This is getting off track a bit, but I'm compelled to respond that you're maligning the founders a lot, as pointed out by Chromers in his later post regarding "presentism." It's incorrect to describe the nation's founding as an attempt to preserve the status quo when the over-arching act was to change from a royal monarchy to a democratic republic, fully noting that the democracy was reserved to white men who owned property. It's only reasonable and fair to evaluate the development of the Constitution in the context of its time in history.
The founders studied the forms of government of all the most advanced nations in the known world at that time to come up with our form of government. While some of the founders were more enlightened about the moral reprehensiveness of slavery than others, it's only fair to note that slavery had been culturally common and accepted for all of known human history. The idea that slavery isn't appropriate was still a pretty new idea. Similarly, women being the property of men had been a long held cultural attribute as well. To expect the founders to be way ahead of their time on every human issue would be both unreasonable and unreal.
In addition to forming a new and independent republic, I think it's critical to note that the most pressing issue on the founders' minds was national security as a free nation and not slavery and women's rights. The concern for national security - expecting that they could be invaded and conquered by England, France, or Spain - pressured the founders to form a union of all the newly free states for strength, rather than 13 small independent sovereign states or some lesser number of small nations that would be weaker than a nation of the full 13. This is important because it was the driving reason for the numerous compromises that were made with respect to the new Constitution. In order to get "buy in" from all 13 states we got the continuation of slavery and the way a state's population is counted for the purpose of determining the number of its members to the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. No one conceived of a future state called Wyoming, but they were well aware that states with small populations would have disproportionate representation in Congress. And that the reason was so that New York, with its large population wouldn't be calling all the shots as national governance proceeded.
The founders did not turn a blind eye to slavery. Those opposed to it choose to accept it as a necessary compromise to achieve the more important objective of a national unity. I think you already know that the objective was not to form a "perfect union," but rather to form "a more perfect union." I think the result speaks for itself. We have a framework for governance in the Constitution, a document that accommodates change through amendment. Amendment is arduous and difficult. Your later post suggests that was deliberate to maintain the status quo - presumably of slavery and women as property. Reading the Federalist Papers suggest that it is to prevent rapid and radical changes from being made willy nilly by the sure to happen idiot members of government that we would elect from time to time. I admit that it also makes important and necessary changes very difficult at times, to wit: the Equal Rights Amendment was approved by Congress over 40 years ago, and the necessary quorum of states never did ratify it. Obviously it's critical for some of our states to prevent women from enjoying equal rights, but I digress.
Lastly, I don't disagree that Alito is a religious kook, but he's the same justice who pointed out that the 2A right is both a state and an individual right. And he further held that the 2A, like all rights of citizens is subject to reasonable regulation, like when W.O. Douglas pointed out that the 1A doesn't not include the right to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
All of which brings me back to the current House and Senate bills. Are these "reasonable" regulations necessary and do they unreasonably "infringe" on the individual right to keep and bear arms? At the moment I'm thinking that these bills are over reach and a better alternative was mentioned in a post yesterday. Leave things as they are with respect to nearly all firearms, shotguns, rifles, and pistols. But require a permit to purchase and own an AR or AR style rifle/carbine. This, along with universal background checks and a 3 - 10 day waiting period, would not prohibit the ownership of such a firearm, but would contribute to a significant reduction in their acquisition by the felons and mentally impaired people that shouldn't have them. And that should be the desired outcome, IMO.
www.history.com
