Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah_W
I think it's important to look at our history prior to 1787 and what led up to the writing of the Constitution. Arguably the path was set with the Stamp Act of 1765, converging in Concord and Lexington in 1775 as the British moved to disarm Americans. Our Revolutionary War lasted 8 years and they were very hard desperate years. As Patrick Henry famously said, "I know not what path others may take, but for me, give me Liberty or give me Death.". That sentence sums up our quest for Independence and self-determination. John Dickinson's name has been lost to history for most Americans, but his importance for his time can't be understated. He wrote the grievances to King George, which are delineated in our Declaration of Independence, as well as the Articles of Confederation. But, after eight years of governing this new nation under the Articles it was clear it didn't work and needed to be fixed.
In 1787, 12 of the 13 states sent delegates to Philadelphia with one directive, fix the Articles. It was clear they were not authorized to do anything else. The debates ensued and it didn't take long for them to recognize that the Articles were not salvageable. The debates continued and they drafted the Constitution. Individual citizens Rights were not included.
I think the heart of the matter, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, comes to Federalism versus Anti-Federalism. I can really appreciate that they were able to work together to create our Freedom documents. I think we can all understand that surviving eight years of war with the most powerful government and most powerful military of their time might leave them resistant to create another government that might oppress them some day (Anti-Federalists). We can also understand the need of having a strong government and global presence (Federalists). The leading Federalists, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams and more did not want a Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry, Daniel Webster, Thomas Jefferson, did not want a strong central government and fought for a Bill of Rights to be included.
It is not difficult to get into the hearts and minds of our Founding Fathers. So much of it is documented. James Madison knew they were doing historic work and transcribed all of their debates. They can be read in a bound book that is 600 type written pages. There are other books on the debates. We have the writings of John Dickinson, Joseph Story, Daniel Webster and so many more. Between 1776 and 1826, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote 1,250 letters to each other. Today that is three volumes.
Knowing that their government sought to disarm them; knowing that they fought eight long years against their government for Independence from oppressive government agendas; and knowing that absolute power corrupts absolutely, I understand the need to enshrine certain Rights with the goal of never having the same oppression. It was required that all 13 states ratify the new Constitution and it took 10 of 13 to pass the Amendments. The Framers heard the message loud and clear that it would not get ratified if the Individual Rights were not included. Madison presented 19 Amendment to the House, to appease the Anti-Federalists. The House presented 17 Amendments to the Senate who paired them down to 12, rewriting some before sending them to the states. The States approved 10 of the Amendments which became our Bill of Rights. One of the Amendments that allowed Congress to give themselves a raise remained unpassed until 1992 when it became our 27th Amendment.
So, I totally understand the very important need to keep and bear arms from the perspective of our Founding Fathers if only for the need to once again face off with an oppressive government. Having arms for the purpose of hunting and self-defense would not even have been a debate or conversation in 1787, it would have been a given, as simply common sense. As I've mentioned, I have nearly 70 books in my library devoted on the Constitution. Personally, I think I am in between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
|
Thank you for that excellent summary. I agree with you, and every thing you said. I do think, from my own readings that there was a lot of "closed door" compromises with slavery, rights, and more - and they all knew it would require compromises on both sides. I also believe they included the ability to modify the constitution specify so changes could be made after the bare minimum they could get passed was actually passed.
---
I have NO desire to do away with gun ownership, as a practical matter and as a "it doesn't really matter" matter. Responsible good people use guns responsibly. Duh. It is the minority of bad actors that causes everyone else to suffer.
I call it my "speed bump theory" of social engineering.
That goes like this, shopping centers have to slow down the few reckless speeders that are endangering the stores customers and driving their insurance through the roof. The responsible people are driving carefully, and not causing any problems. But that small minority races through the parking lot. So, enter speed bumps. It slows down the responsible customers, it even causes damage to the but - but it works enough (not perfect but good enough) to make the insurance company happy, and so we all are punished because of the actions of the few. Eventually, most people drive slowly (social engineered) enough to be "safe" in the parking lots - with or with out the speed bumps.
Sounds to me kind of like the situation we are in with guns. The problem is, how do we solve the problem without punishing the responsible people...
Again, thank you, you seem to be a voice of reason and knowledge in a field of anger and chaos. I look forward to learning more from you.