We are haunted by the actions of the Founding Fathers.\u00a0\u00a0They have left us a legacy, the \u201cwonder\u201d of the Constitution.\u00a0\u00a0Their diverse group, from plantation owners and Boston merchants; lawyers, doctors and bankers; aged philosophers and young stars; found a path to compromise.\u00a0\u00a0They also found a way to establish a long lasting experiment that survived civil war, the industrial revolution, and growth into a world power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They spent May to September, the long hot summer of Philadelphia in 1787. No one likes August in Philadelphia, but they recognized that if they didn\u2019t fix the government, the United States would no longer be. Our nation would become a series of squabbling states, probable prey to European expansion. Their hot work in Philadelphia saved the American dream.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But it wasn\u2019t over when they left for home in September. There was fear that the rights of Americans hadn\u2019t been explained. The conventioneers came from the tradition of English Common Law, believing that those protections were inherent, a part of the \u201cself-evident truths\u201d that Jefferson espoused in the Declaration of Independence. They were afraid that delineating those rights would serve to limit them: if they said a \u201cright to this\u201d but didn\u2019t mention \u201cthat,\u201d then \u201cthat\u201d was not protected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But those who feared the power of a central government more than any other threat demanded a \u201cBill of Rights.\u201d They wanted clear delineation of what the government COULD NOT do, and they wouldn\u2019t ratify the Constitution without it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So the Founders wrote and ratified the first ten amendments, mostly clarifying the limits of the new Federal government. For example, our \u201cSchool House Rock\u201d education of the First Amendment says Americans were guaranteed five freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. But that\u2019s not really what the First says. In part it states: \u201c\u2026Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion\u2026or abridging freedom of speech or of the press\u2026\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It was a prohibition on Congress, and through that body, the Federal government as a whole. We already had those freedoms; this was simply a further statement protecting all citizens from an overreaching Federal government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Founders, and particularly the actual authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights who put pen to paper, were men of the Enlightenment. They believed in the power of the written word, and they understood that both law and government could hinge on the placement and order of each sentence. Nothing was \u201cleft to chance,\u201d nor written carelessly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Second Amendment was written in clear language:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Our \u201cSchool House Rock\u201d version is \u201cthe right to bear arms.\u201d But that\u2019s not the clearly stated wording in the Amendment. The Founders simply did not say that. They included the opening clause, demanding a \u201cwell regulated militia\u201d to protect our \u201cfree state.\u201d So what did that mean, then; and what application does that have today?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Second Amendment was not written about hunting, or gun sports. The Second Amendment was written in fear of a national standing army. Americans in 1787 had a clear memory of the British Army enforcing the will of the King on the American people. More than half of the Declaration of Independence delineates those abuses. Many were so concerned about the threat of tyranny a powerful Federal government represented, that they did not want the sheer force a national Army added to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, in this sense, the \u201cSecond Amendment crazies\u201d are right. Those who pressured for the Second Amendment in 1787 were worried about an overreaching Federal Government; they wanted a counter force to the National government and its Army. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But the counter force was not about individuals keeping weapons of war under their beds or in their closets. The language of the Amendment makes it clear what the Founders intended: \u201cA well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State\u2026\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Battle of Lexington and Concord, the \u201cShot Heard \u2018Round the World;\u201d happened when the British Army was out searching for weapons stores and met armed resistance. \u201cWeapons stores and well regulated militias\u201d are not the same as having a weapon of war at home. The Founders would not have accepted someone having personal \u201ccannons.\u201d Artillery was for the well-regulated militias controlled by the state governments. Today we would call that the National Guard, organized by the States. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Founding Fathers did not envision every citizen as a personal army. In fact, they would have seen that as an ultimate form of anarchy. They wanted to balance the power of the Federal Government with that of the States. When we argue, again, about the power of our personal weapons, we need to be clear what the authors of the Second Amendment intended. They balanced personal freedom with controls. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We cannot afford to do less.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A Balance of Power<\/h3>\n\n\n\n