LAT: Man kills 2 Edison co-workers before turning gun on self

[spin]

126. I disagree of course. The anti-Federalists didn't lose the debate...

A compromise resulted in the Bill of Rights being added to the Constitution.

Federalists vs Anti-Federalists

In the beginning of our country, the United States of America, the original two parties who helped create the Constitution were the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Parties. Even then, our Founding Fathers, were separated into two factions who did not see eye to eye.

***snip***

The Anti-Federalists, also fought in the American Revolution, were pro what we now know as The Bill of Rights. They were mostly farmers and workers, not the prominent business owners. They were opposed to a strong nationalistic government. They opposed the originally drafted US Constitution, until the Bill of Rights were added as Amendments, insisting it made the National Government too strong and the ability to wield too much power over the States. They were pro very small national government involvement, have a national government for the sole purpose of giving other countries a way to reach the States and communicate with them with very little authority in order to preserve the sovereignty of the States. A very famous Anti-Federalist was Patrick Henry, who gave many speeches about freedom, liberty, and the hazards of having a national government. The Anti-Federalists did not want an authoritarian national government, fearing it would try and take away their rights including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". They wanted to maintain EVERY THING listed in the Bill of Rights. Why they diligently fought to have it added to the original US Constitution as the first set of Amendments.
http://aliciaharrell.hubpages.com/hub/Federalists-vs-Anti-Federalists]

I don't include you in the group of people who wish to ban and confiscate firearms but feel you do fit into the group who wishes to impose draconian restrictions on honest gun owners which do accomplish little or nothing in the effort to reduce gun violence. "Feel good" laws are as effective as pointing a fire extinguisher at the flames rather than the base of the fire. Please correct me if I put you in the wrong group.

One of the most unfortunate things about the times when the Constitution was ratified was that outlawing slavery was politically impossible. Many of the Founders opposed slavery.

Constitutional Topic: Slavery

***snip***

Patrick Henry, the great Virginian patriot, refused to attend the Convention because he "smelt a rat," was outspoken on the issue, despite his citizenship in a slave state. In 1773, he wrote, "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, which, famously, declares that "all men are created equal," wrote, "There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him." Alas, like many Southerners, Jefferson held slaves, as many as 223 at some points in his life. His family sold his slaves after his death, in an effort to relieve the debt he left his estate in.

In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, George Washington wrote, "[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view to emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it." Washington and his wife held over 300 slaves. He wrote in his will that he'd wished to free his slaves, but that because of intermarriage between his and Martha's slaves, he feared the break-up of families should only his slaves be freed. He directed that his slaves be freed upon her death. His will provided for the continued care of all slaves, paid for from his estate.

The great American scientist and publisher Benjamin Franklin held several slaves during his lifetime. He willed one of them be freed upon his death, but Franklin outlived him. In 1789, he said, "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

And of course I totally disagree with your view:

These far-right justices are using the fears of anti-Federalists to make a Federal decision is political interpretation, not grounded in the Constitution or the compromise which the Bill of Rights represents. It is historicism at its worst. The consistent distortion of the intent of the Founders intention in this regard is sophistry.

I instead feel that the more liberal judges on the Supreme Court are doing exactly what you accuse the "far right" judges of. I strongly believe that the majority view of the court on the recent cases involving firearms is firmly based on history and the original meaning of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

In passing, an interesting side note on history is that:

The term Anti-Federalist was later applied to the emerging political faction headed by Thomas Jefferson during the administration of George Washington. This faction would become known as both the Republican Party and the Democratic-Republican Party and later evolve into the Democratic Party.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h374.html

If anything the Democratic Party which has a reputation of supporting the common man should be the party that supports RKBA and the Republican party which is known for its support of the rich and the big corporations should be the party that wishes to take firearms from the average citizen. (By the way, I feel that in actuality the Republicans do present a greater risk to gun ownership than the Democrats. Witness the last few years of the Obama administration.)