need to update a country’s systems with the cultural and technological progress of humanity.
You’re right, which is why it should be slowly and continuously changed along with the times and through the mechanisms in place to do so, not drastically and sweepingly every 50 years or so. You don’t throw out and replace the constitution or other foundations of law without massive societal upheaval, which is just as bad as permanent stagnation.
Can you imagine if that change happened during like 2018/19 when the government was full of people I liked slightly less than the people in their right now? That would have sucked.
They also wrote that system not expecting it to be able to be gummed up by as little as 2% of the population because of how stupid we were about drawing state borders
How? Assuming you’re talking about Wyoming we only have one vote in the house and two in the senate. We can hardly gum it up by our little lonesome.
Well for starters that’s a disproportionate 3 electoral votes for president
It takes as little as less than a fifth of the population to elect a president if they embark on a small states crusade.
As for constitutional amendments, it takes THREE QUARTERS of the states to approve an amendment, meaning that starting from the smallest states and working our way up, less than 7 million people can decide for the other 343 million that an amendment doesn’t pass.
And that’s all assuming state action reflects popular will within the states, which it often doesn’t.
The United States is a republic of States. In it all states are equal in the union. That’s why the senate is locked at two senators per state and why all states have equal say on amendments.
And all that is working as intended, because the US is a gestalt entity created of 50 states cooperating in concert with each other. We have an electoral college to balance the power between the biggest and smallest states so that every state gets representation under a representational republic. Extrapolate out to other similar organizations like the European Union. Would Luxembourg join or remain in the EU if votes were done by direct democracy of the population of each member country and Germany alone nearly outnumbers the bottom half of the EU by population? Each member state deserves representation. The same is true for the US, where it’s illegal to leave the union after you’ve joined.
The House of Representatives are the voice of the actual people (unfairly restricted in size which needs to be fixed but that’s another story), the Senate is supposed to be the voice of the States (but we made them directly elected instead of appointed by the state governments making them just a super version of the House but that is yet another conversation), and the President to run the government and act as our figurehead. This is supposed to allow the vastly different needs of each state and for the differing needs between urban and rural areas to be represented. This is why yes, if your amendment cannot convince 75% of states that it’s a good amendment, it probably shouldn’t pass in the first place.
TL/DR: Direct democracy is practiced at the local and state level, then representationally at the federal level because we are a republic of cooperating states that each have their own needs and desires. We have fucked with/fucked up how that representation works in the republic for better or worse, and the system as designed allows the possibility for a tyranny of the minority because it was the only way to prevent permanent tyranny of the majority.
I like how that question about Luxembourg basically just outed your whole point, because the EU basically does work like that save issues like new members, and Luxembourg did join.
The mechanisms that right wing fucksticks like to argue are protection for small states and local autonomy are archaisms that collectively give a severe balance tilt to mid sized states that “swing” from election to election.
Not to mention how this fear of overbearing higher authority never seems to be respected within small states, like say whenever a local city decides it wants to do things differently and small states that removed and moan about local rule whenever it’s about not being able to mow down 40 walmart patrons before they even know someone’s shooting, but then act like local autonomy is separatism when someone within their borders wants to build affordable housing or allow teachers to acknowledge that gay people exist.
Wow, been a while since I’ve seen strawman of such girth and density. You could thatch a mid size town with all this.
Go to any blue town in a red state and tell me more about how this supposed yearn for local autonomy being a farce is just a strawman.
You apparently believe that the enlightened EU apportions votes by equal proportionality based on population of member nations, but that isn’t true. Germany, with over 84x the population of Luxembourg does not get 84x the number of MEPs. Luxembourg’s population get 8x the MEP representation of Germany’s. It is a degressive proportion system just like the Electoral College, for exactly the reasons I stated.
Point two is literally just you saying you don’t like the way it works and trying to discredit it by calling it archaic, as if the concept of direct democracy isn’t just as old as representational republics. No one is arguing that it doesn’t create swing states and tilt the balance back towards the mid and small sized states, because that’s what it was designed to do: make it so the smaller states must be included.
Really not sure what your last paragraph is about as it’s not very clear, but within a state everything is direct democracy. This means that the large population centers do run the states like you want, which results in situations like parts of California trying to split off because they have no representation. Unless it violates the constitution or other applicable federal law, states get to set their own rules and laws.
If each state was as dominated by large population centers as you think the country as a whole would be muuuuuch farther to the left, except it isn’t because those little mini republics decided voting and human rights are also a states rights issue.
