The Mad Who calls out to Jon Stewart as a spirit of human nature past, current and future.
The Mad Who noticed again that poor Jon is still going shallow. The veneer of snarky mocking; with a large word here and there, to justify his ‘rational’ demands for more gun control?
What would our Framers think of a very talented comedian with political demands on the topic of the day? Would a fake news show be the proper place for a discussion on the ‘political’ necessity of changing our Constitution by methods we were warned to never indulge?
George Washington’s Farewell Address
“but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.”
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
No I have to admit the Mad Who is disappointed with Jon.
Even the nightly tap dancing grandpa monkey; Mahered, making an absurd living entertaining the angry ape people admitted our Founders and Framers were deeply read in religion and philosophy from the ancient Greeks to the Scottish Enlightenment and most especially Montesquieu. Although we all know the tapping dancing grandpa monkey would not bother itself with the true depth of it. But Jon he just might now that he is over 50 and reaching that age when some boomers accept responsible manhood.
But what portion of the Constitution are we speaking of?
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But what did our Prayful Framers mean?
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787
Now all our Founders knew our militia never could stand up to and defeat regulars in ordered battle. That never happened during our Revolution. We almost always ended up running away and coming back embarrassed another day to do our duty again The bayonet charge was in fact the exact deadly equivalent of well trained regulars with heavy weapons today. Our Founders full well understood militia would have to resort to asymmetrical tactics against tyranny foreign or domestic. Notice no Founder recommends militia also have bayonets with their weapons even though it was the decisive weapon in ordered battle, of the day.
Also it was Webster who change our spelling of English to show we were very different than British folks who were still European. If they had been more like Mr. Varney the red blooded, Old Glory Waving, Yankee frugality following. American Patriot by Faith, the rest of us would still talk and spell words like he does. But I digress.
The "arms" alluded to in the Constitution were primative, single shot rifles. If every American wants to own one of these, I'm all for it. It doesn't mention 100 shot a minute assault weapons, rocket powered grenades, nuclear cannons, lazer weapons, etc. The framers clearly would not have intended unlimited firepower in the hands of a "well regulated" militia. This is my biggest beef with the NRA. Yes, Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms, but the extent of "firepower" is the real question. If America can get down to commonsense solutions (not the all or nothing positions that both sides tend to take), we might end up with guns AND laws that are more appropriate for our modern society.
So how do rational reasonable people reduce gun deaths without resorting to demanding our Constitution be changed, without mature consideration of why the greatest human Philosophes;
of any age, judge it to be absolutely necessary?
Perhaps it is worth to note that all the countries with lower 'gun' deaths are only unstable democracies because of the nature of the American Republic. Also that Progressives in Spain, Italy, Germany, Russian and Japan always take guns away form citizens as the first priority.
Peaceful Japan due to culture?
In the 1920s and 1930s, the military came increasingly to control civilian life. Sonoda explains: 'The army and the navy were vast organizations with a monopoly on physical violence. There was no force in Japan that could offer any resistance'. The 1930s degenerated into a horrible period of government by assassination, as military factions attempted to destroy each other, and as militarists murdered opponents of war. Despite the strict gun laws, the frequency of assassinations far exceeded anything seen in Europe or North America this century. Even today, assassinations still occur.