As much as I love Thomas Jefferson, and I do feel he always had the best interest of the country, I don't think he or any other founding father were deities on any level. Most of them were Masonic in nature and wanted to be free from British persecution mostly by the church of England. So the Freemasons were pretty much to come to the new land and live there.

The Freemason headquarters was in York England and when they were forced to move here it was in and still is as far as I know in New York, this is why one reason New York was so important during the revolution 28 of the signers of the constitution out of 40 were Freemasons or possible Freemasons based on evidence other than Lodge records.

I know it seems I digress but hang in there. The reason the Freemasons were named that way is because they were mainly concerned with freedom of religion which is what the church of England was to them, more of a threat to them. Thomas Jefferson had Masonic connections therefore was concerned with freedom of his friends as they were.

Most of the constitution is seen as freedoms as if they are absolute rights, but rights and freedoms are different in as much being free does not give you a right to own a slave which many of them did. You have to be responsible in being free but right is something everyone needs to exist as a human being. Which they pretty much didn't care much about seeing they own slaves.

Having said all this Thomas Jefferson was worried about these freedoms simply because they did not protect the freedoms but the power freedom gave the government which was given the ability to decide what this freedom meant. Hence the the Sedition Act of 1798, 1918 that was revised for WW II and by Obama and Bush for the war on terror.

Both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams ( who was confirmed Freemason) had a difference of opinion on what freedom meant. John Adams believed in capitalist society where Jefferson on a trade type society (which I have no idea how that would work.) I believe Jefferson thought a capitalist society would lead to tyranny because of the golden rule which this case 'he who has the gold rules'. Gun freedoms had nothing to do with it, more like freedom of speech.

Hence the quote you have way up above. I know its complicated but nothing they did was well understood or we would not need Supreme Court to interpret it for everyone or maybe if the constitution had been written with better clarity we would not even need them to. But only because they made freedoms sound like rights which they are not.