What movie(s) would you show to a US founder?

Supposing one or two of the founding fathers materialized in your living room. What movie would you show them and why?

You could pick a historical movie like Lincoln or The Longest Day to illustrate what has happened.

My pick would be Star Wars though, just for fun.

First one in to say Idiocracy.

That’s the correct answer, right?

Shadowy Man said:

First one in to say Idiocracy.

That’s the correct answer, right?

Click to expand...

Nah. They’ll figure that one out after you explain the current situation.

The purpose of the film showing would be -- what? Hopefully, to send them back to 1787 to rethink their convention. If that's the goal, I'd show them Bowling for Columbine (2002) with an update of news footage from Sandy Hook. Panel discussion: Are You Sure You Want to Go with the Wording of Amendment 2?
Second part of double feature, Four Hours at the Capitol (2021), which centers on 1/6/21, with updates on election results from 1876 and 2000-2024. Panel discussion: Were You Smoking Hemp from Mount Vernon When You Invented the Electoral College?

Shadowy Man said:

First one in to say Idiocracy.

That’s the correct answer, right?

Click to expand...

Fun, and a depiction of what has happened. Perfect choice.

ideologyhunter said:

The purpose of the film showing would be -- what? Hopefully, to send them back to 1787 to rethink their convention. If that's the goal, I'd show them Bowling for Columbine (2002) with an update of news footage from Sandy Hook. Panel discussion: Are You Sure You Want to Go with the Wording of Amendment 2?
Second part of double feature, Four Hours at the Capitol (2021), which centers on 1/6/21, with updates on election results from 1876 and 2000-2024. Panel discussion: Were You Smoking Hemp from Mount Vernon When You Invented the Electoral College?

Click to expand...

While somewhat clumsily worded, the amendment is just fine. It specifically talks about the right of the “people” (not persons) to keep and bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. And in fact it was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that the right applies to individuals for self-defense of their homes. I think the founders would look at mass school shootings with weapons of mass destruction and say, “Are you people nuts? Do you really imagine we intended this?”

Shadowy Man said:

First one in to say Idiocracy.

That’s the correct answer, right?

Click to expand...

Idiocracy was very funny, but I objected to the premise, which is that low-income hoi-polloii breeded indiscriminately while the educated prosperous elites failed to have enough children, thus leading to dumbing down the population. This is completely biologically inaccurate, as well as implicitly racist and classist.

The thing about the second amendment is, we do have well-regulated state militias — they are called national guards. Arguably if the founders could appear today, they would say, “That is what we intended — not that a bunch of individual people outside of militias should have arms, and especially not weapons of mass destruction,” which of course did not exist back then.

That said, back then, most people did in fact own arms, but it was from their ranks that the well-regulated militias were intended to be formed.

With the weapons available in 1776, a single individual gained almost nothing by posession of a firearm, in terms of self defence.

If you were set upon by a mob, and had an eighteenth century pistol or long gun, then (if it was already loaded, and if the powder was still in good condition, and if the flint or pyrite wasn't excessively worn), you might kill or injure one of your assailants, and if those assailants were concerned that the sound of the shot might summon reinforcements, or were not expecting any resistance, the shot might scare the rest of them away.

As an individual, a far better defensive weapon choice would be a sword, or even a dagger.

C18th firearms were only really useful as a collective defense - you needed at least a few armed men to put up a continuous fire, with each taking turns to fire while his allies reloaded.

The idea that a lone gunman could achieve anything more than a single kill, before being rushed and defeated, was unthinkable to anyone in the C18th - So they didn't think about it.

Multi-shot guns, or even breech loading guns able to be re-loaded quickly, simply didn't exist, so legislating for the use of firearms by individuals (not acting in concert with others in a well-regulated fashion) would have been senseless, and suggesting that there was intent to formulate such legislation (whether as a constitutional right or otherwise) is a foolish example of presentism - the ascribing to historical figures knowledge that simply did not exist in their time.

The rugged self-defense by a single armed individual of his person, his family, his country, and his very freedom, is a 1930s myth, based on a Hollywood mangling of 1830s history (when Colt's revolver suddenly made a lone gunman into a practical possibility).

The authors of the Second Amendment were absolutely certain not to be thinking about this myth from 160 years in their future, based on an invention sixty years in the future, when they drafted that part of the Bill of Rights.

bilby said:

With the weapons available in 1776, a single individual gained almost nothing by posession of a firearm, in terms of self defence.

