[curiousgal]

No offence by why are the founding fathers put on such a high pedestal in the U.S.? Everything they did had a reason but some of those reasons do not make sense anymore. The electoral college was put in place to give more saying to the south but that's not needed anymore. Gun ownership was put in place to protect from militias but again, that's not the case anymore, why keep all of these laws?

[mudetroit]

The Electoral college wasn't put in only at the request of the South. A number of smaller states wanted it (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware); because, they feared political domination by the larger states. Same fundamental reason that there is both the House and the Senate.

The big concession to the South with the 3/5 compromise which primarily had an effect upon the representation in the House, and correspondingly an effect on the Electoral College.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Same fundamental reason that there is both the House and the Senate.

Actually the reason there is both the House and the Senate is that the Senate was intended to represent the voice of the states in the federal government. It wasn't supposed to be only about how many votes the people of each state get. Senators were originally appointed by the state legislatures.

That was changed in a fit of populism in the early 20th century and has caused only problems ever since.

[ams6110]

No, gun ownership was put in place to allow citizens to form militias to protect themselves FROM the government.

[jstarfish]

In a day and age where even our local police departments have grenade launchers, MRAPs and other military surplus gear, our right to cling to our handful of pea shooters and pretend like we can overthrow anything has also become a relic of times past.

[Brockenstein]

I'm not a gun nut. I don't own a gun. I don't buy into gun rights for everyone regardless of the human cost.

However. I think you grossly underestimate just how many guns there are in the U.S. There's like 300 million guns floating around, enough to arm every able-bodied adult.

It's not the futility that's preventing armed revolution in the U.S., it's that despite all the crying people do their lives are really good enough that they have something to lose by tearing the whole system down.

I can't predict who would prevail, but if there was a major crisis that sparked a serious revolution that involved millions or tens of millions of U.S. citizens in armed revolt. It might not be as open and shut as you imagine. Military, police, state and local governments aren't going to automatically and universally side with the federal government. It could spiral out of control in ways you can't imagine. And who knows, maybe foreign powers get involved and depending on the circumstances who's to say who they side with.

We're no where near close to anything like that though, so of course it can be hard to contemplate. Imagining that it's impossible is just a lack of imagination though.

The problem that gun legislation faces is that it will take generations to feel reasonable impact of anything but the most draconian laws, and the most draconian laws would never pass. And unfortunately we're short sighted. If something can't be done in a year or an election cycle, it's hopeless. If the results aren't instant and tangible, what was the point? It's a real problem, the lack of long term planning and the willingness to pay for two pounds of cure instead of an ounce of prevention at ten times the price.

[ionised]

> Military, police, state and local governments aren't going to automatically and universally side with the federal government.

They would side with whoever pays them.

[rgbrenner]

The electoral college is not obsolete.

50% of the US population lives in 10 states.

Don't you think the other 40 states would like a say too? Or do you (mistakenly) believe the concerns of urban citizens are identical to those living in rural areas?

[Larrikin]

Why should their vote matter more because they have decided to live in an unpopular location?

[ZoeZoeBee]

Because we live in a Federated Republic of States not a direct Democracy, and the nation you decide to live in was explicitly set up to be governed in a way where a few large states (Virginia at that time) did not have a stranglehold on power over the rest.

[AnthonyMouse]

> why keep all of these laws?

Because it takes agreement from three quarters of the states to change the constitution for good reason, and three quarters of the states aren't convinced we don't need them anymore.

[jackhack]

>No offence by why are the founding fathers put on such a high pedestal in the U.S.?

Because they were exceedingly well educated, with a knowledge of the rise and fall of nations, and of the shortcomings of human nature. They designed a system of checks and balances that gives the individual the best chances at success in such a world. The reasoning behind these decisions are well documented in the Federalist Papers.

[BLKNSLVR]

> They designed a system of checks and balances that gives the individual the best chances at success in such a world

In which loopholes have been found and exploited to such a degree that these checks and balances now gives the individuals with enough moral terpitude the best chance at success at the expense of most individuals.