A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America

Slaughter divides The Whiskey Rebellion into three principal sections entitled Context, Chronology, and Consequence. The first section begins with a comprehensive assessment of the anti-excise tradition which follows late seventeenth-century British philosophy and traces its progression from Walpole's excise battle in 1733, through the Stamp Act crisis of 1764 and on through the Anti-Federalist account of the tax provisions of the Constitution of 1787. In the second section, Slaughter details the debate over the excise, its implementation and the outbreak of both peaceful and violent opposition to it; opposition that occurred not only in Pennsylvania but along the entire frontier. In his final section, and with a trace of personal bias, Slaughter describes the outbreak of violence in the summer of 1794 for which he holds John Neville largely accountable. Slaughter continues in the final section with Hamilton and Washington deciding to make an example of western Pennsylvania despite the fact that the excise had gone uncollected all along the frontier, and the Watermelon Army fiasco which the Federalists

Shay’s Rebellion was a movement where farmers created an army to try and stop the court from taking their land and leaving them in debt. This rebellion ended in the people deciding they wanted to form a new, stronger government. This stronger government would be capable of controlling the states whenever they threatened commercial property. Since the whole union formed together to help and support the farmers, this put a toll on Congress. Since Shay’s Rebellion occurred, the government has been much stronger and easier to work

People believed that “the right to bear arms is the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanction of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”. On the opposite hand, many states at the time believed that to give the people the right to own a gun was unconstitutional because it could be a threat for the state government when everyone was allowed to own guns. Majority of states in America did not want to add the right to bear arms into their state constitution, because there was not a single legal model emerged on how to protect them in the first constitutions drafted by our Founding Fathers. The debate between gun control and non-gun control over the right to bear arms alarmed America. The gun control claimed that the right to bear arms is the basic right that people should have in order for American citizens to defense themselves and for their state.; They believed that the laws prohibiting individuals from carrying firearms only work for the benefit of criminals. On the opposite hand, anti-gun controllers believed that those gun owners should be led by gentlemen of the first fortune and character, because the society without the guidance of gentlemen, those gun controllers’ population might easily become a mob and not a well-regulated militia. After reviewing many opinions from both sides as well as the benefits and effectiveness of the rights, the convention agreed and

In the Unites States of America Federalism is the basic structure of the American government; it is the distribution and balance of powers between the National government and the States government. In order to obtain a compromise between those who wanted stronger state government and those who preferred a stronger national government the founding fathers arranged and settled for a federal system rather than the alternatives of a unitary or confederal system. While both National and State governments each have specific powers and authority, they also share certain powers and must be able to cooperate effectively with each other.

In offering alternative interpretations of the origins of the Constitution, the author accomplishes his secondary purpose, to make the reader challenge what they know about the framing of the Constitution. Holton details the rebellion of the “Unruly Americans” against the state and national governments, using Adonijah Mathews as an ultimate example of the “common man.” Mathews’ views are presented in order to contrast the views of James Madison, whom it seems the author

The Whiskey Rebellion was a revolt of settlers in western Pennsylvania in 1794 against a federal excise tax on whiskey then, suppressed by militia called out by President George Washington to establish the authority of the federal government. The main cause of the Whiskey Rebellion was because of the placement of the tax on the domestic goods, This is known to be the first tax placed on a domestic goods in the new world. Due to the rebellion many outcomes became, two of the main outcomes were the power demonstration and the lost in federalist support. First, the government was able to demonstrate the power showing the people that they had the power to stop the rebellions and any action of the rebellions, with the people noticing that the government can withhold the rebellions they are least likely to revolt again. Also, with George Washington sending in the militia the federalist who does not believe in the ideas of why he sent in the militia, there was a massive lost of federalist

The title of this article corresponds with Vandercoy’s intentions of explaining the history behind the second amendment, and why it is important to the United States’ foundation. Going back to medieval times, England did not have an organized army

Wayne LaPierre, a gun rights advocate and executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Gun control is laws that regulate the sale and possession of firearms. These laws have become a more prominent discussion due to crime, and they attempt to reduce violence. Many countries have some sort of gun control, but the United States have different rules for each state. The United Kingdom have some of the strictest firearm laws. Guns in America are a constitutional right, increase personal safety, and decrease crime.