Also, those parts of California do have representation, just representation equal to their true size within the state, you know, power representative of their share of the population, and all those “small states” know it to, which is why state republican parties are now petitioning to make this country even less democratic by instituting state level electoral colleges
You fucking know it’s just a power fix, “states rights” is just a dogwhistle for pulling the democratic rug before the browns and queers get too many rights.
Funny how you don’t see a connection between the establishment of the US and now.
Benny would be too distracted with Tinder to give a shit about McChickens
Only if there are GILFs on Tinder.
Pretty sure Ben Franklin is rated E for everyone
I agree of course but he did prefer his Congress to have experience.
I’ve never seen this. Thank you so much.
Oh they got plenty of GILFs on the other sites! Dated some bangers and just married one last Friday!
LOL, she’s 52, so we’ll see what happens in 8 years.
Not sure many of them would see an issue with AR-15s. They’re basically what the military has and what the civilians had back then was usually better than military grade. In fact, American civilians have always had better rifles than their contemporary military.
I loathe the title, and strongly disagree with it. Also, heard the presenter is a hard right-winger, but this is still an interesting history lesson. I never would have guessed most of this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dIsy3sZI2Y&t=2s
I’m betting the founders would have thought having a lesser armed citizenry to be pointless. Of course, they might well have thought that such a giant, world policing, military to be a far worse mistake.
I mean, it’s super hypothetical. We lift them up but they were just a bunch of dudes living in their own times. While I’m sure they wanted a framework that would lead the country into future prosperity, they knew adaptation was necessary.
They also knew that the backbone of this country’s defense were militias made up of citizens. We don’t really have those. I’m all for regulated militias coming back. They could possibly get exceptions for many banned weapons.
Every citizen doesn’t need to have access to military grade weaponry at any given moment. Even when I served, my shit was locked up and required a document trail for access and ammo use.
Balancing safety and personal rights is a complex and divisive issue. Everyone having all the guns would be super cool with me if we fixed gun culture, mental health access, and our many many societal financial issues. 'Til then, reasonable laws.
We are a well regulated militia. Well regulated means well equipped/prepared.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Benjamin Franklin
That’s all it means? Because it seems fairly clear that it means something like “well organized, supplied, and trained.” If we’re saying that the word “regulated” just means “armed”, and the word “militia” just means “people”, then it sounds a lot like you’re interpreting it to mean what you want it to.
I’ve never heard “regulated” used that way outside of tortured 2nd amendment interpretations, and a militia requires some amount of training and regular drills.
Let’s assume it does refer to the concepts you describe. The entity charged with ensuring the “regularity” of the militia is Congress, and constitutionally, the militia is every American.
So, what “regulation” do you think Congress should place on every American?
I’m asking you guys that. Because you appear to be arguing that “a well regulated militia” just means “an unregulated group of people” and those two things are not the same.
The group of people you are talking about is not “unregulated”. You are subject to militia regulations. Under Article I, Congress is charged with establishing “necessary and proper” regulations on the militia. Granted, the only “regulation” that Congress has deemed “necessary and proper” for the larger of the two classes of the legislated militia (10 USC §246) is an obligation to register with Selective Service.
Do you feel this “regulation” is insufficient? As a (presumptive) member of the “Unorganized” class of the militia, what regulations do you feel you should be subjected to?
The only additional obligation I would impose at this time would be a mandatory class on the laws governing use of force. Most concealed carriers have formally taken such classes, and the overwhelming majority of gun owners have a functional knowledge of these laws. This would be a class for non-owners, provided before they were of legal age to purchase a firearm.
Most concealed carriers have formally taken such classes, and the overwhelming majority of gun owners have a functional knowledge of these laws.
They haven’t and don’t.
I know exactly what’s required to get a concealed carry permit and a gun anywhere in the southeast. A permit requires 50 dollars and five minutes to fill out the form on your phone. I know because I did it, except it’s now entirely unnecessary because my state and several others stopped requiring them recently.
Getting a gun requires knowing someone willing to give, sell, or trade you a gun. I’ve literally never bought a gun in a store, although I’ve owned many.
Finally, the vast majority of gun owners don’t know anything about the law. They may know whether they’re in a stand-your-ground state, if they bother to check. As I said, I live in the southeast, and know many people here- portraying gun owners as sober, trained, responsible people with a working knowledge of the law, that have taken classes on the use of force- is laughable.
