At 8/23/12 11:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 8/23/12 02:20 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:
I do not understand people who say "Oh well its different now. The Founding Fathers had no idea what things would be like. Things are much more dangerous now then they were back then."I don't think anybody making this argument makes it because the World is more dangerous. They make it because our technology, financial systems, socio-cultural contexts, and numerous other concepts have changed dramatically since then.
Yes, there have been advances. However, does that mean that we should whole-sale discount and discard the principles of the founders? Afterall, they did not hold to a myopic worldview that they had reached the pinnacle of science, technology or civilization. In fact, they were probably more aware of the progress of history than we are today. So I do think many of their principles are timeless and just as relevant today as back then.
The second amendment was made when the fastest guns could fire 2 rounds a minute when used by an expert, not upwards of 2000.
This is a silly argument to make. If the founders could see a modern AK-47 (which only fires 600rds/min...theoretically)and see what was used in the Civil War (when military small arms reached their pinnacle of lethality and potency), they would have no problem with the second amendment.
With the exception of a machine gun (which assault rifles are not), modern military rifles are far less capable of spewing death and dismemberment than the Enefield rifles of the 'War of Northern Aggression' (for you Southern readers).
Finally having an armed populace was a key component of our founder's national security strategy. And even with drones and stealth bombers...it still remains effective. Afterall, the US has the best Navy and special infantry (Marines) as well as the most powerful Air Force. And yet guerillas and insurgents in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to sow political discord in the US in operations against our military. In Afghanistan not only have they been able to effectively wear down our will to fight...they were able to do the same to the Soviets who had a better army than we have today.
And while yes we did arm the insurgents...they were able to be effective on their own without our direct involvement. So yes...the militia (and no this does NOT mean the national guard) is a key component of our national security even today.
The financial rules were made when the economy was more mercantile, localized, slow, and tied to gold. The economy today hardly resembles the economies of the 18th Century.
True. However, modern political-economic theories that have gotten away from the founder's original intention have proven to be dangerous...just as the founder's believed. Social-engineering and notions of social justice led to bad financial policy making on the part of Clinton at the end of his term. When he allowed FANNIE & FREDDIE to buy sub-prime mortgages he set the fuse on a time-bomb that blew-up 8 years later. (To be fair, Bush would've probably made the same call early in his first term meaning the bomb would be going off on Obama's watch.)
Also, globalization (which was a phenomenon in 1776) means business is moving at a quicker pace than government can keep up with. One of the questions those of us who specialize in International Relations ponder is just how relevant governments are in this new economy. The answer rarely points to calls for more government intervention.
One point of my own, if the founders were here today I think they would do one of two things after looking at our electorate.
1) Want us to go back to having our Senators appointed instead of picked by direct election.
2) Strengthen the electoral college.
When I was a GTA grading freshman government tests I was constantly mystified by just how illiterate people are when it comes to how government works. Everything from general ignorance to brainwashed-conspiracy-theories (fill-in-the-blank studies majors were the worst at this final category). So when money plays such a big role is misinforming and miseducating the masses...I think the framers would want the checks on the will people they engineered in the Constitution to be strengthened...not weakened.
Afterall, how many realize:
A) We are a republic and not a democracy?
B) Since Plato's The Republic, democracy has been considered one of the three bad types of government?
C) Checks and balances refer not just to the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government but also between:
* the states and the federal government and
* the people as a mass and government (of all levels).
I think if people were better informed (or at least informed) about the capabilities and limitations of government...we would be in a lot better social and economic situation.