Is Bannon right about this one thing?

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2017, 12:50 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: About 4 shots per minute would be sustainable.





As you can see from the video, you had to do a lot to prep those things to fire. Particularly pulling out the ramrod, ramming the charge and ball round into the chamber, and then replacing the ramrod to its place. Perhaps someone could shave a handful of seconds off of each shot time by just having the ramrod out already. That might get you to 5 shots per minute. But that wasn't prescribed by the manual of arms at the time as it was thought (rightfully so) that more troops would damage or lose the ramrods over time, especially if the troops had to advance or retreat (which they usually did at some point).

But increasing the individual rate of fire wasn't the name of the game at the time. It was more important to produce a volley, or wall of fire, due to the inaccuracy of the weapons. Rate of fire was was increased by having multiple ranks alternate between firing and reloading. This was a system the West had already been using for hundreds of years before with crossbowmen, and it was effective.

BTW - If you've ever gone to see an orchestra concert, you may notice that there are like 40 violin players but only a handful of each wind instrument. That is because stringed instruments like violins, acoustic guitars, etc. generally only play at one volume level. Therefore, if you want the to play something louder, you increase the number of violins playing that line. And vice versa if you want them to play something softer.

What was up with that last shot?  

And yes the archer was the real machine of death. You get 1000 of those, and you could be facing 25,000 arrows over a 2 minute span.

[*PhilHos*]

(02-22-2017, 04:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As someone that has expressed my desire for a new constitution, I hate to say that I agree with him on the broad idea. We have the oldest written constitution still in use, today. I get that we have pride in this but this document was written when global trade took months, not seconds. It was written when 6-8 shots in a minute was the fastest you were going to to see someone pull of, when news took hours, days, or even weeks to reach the common person. The industrial revolution hadn't happened and we had an agrarian society. All of these have changed our society in ways the framers of our government could not have dreamed.

My point is, why do we debate the original intent of laws written by politicians that had no concept of the world we live in today to apply them to the world today? It just seems to me like a new constitution would better serve the people, and with it we need to set up a more representative government. I think a parliamentary system would be better, but there is also just the number of representatives as well.

There are 630 members of the Bundestag in Germany. Almost 200 more representatives in their lower house than we have. A country that has 3% of our land mass, about 25% of our population, and 18% of our nominal GDP has a representative body that is 144% the size of what we have. When I see things like this, not just in Germany, it makes me feel like we are grossly underrepresented in our federal government. This isn't even getting into how we hold elections, which is a whole other story.

Anyway, I feel like we hold onto the system we have and glorify it because our history isn't centuries old as it is in Europe. Jefferson said that a constitution naturally expires at the end of 19 years, so why are we holding onto a 228 year old constitution with such fervor?

That's the beauty of the Consitution. The framers made it possible to "update" the Constitution to keep up with the times. It's not their fault that the country has come to be run by a bunch of idiots and golddiggers bent on doing only what benefits them with a populace that has become increasingly more and more uninformed.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2017, 12:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's the beauty of the Consitution. The framers made it possible to "update" the Constitution to keep up with the times. It's not their fault that the country has come to be run by a bunch of idiots and golddiggers bent on doing only what benefits them with a populace that has become increasingly more and more uninformed.

I might make the constitution easier to amend.  At this point in time it's damn near impossible.  Of course we'd need an amendment to do that.

[Bengalzona]

(02-22-2017, 06:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, maybe this is the time to do it. Hopefully not in as violent a manner as before. I have heard constitutional scholars say that the reconstruction amendments essentially created a new constitution as it made the states also liable to uphold the rights and liberties of the people. We are as divided now as we were leading up to that. I don't want it to be a war fought over the idea, but maybe division is a good time to look at these sorts of things? Hard to say, really.

I tend to see this as exactly not the time to do it. As divided as our nation is right now, a re-write of the Constitution would inevitably lead to a transfer of power from the federal government to the individual states. On the surface, that doesn't seem too bad. We have probably needed a little of that for awhile now. But I believe any transfer of power needs to be measured in order to ensure that there is still some kind of balance maintained between federal and state governments. And as divided as we are right now, I fear that a re-write would be hasty, favor states too heavily and open the door for secession.