Yes. Prepared includes training. However training isn’t required to be considered part of a militia. As for organized, there are many different levels of organization, for example your friends and family resisting an invasion ala red dawn, and the national guard are both organized to different degrees.
So if training isn’t necessary to be considered a member of a militia, and organization can mean any amount of organization at all, then you are using “militia” to mean “people.” If that is what you think they were saying, then why would they use the word “militia” at all?
“militia” refers to that aspect of “the people” that can be charged with enforcing law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion. The second amendment uses “militia” and “people” synonymously. It declares that average, everyday individuals provide the security and freedom of the state. That obligation is not tasked to the armies of a lord, nobleman, or king, but retained by We The People, individually and collectively.
The second amendment says that because we bear this responsibility, we must not be disarmed.
It also says that the militia should be well regulated. Assuming that militia is all able bodied adults, it is currently entirely un-regulated.
We could restrict ownership to one assault rifle per militia member*, and have a licensing program that requires a training course. We could mandate physical standards across the board, schedule regular local military training for every able-bodied adult. We could have a quota of bullets that each militia member should have on hand, require range training every six months, and account for missing bullets and negligent discharges.
I notice you’re not arguing for any of that.
- Actually, make this “require one assault rifle per…” And standardize on a caliber so that members can share ammunition.
I mean it’s really how far you want to take samantics.
I take the second to mean every person has the right to form into groups to protect themselves and their own from foreign and domestic threats. Others disagree and that’s part of the whole debate about the second.
What does it mean to you?
It means absent a unified millitary that the states have the right to assemble militias for the common defense of american citizens within their borders,
Because they didn’t have a unified military or a modern model of civilian policing yet back then.
That’s also why the third amendment is worded the way it is, it’s supposed to mean you can’t make a city pay for its own occupation by peace keeping forces, IE cops most of the time, because back then cops and the militia were one in the same.
That’s incorrect. The right to form groups (for any purpose) is guaranteed by the first amendment right to association, not the second.
The Constitution only uses the word “militia” in the singular. There is only one militia.
Basically, “militia” is who we are until we are drafted into an army or the navy.
I agree, those who give up the liberty of others to not risk being shot at over an argument because every problem looks like a nail for the sake of continuing to parade a statistical security blanket around deserve neither the liberty to own and operate, n’or the false sense of security they get from menacing the checkout line at Walmart.
I have a feeling the conversation to have with most of the founders would be centered around the political weaponization of the Second Amendment in the face of almost daily mass shootings. I have a strong suspicion that the “well-regulated militia” part of that amendment would become much more pronounced.
They would be far more concerned with the government embracing fascism, than they would about 2nd amendment considerations. If anything, they’d push for a less restrictive 2nd amendment, and dismantling of federal power structures. They were revolutionaries, after all.
Agreed, though the correlation between the modern advance of fascism and the people who press the hardest on gun rights is hard to dismiss. Of course, I am only pointing to the correlation in sets, there are obviously elements of each set which do not belong to the other, but the cardinality of the intersection far outstripes that of the difference.
Frankly that’s a failure of nonfascists to realize the value of self defense, if the dems supported gun rights too and also armed up, the fascists wouldn’t be “the ones who press the hardest,” simple as.
The problem is the fundamental ideological difference between conservatives and liberals in this country.
Conservatives are bullheaded, uncompromising, and single-minded. They view compromise as weakness and failure, and anyone who is willing to express empathy is a lesser class of human. They would rather destroy something than compromise or find a middle ground. And heaven forbid you ask them to sacrifice for their fellow man. What you recognize as “pressing the hardest” is not standing up for ideals or being strong-willed, it is digging heels in on every hill. It takes a lot more strength to be able to sacrifice when getting nothing in return because it is the right thing to do.
Liberals are usually more empathetic and compromising. They attempt to view things from alternative perspectives and tend to be more open to sacrificing to make things better for the greater whole.
Both mentalities can have a time and place. Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter how heavily armed the liberal populace is, the odds of them utilizing their armaments against the fascists is slim to none unless they are backed into a corner.
I am not personally against guns as a concept. I do recognize their value and choose not to own any out of self-recognition and regulation of my mental health. That doesn’t mean I’m not versed in their use. I’m a crack shot and know how to keep and maintain most of them if the need arose where protecting my family from external threats was more of an existential circumstance than protecting from inner demons.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter how heavily armed the liberal populace is, the odds of them utilizing their armaments against the fascists is slim to none unless they are backed into a corner.
