Firearms

[Shell B]

I'd rather not get into the current argument, but I would like to point out that it's part of the Bill of Rights, which weren't really amendments to correct anything from the Constitution, but more just to put certain politicans (and the people) at ease.

No, no. Please, no. Amendments are not 'amendments' in the typical sense of the word. They are all additions. Few actually amend anything in the U.S. Constitution. However, the Bill of Rights was correcting the lack of attention to personal rights that was seen in the original document. It was a known fault before it was even ratified. In fact, at least two delegates to the Constitutional Convention that I know of refused to sign the document because it did not contain these amendments. Yes, it did appease some people, but it was certainly a necessary correction. It may not be flawless, but it was absolutely necessary.

Many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were already freedoms felt by the American people,

Yes, and exercised. However, the U.S. Constitution gave the President undefined power, which gives the office a shitload of wiggle room. It gave the Federal Government a shitload of power without enough state power, etc. Those rights had to be defined because there was a new government with the power to take them away. The way to ensure they did not? Rights.

but politicians like Jefferson, for example, demanded that the Bill of Rights be made just to protect our liberties in any potential future attack on them.

Thomas Jefferson may have stamped his famous name on the fight, but I wish more people would mention George Mason and Virginia in these discussions.

At any rate, none of this really contradicts anything anyone has said here. Inherent rights or new rights, it is irrelevant.