03-15-2018, 05:00 PM
Federalist argument was Bill of Rights were unnecessary because it was inferred (either by limiting the power of federal government to delegated authorities - which, btw, was terribly naive, or the populace would rise up in arms).
Anti-Federalist argument was Bill of Rights were necessary because governments are made up of men, who are inherently corrupt (cynical, yet completely true and born out by history).
The Federalist v Anti-Federalist debates raged in half the states' conventions as well. In the states that actually had meaningful discussions on 2A, there were three main reasons given for the right to bear arms: 1. Self defense; 2. Defense of community/state/country (to include against oppressive government); 3. Hunting
For nearly the first hundred years, there really wasn't much disagreement on what 2A meant. The first SCOTUS case directly on 2A was in 1876 (Cruikshank).
Anti-Federalist argument was Bill of Rights were necessary because governments are made up of men, who are inherently corrupt (cynical, yet completely true and born out by history).
The Federalist v Anti-Federalist debates raged in half the states' conventions as well. In the states that actually had meaningful discussions on 2A, there were three main reasons given for the right to bear arms: 1. Self defense; 2. Defense of community/state/country (to include against oppressive government); 3. Hunting
For nearly the first hundred years, there really wasn't much disagreement on what 2A meant. The first SCOTUS case directly on 2A was in 1876 (Cruikshank).
LIFE member: NRA, TSRA, SAF, GOA
Defend the Constitution and our 2A Rights!
Defend the Constitution and our 2A Rights!