You mean “they won’t kill people until they HAVE to?” Oh noooo, that’s so horrible, using guns and violence as a last resort rather than murdering people before it comes to that?
That’s a good thing dude.
I am not personally against guns as a concept. I do recognize their value and choose not to own any out of self-recognition and regulation of my mental health. That doesn’t mean I’m not versed in their use. I’m a crack shot and know how to keep and maintain most of them if the need arose where protecting my family from external threats was more of an existential circumstance than protecting from inner demons.
Cool just as long as you don’t want to take them from people who do want them and haven’t proven themselves to be a danger to society. I don’t care about people controlling themselves, just don’t try to control others.
Conservatives are bullheaded, uncompromising, and single-minded.
Tbh in this context they’ve compromised enough since 1934, the NFA, the GCA, the Brady Bill, endless pointless state feature bans, the '94-'04 AWB, Bumpstock ban, red flag “due process second” (which violates more rights than just the 2nd), ad nauseum. Have they got anything in return? The HPA or Constitutional Carry which they’ve been pushing for recently? No. How is it a “compromise” when one side keeps getting their way and chipping away at the right only for them to start chipping again after they get their “compromise?” When will enpugh be enough, after this AWB they’re pushing for doesn’t fix anything? After they ban 90% of handguns and rifles because they don’t understand semi-auto, which they’ve been trying to do recently? No, they’ll keep pushing until they can’t because they won, and they’re “not bullheaded?”
I was speaking more of a general psychology of each group than to the individual gun control issue. The legislation surrounding firearms has rarely been something that I concern myself with as it rarely can screw me over personally. There is so much lubeless anal going on from every seat of government, regardless of who’s ass is in the seat to manage all of it, and I already have entirely rational anger outbursts daily from the ones I do concern myself with. I wish you the best in your fight and I will keep on mine. Guns aren’t mine in general, aside from the mass shootings and school shootings, which, while stricter gun control could mitigate, are truly mental health issues indicative of a cripplingly deficient medical care infrastructure. If we dealt with problems with we’ll paid social workers instead of police and did not stigmatize mental illness while lifting bully culture up on some pedestal like it is something that should be aspired to we would likely see a decrease in the mass killings that are plaguing the country and only increasing.
That said, I wish you the best on your hill and I salute your commitment to it.
I really doubt it. If they intended the right to belong to militias or members of one, they would have written that instead of people.
Plus there are a lot of people in the militia. Specifically every able-bodied male from the ages of 17 to 45.
Keep in mind, what you posted is the legislative definition, not the constitutional meaning. If Congress wanted to, they could expand the legislated meaning. They could expand it to 16 to 60, or 8 to 80 if they wanted. They could change from the “able body” to “sound mind” standard, include women, or change from citizens and prospective citizens to “American persons” and draft green-card holders.
The point is that the definition you provided is only a tiny portion of the Constitutional meaning. The constitutional meaning of “militia” is “We The People” and the definition of “Well Regulated” is whatever policies, practices, rules, and laws that Congress seems necessary and proper to enact with their Article I powers regarding the militia.
Basically, Congress can force every high school graduate to have attended “militia” training on the laws governing use of force and safe gun handling. They are empowered to “prescribe” such “discipline” on the militia. But whether they choose to do that or not, they cannot prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms.
Basically, Congress can force every high school graduate to have attended “militia” training on the laws governing use of force and safe gun handling. They are empowered to “prescribe” such “discipline” on the militia. But whether they choose to do that or not, they cannot prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms. >
Pretty sure this would solve a lot of issues surrounding the Second Amendment, as well as many others. If everyone is well-trained by the same precise regimen, then everyone can be expected to comport themselves properly moving forward. Works for public education, would work for this.
Or perhaps put something in about a militia, but one that was well regulated.
You are a militia member.
Unless you are not an American, I am not creating a hypothetical scenario; I am stating that under the constitutional meaning of the term, you are a militia member. You may not be one for which Congress has created an obligation to register with selective service. You may not qualify under Congress’s rules to be drafted. But under the constitution, Congress can use their powers over the militia to compel you to act. You. Are. Militia.
When you insinuate that the Militia is not “well regulated”, what additional regulations do you wish to be subjected to?
Personally, I think every member of the militia (Every American) should be required to attend a class on the laws governing use of force. Not enough people actual understand them.
So you just don’t understand basic grammar.
They would likely be most upset you can’t make your own liquor legally.
