Looking for someone to thank for the Bill of Rights?
Look to the folks who opposed the Constitution of the United States as it was written - the Anti-Federalists.
They have a lesson for us all today.
ANTIFEDERALISTS
The Antifederalists were persons who opposed ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787-1788. This group had been known during the Revolution as Federalists, because they favored a federation of relatively autonomous states rather than the more centralized system advocated by the Nationalists. During the debate over the Constitution, however, the Nationalists began calling themselves Federalists and their opponents became known as Antifederalists.
The Antifederalists conceded that the central government needed more power than it had under the Articles of Confederation, but they argued that the Framers of the Constitution had gone too far, giving the president too much power, setting up federal courts that would encroach on the more responsive local system, and creating a Congress so small that it would exclude humbler officeholders and make it difficult for politicians really to know or represent their large constituencies. In the end, they predicted, the state governments would wither away, leaving a national government so removed from local conditions that it would have to rule by force rather than consent. In seeking to insulate national decision making from the tyranny of local majorities, the Antifederalists argued, the Framers had opened the door to another kind of tyranny, in which centralized power would be expanded and abused.
The Antifederalists seem to have had about the same number of adherents as the Federalists, but they were weak in urban areas and as a group had far less influence and political sophistication. Also, they were in the difficult position of acknowledging the need for changes in the Articles of Confederation while objecting to the particular changes proposed. Finally, partly by luck and partly through the Federalists' skill, eight states (out of the necessary nine) had already ratified the Constitution by the time the states controlled by the Antifederalists began their debates. In the end, only Rhode Island and North Carolina voted against ratification. The one point on which the Antifederalists prevailed was the need for a set of constitutional amendments to guarantee individual liberties; their arguments helped ensure the prompt passage of the Bill of Rights soon after the new Congress convened.
...In his book That Every Man Be Armed, constitutional scholar Stephen P. Halbrook demonstrates that, during the drafting of the Second Amendment, what worried the Framers most was the danger that our own government might run amok.
The Framers differed only in their opinions on how best to counter this threat. The Federalists claimed that the problem would solve itself, since the militia - consisting of all able-bodied men, ages 16 through 60 - would overthrow any tyranny that arose.
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword," argued Noah Webster, "because the whole body of the people are armed..."
The anti-Federalists, however, pointed out that Congress could disband the general militia and replace it with a "select militia", loyal only to the government. "When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed," warned John Smilie at the Pennsylvania convention.
To prevent this from happening, the anti-Federalists demanded a Bill of Rights, which would guarantee, among other things, an unalienable right to keep and bear arms. "The great object is that every man be armed...," declared Patrick Henry. "Everyone who is able may have a gun." Congress would thus be powerless to disband the militia...