[Bengalzona]

(02-23-2017, 12:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What was up with that last shot?  

And yes the archer was the real machine of death.  You get 1000 of those, and you could be facing 25,000 arrows over a 2 minute span.

It looked like something went wrong with the powder. Perhaps it was still burning in the chamber. And that type of malfunction would also have been typical historically.

Outside of the English longbow, bows were never as popular in the West as they were in other places of the world. Western culture generally favored shields and armor over bows and other missile weapons. It started with the Greek phalanx systems and carried on into the Roman legions. When the Romans felt they needed archers, they generally hired locals as auxiliaries. The same with the Crusaders in the Middle Ages.

But the Crusaders brought back a new respect for the bow. The Crusaders were pretty well protected from arrows by their armor. But their horses weren't. And the key tactic of Crusaders was the heavy cavalry charge. More than a few cavalry charges were stopped in their tracks when knights' horses were shot out from under them (which could also cause serious damage to the rider from the fall), something the French relearned at the Battle of Agincourt. But the problem with bows is that it is a skill that has to be learned and practiced. The English had to mandate that their longbowmen practice shooting every Sunday after church. The crossbow was seen as more practical for their societies as you could hand it to just about any peasant and they could fire without a lot of training.

[*michaelsean*]

Well yeah you started the longbow at like age 7. But it was worth it, because there was no answer to them. I think (if i am remembering my battles correctly) Crecy like Agincourt was won by the archers. It was like 5 to 1 in favor of the French. They mowed down the crossbowmen who didn't bring their big shields then mowed down the knights.

There probably aren't many people alive today that could pull a genuine 6 ft yew bow today.

Oh sorry about the hijack everyone.

[Belsnickel]

So, those of you commenting, what do you think about our representation in Congress? Our electoral process? Our system of government in general? I am just curious if people have thought about those sorts of things.

I often think about the parliamentary system because the framers intended very little power to go to the Executive. They didn't envision the average citizen engaging with the federal executive branch in their lives, let alone daily. But now, we interact with them every day of our lives whether we know it or not. I feel like the expansion of the authority of the executive needs to be checked as it has been usurping more and more from the branch of the people, the legislature.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2017, 04:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, those of you commenting, what do you think about our representation in Congress? Our electoral process? Our system of government in general? I am just curious if people have thought about those sorts of things.

I often think about the parliamentary system because the framers intended very little power to go to the Executive. They didn't envision the average citizen engaging with the federal executive branch in their lives, let alone daily. But now, we interact with them every day of our lives whether we know it or not. I feel like the expansion of the authority of the executive needs to be checked as it has been usurping more and more from the branch of the people, the legislature.

I'd rather just get away from the daily interaction.  I think I would be better suited for the 18th and 19th century.  With today's amenities of course.  I always picture Little House on the Prairie.  You didn't know much of Washington.  And you were pretty much free to do what you like.  Wanna build a house on your land.  Go ahead.  Don't have to ask someone's permission.  Build a barn next?  Hey it's your property.  Hungry?  Go shoot something if you like.  And so on. 

[Benton]

(02-23-2017, 12:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's the beauty of the Consitution. The framers made it possible to "update" the Constitution to keep up with the times. It's not their fault that the country has come to be run by a bunch of idiots and golddiggers bent on doing only what benefits them with a populace that has become increasingly more and more uninformed.

Agreed... but.... with our current misuse of the system, it's not likely to update it.

I think most gun owners are in favor of reasonable gun control (waiting periods, background checks, etc). But you mention restrictions and people start bringing up slippery slpes and how it's a background check today, piled up guns in the streets tomorrow.

[BmorePat87]

(02-23-2017, 04:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, those of you commenting, what do you think about our representation in Congress? Our electoral process? Our system of government in general? I am just curious if people have thought about those sorts of things.

I often think about the parliamentary system because the framers intended very little power to go to the Executive. They didn't envision the average citizen engaging with the federal executive branch in their lives, let alone daily. But now, we interact with them every day of our lives whether we know it or not. I feel like the expansion of the authority of the executive needs to be checked as it has been usurping more and more from the branch of the people, the legislature.