You can, just can’t sell it (at least in my state which is one of the stricter ones for alcohol)
Federal law strictly prohibits distilling at home.
Offenses under this section are felonies that are punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both, for each offense.
Edit: can we just talk for a second about how oppressive the law is for poor people? Do you have $10,000? Cool, give it to us and go home. Oh, you don’t have it? FIVE YEARS in a federal penetentary!
And overwhelmed by the number of people willing to discuss nuaced socio-political problems of states and governments.
He would be very upset that most of these people are neither white nor land-owners.
Franklin? He would probably just be amazed there are openly Bi people and would just embrace power of infinite flirting. That and the McNuggins.
From everything i’ve heard of the founding fathers franklin seems like the only descent one.
None of them were perfect, and some of them had there beyond fucked up moments by todays standards, but for their time they were mostly a pretty alright bunch
Thomas Paine is cooler imo. A lot more progressive than many of the other founding fathers
Adam’s refused to own slaves on principle. Dude was solid
Adams was an ok guy.
Not really. He could be a miserable bastard at times but all the sources agree he was very open minded and willing to accept the evidence of his eyes and honest arguments, condemning colonist atrocities against natives despite have quite a lot prejudice against them himself, freeing his own slaves, petitioning for abolition in Congress, etc.
He’d look around, say, “Well it seems to have worked out, where’s the removedhouses?”
No. His great failing was championing the concept of time-based workdays instead of task-based. Ie, most people left work when everything was done before he got involved.
I’m sorry about your head injury.
Ie, most people left work when everything was done before he got involved.
Well it’s a damned good thing we don’t use that system now, because everything is never done at big corporations.
He would be even more upset that they only talk about such things online and then shirk their voting responsibilities.
“Tell me more about this ‘online granny porn’ my good sir.”
A few of our founding fathers were based and are remembered for their true merits as people.
And the rest were just the most rich and powerful people around at the time. They had to start a war and a new country in order to get away with defrauding England when they joined in on this settler colonial project. They stopped slavery from ending. They chased wealth and valor, and designed the country for their ends.
WE deserve a new constitution like every other modern country.
Their project was in part to legitimize the transfer of power from the nobility to the elite merchant and “gentleman” farmer class. They were very much a product of their time, just like you and I are today.
I’d say they are more products of their class privilege than their time. If some people at the time were outlawing slavery, and someone else stops them… Who is the product of the time? Well, the conservative, of course. Because progressivism is just a bonus added on, its better than we expect of anyone in the past, and history itself.
Then get enough of the population to agree with you to convene a constitutional Congress and pass that new constitution. It shouldn’t be hard if at least 75% of the US aligns with you. If you don’t have that much of the population in agreement, then you aren’t communicating your desired constitution well or the current one works well enough for enough of the country.
Otherwise you are either implying that we need war to crush the pillars of our society, necessitating the rebuilding of our institutions like what happened with WWI and WWII for the other “modern” countries I presume you are wanting to emulate, or you want to disenfranchise at least 30% of the population because WE is not everyone and YOU “deserve” a new constitution and fuck the “other side”.
Removed by mod
You what now?
We both know a lot of our representatives would never convene a constitutional congress because they’re so greedy for power they want to draw back democracy. And our representatives dont really represent what any American wants.
I wouldn’t imply revolution. I’m advocating a reformist position, where we reform the current government, under the reform rules spelled out in our current constitution. I like a lot of what our constitution says, genuinely.
Yeah I do largely want to emulate social democracies in europe whose constitutions have been updated about once per decade, some starting in WWI/WWII and some even earlier than that. They either have much more representation than us or even have direct democracy. Thats awesome.
Dont misunderstand me, I dont want to leave out conservatives. I want a better constitution. Better representation. Its such a dream though, or representatives will just slip in more spying or police state crap in there.
I love the Key and Peele skit on this
“But I want mcchickeeeeeeens”
This has a Bill & Ted-vibe. Like Napoleon who just wants to go back on the waterslides again…
Kid me was like yeah water park! Adult me chuckles because of the Waterloo reference.
Wasn’t that already more or less proven by bill and ted?
Such a good documentary.
At least you did not bring him back to McRib season
Everything in moderation
Image Transcription: Twitter Post
shen the bird, @Shen_the_Bird
me: [after successfully using my time machine to bring a founding father to the present] so do you think the 2nd ammendment is still reflective of our culture and technology
benjamin franklin: can we go get more mcchickens
me: no stop asking me that
