16 Jul '11 12:19>2 edits
Originally posted by KunsooThere was no discussion of the 2nd Amendment at the Constitutional Convention. Guess why?
Well, that's a different argument.
However, in law, every word in a statute or constitutional provision is presumed to have purpose, meaning, and effect. And of all of the Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, the Second is the only one containing an explanatory preamble. The law cannot presume that it's an accident. There must be a reason.
The that, although it appears that nunchuks are protected even if switch blades are not.
Madison didn't believe ANY of the Bill of Rights were necessary even though he wrote them. So perusing his language in them with a fine tooth comb to discern their meaning is a bizarre pastime.
This article gives a good overview of why the Convention thought a Bill of Rights unnecessary, perhaps dangerous and clearly contrary to the philosophy of the Framers: http://www.claremont.org/repository/doclib/James%20Madison%20and%20the%20Framing.pdf
Objections in some of the State ratification conventions to the lack of a Bill of Rights made it politically expedient to include one with Madison's innovative 9th Amendment clarifying that rights exist separate from any written declaration of them. Alas, this amendment has been almost completely ignored and the mass of people and seemingly the majority of judges believe we have rights because the Bill of Rights or other parts of the Constitution "gave" them to us. The Framers would be appalled at such a proposition.