It would be unfortunate if we decided to do away with the second amendment (and instead opt for strict control and/or more severe restrictions on this or that type of firearm). I'd become (even more) of a criminal by fiat..lol.

You know, it isn't the assault rifle that's the problem btw, it's fucking handguns. If we're going the route of heavier regulations and restrictions in order to curb violence or crime, it should probably be orders of magnitude more difficult to procure a handgun that it should be to procure an rpg, mortar, or belt fed gas-operated machine gun.

(August 6, 2012 at 10:30 pm)padraic Wrote: Perhaps some kind person will explain to me the relevance of the views and intentions of the founding fathers of the USA.

I'm going to try a little harder than my earlier answer, "it's an American thing".

American democracy was rather spontaneously created, as opposed to evolved like with British democracy.

In Britain, democracy came incrementally, starting with the first milestone, Magna Charta. That document did nothing for the common people but it did take away power from the king and therefore laid the foundation in a way that didn't exist elsewhere in Europe where "absolutism" eventually took root. Other milestones followed, power made its way from the king to the House of Lords to the House of Commons. British citizens might be able to educate me further but that's how I remember learning about it in school.

The British have no analog of our 4th of July where they either celebrate the birth of their nation or the birth of their democracy. There's no date that I know of where either could be attributed. The documents that do mark the milestones of their achievement of democracy aren't revered in the same way as our Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

Australia, New Zealand and other later colonies of Britain would also be the product of later stages of the evolution of democracy in Britain. Canada didn't gain independence until recently, so they would have also followed the British evolution of their democracy. They all have parliamentary systems that I'm guessing are very similar to those in the UK.

Side fact. you can see a frozen stage of the evolution British democracy in America's system of government. While this embarrassing part of our history is glossed over in our schools, our first attempt at democracy was a dismal failure. We spent several years being a functioning anarchy before hitting the "reset" button in 1787 with the establishment of our Constitution. When this happened, we largely copied the British system as it stood at that time and changed what we didn't like.

It's kind of like the rebellious teenager who storms out of the house and then finds life more complex than he first thought and then says "Um, how did mom do this again?" (in this case, Mother England)

The powers of our President are virtually identical to the powers of the King of England at that time, minus hereditary succession, the pomp and grandeur, and his role as supreme judge (this last part was spun out into a third branch, The Supreme Court). The President holds the sword (as commander of the armed forces) much like the King did at that time. Congress holds the purse (making laws and passing taxes) as Parliament did at that time.

John Adams even proposed that the American President should be addressed as "His Majesty". This was voted down and the more modest "Mr. President" was adopted. Regardless, while the pomp and grandeur may have been cast aside, the effective power of the office more-or-less remained. The olde struggles in England between King and Parliament are sometimes reflected in America between President and Congress today.

So, long story made short, American democracy was spontaneously born, even if based heavily on the British system (the nut doesn't fall far from the tree). As such, we have a heavy sentiment for the Constitution and the people that were involved in drafting it.

Hence, to the American mindset, The Founders = The Constitution = freedom.

Also hence why American theocrats try to do everything they can to make the Founders into the latter day Apostles of Christ.

Hope this helps.

(August 7, 2012 at 9:43 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(August 6, 2012 at 10:30 pm)padraic Wrote: Perhaps some kind person will explain to me the relevance of the views and intentions of the founding fathers of the USA.

I'm going to try a little harder than my earlier answer, "it's an American thing".

No it's not. It's founder mythology whose manifestations also appear in the form of veneration of the "eternal president" Kim Il Song, and of Vladmir Lenin. It is a substitute for long organic history history in giving the national polity legitamacy. It's a tool to overawe the gullible.

(August 7, 2012 at 11:18 am)Chuck Wrote: No it's not. It's founder mythology whose manifestations also appear in the form of veneration of the "eternal president" Kim Il Song, and of Vladmir Lenin. It is a substitute for long organic history history in giving the national polity legitamacy. It's a tool to overawe the gullible.

I never said the quasi-deification of our founders was rational or not founded on anything but sentiment*. I was just explaining the psychology behind it.