In the book “Shays’ Rebellion: Authority and Distress in Post-revolutionary America”, Sean Condon shows us his outlook on how he saw post-revolutionary America to be within the late 1770’s and 1780’s. This book was released in 2015 by John Hopkins University Press, and was also made in a continuing book series by Peter Charles Hoffer and Willamjames Hull Hofer called Witness to History. The story takes us "Throughout the late summer and fall of 1786, farmers in central and western Massachusetts organized themselves into armed groups to protest against established authority and aggressive creditors. Calling themselves "regulators" or the "voice of the people.”” [1] Condon succeeds by prosing an appealing idea in an upfront style that shapes

In a world where there will always be constant opposition, humanity must learn to use it as a weapon rather than a weakness. The stronger an individual or in this case a nation is, the more challenges and trials one must face. As the federal government’s power increased, the more rebellion and revolution surfaced. Many will say that the more power equaled less problems. However, that is simply untrue, because someone will always have to make a choice, like how as long as there is strength in this world, there will be a vulnerability to overcome. For example, the Whiskey Rebellion and the Nullification Crisis were determining factors of how opposition will come as long as there is power in the midst. Therefore, these two specific historical markers help show the true colors of a nation through the motives and effectiveness of federal power and constant opposition. In every abyss of darkness, there will be a light to shine through and break that barrier. History is what makes the world’s character as well the inhabitants that remain within. The Whiskey Rebellion was a way for people who appear as commoners to finally take a stand against the government, especially Alexander Hamilton’s taxes that were being put into place. Which brings the other tipping point, which is known as the Nullification Crisis, it gave the federal government a wake-up call, for it showed no matter how much power increased, there will always be a voice out there ready to be heard. And the Nullification

The Articles of Confederation was a loose “league of friendship” between the thirteen colonies that would create a confederation in contrast to Great Britain 's unitary system. While the Articles of Confederation helped establish a systemic role in trying to unify many of the states under a weak central government, it later created many more problems than solutions. One of them being that Congress had no ability to propose taxes to deal with war debts and running the government. Another weakness was that Congress did not have the ability to regulate commerce among states and foreign nations which hurt Congress’s credibility. One of the most considerable weaknesses of Congress under the Articles of Confederation was its failure to provide for a strong central government. The Articles of Confederation was created to not compare with the totalitarian regime of the British and made sure of not creating a strong central government. The problem was that without a strong central government it eliminated all sovereignty that the central government had, giving increased sovereignty to states which lead to increased chaos. It is seen that Shays Rebellion was that nail in the coffin of The Articles. Lead by David Shay a group of farmers who had served in the Continental Army marched to Springfield, Massachusetts to stop the state court from foreclosing on the veterans farms. Congress’s failure in being able to formulate a militia and stop the disgruntled farmers was the end of The

     The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 helped bring about the demise of the aristocratic Federalist Government in favor of the democratic Republican Government, concerned with the needs of all of its citizens.

After Shay’s Rebellion and the nation on the brink of bankruptcy it was clear that the Articles of Confederation would not be adequate to preserve the nation. So began the great battle for the balance between order and freedom. The main point of dispute between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in the battle over the ratification of the Constitution surrounded the question of what powers and rights were required in order to insure the security and liberty of the nation. The Federalists advocated that a strong central government was needed, which was supported by the failure of the Articles of Confederation. However the Anti-Federalists were determined on keeping the sovereignty of the states and by doing so also retaining their secured political freedom.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” A gun license grants a user the right to own and use a firearm. Gun-right supporters strongly oppose federally mandated licensing or registration. They see both as dangerous steps toward revoking Second Amendment rights. They say that with mandated licensing or registration, a right guaranteed by the Constitution becomes a privilege granted by the government (Doeden). The topic of gun control/rights in the United States has a long history, which some see as unconstitutional, and could easily be relaxed by requiring background checks.

Anti-Federalists, as proponents of states’ rights asserted on a dissent that no law should be passed for disarming the people, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals. One Federalist in response to the opposition asserted that “no nation could survive without an effective military, and that there was little danger to be apprehended from such a force when it was controlled by the government in which the people enjoyed full representation” (Cornell 45). Hence, the vast exposure of arms and the easiness to obtain them was jeopardy to the liberty and the safety of the new country. Once people had the right to bear and keep arms for self-defense, they were willing to fight for what they believed and their rights using arms if necessary. For example, the Whiskey Rebellion, a riot caused by the taxes imposed on whiskey and affected farmers from Pennsylvania and Kentucky, was a radical response that the population adhered against the government because they felt that that was their right. A group of farmers decided to oppose the tax imposed on whiskey by force of arms. It stopped being a simple protest and became an armed riot. An armed population out of the control of the government is a Hazard. This idea came up because they were able to possess arms and use them if