Did the Founding Fathers get anything Wrong?

[civilwarbuff]

Of course it is. The right of regulated members of the organized militia to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.

Of course it is. But who are the 'people' referred to in the 2A? They are not the militia which has already been dealt with here as well as in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution. So who are 'they'..... who have 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Would 'they' be everyone else?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course it is. But who are the 'people' referred to in the 2A? They are not the militia which has already been dealt with here as well as in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution. So who are 'they'..... who have 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Would 'they' be everyone else?

They are the militia. It's plain language.

 

[civilwarbuff]

They are the militia. It's plain language.

No, not everyone is the militia. Not everyone is 'ablebodied' which is a requirement. Women are not included, the infirm, elderly, younger than 18 (generally) so actually most people were not included in the term 'militia'. Would you like to try again?

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, not everyone is the militia. Not everyone is 'ablebodied' which is a requirement. Women are not included, the infirm, elderly, younger than 18 (generally) so actually most people were not included in the term 'militia'. Would you like to try again?

That's point. It clearly specifies militia under regular order from the appropriate civilian authorities.

 

[Vambram]

IMO, the founders presumed the American people would never elect a person who would be criminally indicted.

We have a major political party today that has all but forsaken virture in the public office.

IMO, the founders presumed that an American political party would never use lawfare to target political opponents. IMO, the Democratic Party completely forsook virtue by becoming advocates in favor of abortion.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That's point. It clearly specifies militia

But you continue to ignore the direct reference to 'the people'. Why is that? An amendment to the Constitution specifies 'the people' and you think that is not important enough to explain why it is there? Maybe you can explain that?......though I really doubt your wherewithal to do so.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It clearly specifies militia under regular order from the appropriate civilian authorities.

There's no reference to this in the 2A. Are you getting confused with something else?

 

[Bradskii]

No. One of the Deities is real. Thats a huge difference.

My Hindu friend says the same.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There's no reference to this in the 2A. Are you getting confused with something else?

nope

 

[Hammster]

My Hindu friend says the same.

Your friend is wrong.

 

[9Rock9]

I think relying on a first-past-the-post voting system was a mistake.

 

[civilwarbuff]

nope

So you just don't know what you're talking about......OK, I can accept that. There's many people here just like you that are completely ignorant of our history and heritage but still insist on uttering their ridiculousness......so, back into time out you go.

 

[Bradskii]

Your friend is wrong.

You'll never believe this. But he says exactly the same about you.

Can you see where this is going..?

 

[Hammster]

You'll never believe this. But he says exactly the same about you.

Can you see where this is going..?

Yeah. He’s wrong.

 

[JSRG]

I think relying on a first-past-the-post voting system was a mistake.

While I think first past the post voting is extremely flawed, I'm not sure how much you can blame the Constitution itself for that. The Constitution doesn't require first past the post voting; it leaves the method of election up to the states and congress (which did basically all opt for first past the post voting). Those other entities could have chosen alternate voting systems.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you just don't know what you're talking about......OK, I can accept that. There's many people here just like you that are completely ignorant of our history and heritage but still insist on uttering their ridiculousness......so, back into time out you go.

Ditto.

 

[JSRG]

The answer regarding near perfection was answered before the Constitution was written! NO! After all they were basically the same men who wrote The Articles of Confederation.

Were they basically the same men? This was the committee who made the Articles of Confederation (each from a different state).
John Dickinson (Pennsylvania)
Samuel Adams (Massachusetts)
Josiah Bartlett (New Hampshire)
Button Gwinnett (Georgia)
Joseph Hewes (North Carolina)
Stephen Hopkins (Rhode Island)
Robert R. Livingston (New York)
Thomas McKean (Delaware)
Thomas Nelson (Virginia)
Edward Rutledge (South Carolina)
Roger Sherman (Connecticut)
Thomas Stone (Maryland)
Francis Hopkinson (New Jersey)

Of this group, the only ones who I believe were at the Constitution Convention (which had 55 attendees) were John Dickinson and Roger Sherman. That means that 53 out of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were uninvolved with writing the Articles of Confederation, including the one who was probably the most important of them all in writing the Constitution, James Madison. There doesn't seem to be much overlap between the Articles and Constitution in terms of who wrote them.

But they did a lot better than the people nit picking on this thread would do, even with the advantage of hindsight.

I would generally agree, but I still think failing to anticipate the effects of political parties was a major oversight.

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah. He’s wrong.

I just asked him and he said you are wrong. Imagine that. But I've got no dog in this fight (or is that a Freudian typo?). I'll let you two sort it out.

 

[Mayzoo]

That whole owning people while founding a country on the idea that all men are created equal was pretty bad and we’re still dealing with the effects of that hypocrisy today.

This and the whole idea that "all men" actually means "white, protestant, land-owning men" is off to me.

 

[durangodawood]

This and the whole idea that "all men" actually means "white, protestant, land-owning men" is off to me.

But then getting "all men...." as-written into the constitution was pretty bold in terms of setting a standard...... (ignoring 50% of people notwithstanding.)