* Caveat: I do think we were more fortunate than other nations to have a group of early leaders that could steer a course between anarchy and a new dictatorship. French history through the 19th century offers an example of a less fortunate progression from monarchy to democracy. Hell, we even had a first president that actually restrained the power of his office and set the precedent of no more than two terms. To the best of my knowledge, he's the only leader in history to do that. They weren't demigods but they did a good job.

(August 7, 2012 at 1:18 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(August 7, 2012 at 11:18 am)Chuck Wrote: No it's not. It's founder mythology whose manifestations also appear in the form of veneration of the "eternal president" Kim Il Song, and of Vladmir Lenin. It is a substitute for long organic history history in giving the national polity legitamacy. It's a tool to overawe the gullible.

I never said the quasi-deification of our founders was rational or not founded on anything but sentiment*. I was just explaining the psychology behind it.


* Caveat: I do think we were more fortunate than other nations to have a group of early leaders that could steer a course between anarchy and a new dictatorship. French history through the 19th century offers an example of a less fortunate progression from monarchy to democracy. Hell, we even had a first president that actually restrained the power of his office and set the precedent of no more than two terms. To the best of my knowledge, he's the only leader in history to do that. They weren't demigods but they did a good job.

I disagree, for a queer reason. As wonderful as the founding fathers and early leaders were, the success of them has caused America to try live and cling on to antiquated laws that were suitable in 1789, not 2012.

Still better than those damn Frenchies.

(August 7, 2012 at 6:14 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Hey, I own several guns. There a problem with that? Europeans live by this amusing mindset that if you take away the guns you'll take away the violence. I, however, on the other hand, say that if everyone has a gun, the threat of a burglar or robber stealing your shit is going to be much lower if potentially every individual could shoot them dead if they tried something. Same with rapists

A few years ago one of my mates was talking to a girl in New York (I think) at a bar and seemed to be hitting it off, a little further down the bar a man was getting more and agitated as the evening went on, my mate didn't know why until the man came up to the girl whispered something in her ear and then left. The girl turned to my friend and said "You'd better leave now, that was my boyfriend and he's just gone to get his gun"

So my friend left at speed.

The moral of the story, if any arsehole can own a gun any arsehole will.

And there is nothing more dangerous than an arsehole with a gun, except maybe shark infested custard.

(August 7, 2012 at 1:23 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: I disagree, for a queer reason. As wonderful as the founding fathers and early leaders were, the success of them has caused America to try live and cling on to antiquated laws that were suitable in 1789, not 2012.

Still better than those damn Frenchies.

There are advantages and disadvantages to our three-tier system as opposed to a parliamentary system. The way our system is rigged, it slams the breaks on change, which is probably for the best with the American electorate which seems more prone to mood-swings than in other places.

In America, any elected president can pretty much count on losing control of Congress in two years. In fact, every president since WWII has with the exception of W Bush right after 9/11.

Consider:

Reagan:
1980: Landslide victory
1982: Lost Congress
1984: Bigger landslide victory
1986: Lost Congress
1988: His VP wins election

Or Clinton:
1992: Victory
1994: Lost Congress
1996: Landslide victory
1988 (circa): Impeached by Congress
2000: His VP wins the popular vote

And I point out popular vote because it's the mood swings of the American electorate we're discussing, not the poor judgment of the Supreme Court at that time.

Now imagine if we had a parliamentary system? Every two years we'd have a new Prime Minister.

We'd put the Italians to shame!

Quote:Hey, I own several guns. There a problem with that? Europeans live by this amusing mindset that if you take away the guns you'll take away the violence.

And, the facts seem to back them up in that.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTO...NSTAT.html

Quote:A study of firearm deaths in high income countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Scotland), and the United States) was conducted with data from the World Health Organization assembled by the WHO from the official national statistics of each individual country from 2003 (Richardson and Hemenway, 2011). The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US.

Americans live by the amusing mindset that widespread availability of an accident prone tool designed specifically to kill people more easily and effectively than any other personal method ever invented won't actually result in more people being killed.