If you were set upon by a mob, and had an eighteenth century pistol or long gun, then (if it was already loaded, and if the powder was still in good condition, and if the flint or pyrite wasn't excessively worn), you might kill or injure one of your assailants, and if those assailants were concerned that the sound of the shot might summon reinforcements, or were not expecting any resistance, the shot might scare them away.

As an individual, a far better defensive weapon choice would be a sword, or even a dagger.

C18th firearms were only really useful as a collective defense - you needed at least a few armed men to put up a continuous fire, with each taking turns to fire while his allies reloaded.

The idea that a lone gunman could achieve anything more than a single kill, before being rushed and defeated, was unthinkable to anyone in the C18th - So they didn't think about it.

Multi-shot guns, or even breech loading guns able to be re-loaded quickly, simply didn't exist, so legislating for the use of firearms by individuals (not acting in concert with others in a well-regulated fashion) would have been senseless, and suggesting that there was intent to formulate such legislation (whether as a constitutional right or otherwise) is a foolish example of presentism - the ascribing to historical figures knowledge that simply did not exist in their time.

The rugged self-defense by a single armed individual of his person, his family, his country, and his very freedom, is a 1930s myth, based on a Hollywood mangling of 1830s history (when Colt's revolver suddenly made a lone gunman into a practical possibility).

The authors of the Second Amendment were absolutely certain not to be thinking about this myth from 160 years in their future, based on an invention sixty years in the future, when they drafted that part of the Bill of Rights.

Click to expand...

Right. So it’s clear that the Second Amendment meant militias only, and well-regulated ones at that. Plus, when they use the phrase “the people” this does not mean they were thinking of individual persons, but of people as groups. It has long been clear to me that the gun fondlers have gotten the second amendment entirely wrong, but our charming group of wackos on the 2008 SC said that, yup, it means individuals in their own private capacities — a reading at variance with the plain meaning of the actual text.

pood said:

our charming group of wackos on the 2008 SC said that, yup, it means individuals in their own private capacities — a reading at variance with the plain meaning of the actual text.

Click to expand...

Readings at variance with the plain meaning of actual text are all the rage at the corrupt SCOTUS. Keeping their voters ignorant, semi-literate and completely misinformed lets them do whatever the fuck will best feather their own nest.

How about Life of Brian?

I bet Franklin would love it.

The Emerald Forest

Elixir said:

The Emerald Forest

Click to expand...

Why?

Another thought: just to congratulate them on the first amendment, and to let them know the breadth of expression it allows, I'd show them a John Waters film, let's say, Pink Flamingos. After 95 minutes of watching Divine, David Lochary, Mink Stole, Edith Massey et al., engage in nonstop cursing, kidnapping, exhibitionism, mother/son fellatio, murder, and poop-eating, I believe you'd hear James Madison erupt in an 18th Century cuss-fest of his own. "Oh, sir! Sir, sir, sir!! Oh, fornicate!! You have poisoned my eyes! Oh, your mother, sir! Your mother, the fornicating hussy that she is, to have birthed you! Oh, my good sir!! Fornicate!!"
Downside: after Madison time-travelled back to 1789, the first amendment would have an extra clause inserted, inexplicable to the citizens of that day, excepting depictions of coprophilia from the free speech provision.

SLD said:

Supposing one or two of the founding fathers materialized in your living room. What movie would you show them and why?

You could pick a historical movie like Lincoln or The Longest Day to illustrate what has happened.

My pick would be Star Wars though, just for fun.

Click to expand...

John Adams: Mini Series- Season 1- Episode 1 - Part 1 - Join or Die

SLD said:

Elixir said:

The Emerald Forest

Click to expand...

Why?

Click to expand...

1) They’d be gobsmacked at how their magic touch could destroy a planet, and how good indigenous cultures are at co-ordinating with natural workings. It MIGHT give them second thoughts about their dominion as newbies.

Of course that impact would never be felt; they’d be so enraptured by the moving pictures that no message could get through, let alone a nuanced one.

2) it’s a good movie.

Team America: World Police. I just want to see their reaction.

pood said:

Shadowy Man said:

First one in to say Idiocracy.

That’s the correct answer, right?

Click to expand...

Idiocracy was very funny, but I objected to the premise, which is that low-income hoi-polloii breeded indiscriminately while the educated prosperous elites failed to have enough children, thus leading to dumbing down the population. This is completely biologically inaccurate, as well as implicitly racist and classist.

Click to expand...

I liked Office Space a lot more.