The Founders and Gun control

I read today Justice Breyer stating the Founder wanted Gun Control ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns/ ) His contention is regards to Madison whom he states as saying, "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison,". Justice Breyer's assertion is that Madison was only wanting to get the Constitution ratified (Madison was very concerned about this) and he was willing to do what was needed to do it (This slaps history's senses in the face).

Their are two huge problems with Breyer's assertion.
1. Madison initially felt the Bill of rights was unneeded. So if we are to use Breyer's logic, should the whole Bill of Rights be disregarded because Madison did not believe it was needed? Madison became the Father of the Bill of Rights (with George Mason), not because he believed them necessary, but because both his State REQUIRED it for their approval of the Constitution, as did several other States.

2. One man did not Ratify the Bill of rights. Even though he was very instrumental in the drafting, it still took 2/3 of each brach and 3/4 of the States to Ratify them. It matters what THEY felt they meant, not just a sole person.
Breyer also makes one more point, the single biggest which I think leads to the dismissal of his assertion, "Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms". Only a pragmatist who is willing to view the Constitution not for what it is, but what he thinks it should be, would ever think for second, that the Founding Founders thought they were granting the People any Rights, instead of what they were doing, which was Granting Rights Already solely possessed by the People to Government, for the sole purpose of protecting ALL of their rights.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#ixzz17vmxYmCK

General Welfare (Part 7) The Federalist presentation.

Following the Constitution Convention of 1787, the next order of business was to present the proposed Constitution to the States for ratification, and more importantly, convince a skeptical public that is should be ratified. From this two main groups formed, one called the Federalist with the other being the Anti-Federalist. Each wrote numerous Articles either for or against the Ratification of the Constitution. For the Federalist, the Federalist Papers are by far the most commonly known writings attributed to the Federalist, though other Pro-Federalist writings did also get published.

General Welfare (Part 6) The Anti-Federalist concern, limitless power.

Just as the Federalist Papers were written to encourage the ratification of the Constitution [New York in particular], the Anti-Federalist Papers were written either to oppose ratification, or delay ratification until certain and specific issues were addressed. Unlike the more commonly known Federalist Papers which were written by three individuals (James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay) and to principally the People of New York, the Anti-Federalist were written by a much larger group of individuals, including some who attended the Convention of 1787 but refused to sign the final document [the exact number is unknown due to the number of pseudonyms used] and they were written to the people of numerous states. The Anti-Federalist did not prevent even one State from eventually ratifying the Constitution, even Rhode Island who did not attend the Convention of 1787 ratified the Constitution on May 29, 1790. But the Anti-Federalist were perhaps the strongest force in causing a Bill of Rights to be required in exchange for their ratification, to secure individual and States Rights.

New Downloadable files added

The Following is a list of downloadable documents available on the Links & Downloads page.

Tolerance is accepting people are different than you.

If Tolerance is not the Social-Political “Catch Phrase” of the 21st Century, I do not know what is! Tolerate this, tolerate that, you have to tolerate this thing or situation. What is tolerance? The American Heritage Dictionary (4th Edition) defines tolerance as:

• “The capacity for respecting the beliefs or practices of others”