08-26-2019, 04:18 AM
Has anyone here studied the "Founding Fathers" enough to have a feeling about how THEY viewed the Constitution? Did they expect that it would be a living document, continually changing, or did they ever expect that parts of it like the 2A would be considered essentially sacred? I wonder how many of the would be surprised that their document has lasted this long?
It seems that the writers of the US Constitution liked using flowery yet technically uncompromising terms like "unalienable rights" with the tacit assumption that common sense would be applied. This goes back to the point that if the RKBA is an absolute right, then arms could not be taken away from criminals in prison or the insane. To that, the writers would certainly respond "don't be silly, use your head, man." That is one reason that it is so difficult to interpret the Constitution for a world they could not have imagined.
It seems that the writers of the US Constitution liked using flowery yet technically uncompromising terms like "unalienable rights" with the tacit assumption that common sense would be applied. This goes back to the point that if the RKBA is an absolute right, then arms could not be taken away from criminals in prison or the insane. To that, the writers would certainly respond "don't be silly, use your head, man." That is one reason that it is so difficult to interpret the Constitution for a world they could not have imagined.