posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 07:10 PM
Oh oh oh ho. Madisons writings which OPs deal had to do with were not "personal diary or biography". They were the records of his
public discorse.....it was public writen arguments on the same that later became law of the land....no diff than what the SCOTUS heads write down
about a case. You are igno-rant.
For crying out loud, here we go again! Are gun advocates deliberately misunderstanding, or are they actually this thick?
What part of Madison's public discourses have congress passed or the senate ratified? The constitution is as it is. The 2nd amendment is written the
way it is, not written by one individual, nor was it written in one sitting, it was re-written many times before it passed into constitutional
law...you know why?
Whatever the text of the constitution was to finally say, it had to pass the approval of all the framers of the consitution, not one or two them...ALL
OF THEM! Which is why it doesn't represent the personal thoughts and hopes of any particular framer, alone. After that, it had then to be ratified by
all the representatives of the then current number of states, which meant some adjustments needed to be made to what was written before they would
agree to it.
The text of the constitution stands now as it was written. The argument really isn't about what it says, but whether or not it represents modern
society, which it blatantly doen't, because it pertains to the 18th century, and not the 21st...it really is a relic that needs updating. If you are
going to update it, you can therefore argue the case for the right of the individual to bears arms, that's entirely your choice. If modern society
wants that, I have no problem with it, one goes with the majority vote, but if it doesn't want it, then the right for the individual to bears arms
will be denied. Instead of arguing interpretation, put your case forward and get it into the contemporary version of the consitution so that it
doesn't need interpreting or arguing what it actually means.