I am ok with the current idea of a bicameral legislature, with the Senate being equal. We need an independent body creating districts, however, if we are to continue to have the system we intended to have. With gerrymandering, we have essentially lost the idea of districts being communities. In Maryland, the rural Western parts of Maryland have been gerrymandered to include southern suburbs, creating two D districts from what was 1 R and 1 D. Maybe we need all at large representatives elected using a run off system that will allow minority groups to get representation (so if there are 30% Republicans, ideally 30% of reps will be Republicans). 

Obviously get rid of the electoral college. 

Our system of government is fine. The Republic works well.

I am ok with how the executive branch has grown since the start of the 20th century. It balances the legislative. I do not believe a parliamentary system is the right route. I prefer three balancing branches. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-23-2017, 07:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I am ok with the current idea of a bicameral legislature, with the Senate being equal. We need an independent body creating districts, however, if we are to continue to have the system we intended to have. With gerrymandering, we have essentially lost the idea of districts being communities. In Maryland, the rural Western parts of Maryland have been gerrymandered to include southern suburbs, creating two D districts from what was 1 R and 1 D. Maybe we need all at large representatives elected using a run off system that will allow minority groups to get representation (so if there are 30% Republicans, ideally 30% of reps will be Republicans). 

Obviously get rid of the electoral college. 

Our system of government is fine. The Republic works well.

I am ok with how the executive branch has grown since the start of the 20th century. It balances the legislative. I do not believe a parliamentary system is the right route. I prefer three balancing branches. 

What do you think of the number of representatives?

[BmorePat87]

(02-23-2017, 09:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What do you think of the number of representatives?

I'm ok with that. I don't have a legitimate argument to change it.

[xxlt]

(02-23-2017, 11:20 AM)wildcats forever Wrote: I believe it is time to start thinking about how to do it at least. Trump very well may be the culmination of all that's wrong with our system, as he does seem to exhibit major traits that show us how not to be. One (of many) question is who do we entrust to make such major changes? Certainly not those who perpetuate the problems we have now. It seems this intervention needs to be led by outsiders who have no vested interest beyond the betterment for all. Such an effort requires flawless organization and complete transparency.

Sounds like a job for America's church leaders.

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2017, 09:22 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm ok with that. I don't have a legitimate argument to change it.

I just don't think a cap set in 1911 when we had 29% of our population is a very good thing for our representatives. We've fought two world wars since then, the federal government and our economy has exploded in size, and we've added 4 states and 216,517,042 people (difference between 1910 and 2010 census figures).

This was a topic that made more of a splash 15-17 years ago, I'm really surprised it hasn't been brought up more since then as our continued growth makes us underrepresented even more.

[*PhilHos*]

(02-23-2017, 04:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, those of you commenting, what do you think about our representation in Congress? Our electoral process? Our system of government in general? I am just curious if people have thought about those sorts of things.

I often think about the parliamentary system because the framers intended very little power to go to the Executive. They didn't envision the average citizen engaging with the federal executive branch in their lives, let alone daily. But now, we interact with them every day of our lives whether we know it or not. I feel like the expansion of the authority of the executive needs to be checked as it has been usurping more and more from the branch of the people, the legislature.

Instead of "blowing up" our system of government, I suggest many issues would be resolved by making all elected officials serve 1 term. Make it of varying lengths (for example, President - one 8 year term, Senator - one 10 year term, Representative - one 6 year term) but make it one term. Then these people wouldn't be focused on getting re-elected and there would be a wealth of new ideas. 

It's not perfect, there still would be the problem of idiots being elected, lobbyists having too much control AND these changes would need to be made by the very people who would be affected by them, however, I think it's better than trying to start over from scratch (which would require even more than just those in Washington).

[xxlt]

(02-24-2017, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just don't think a cap set in 1911 when we had 29% of our population is a very good thing for our representatives. We've fought two world wars since then, the federal government and our economy has exploded in size, and we've added 4 states and 216,517,042 people (difference between 1910 and 2010 census figures).

This was a topic that made more of a splash 15-17 years ago, I'm really surprised it hasn't been brought up more since then as our continued growth makes us underrepresented even more.

Ah, but you assume they represent all people. They represent some people, the ones called corporations, and they do so quite well. In fact, we could probably do with less servants, as just a few could serve all those $$ masters.