[beancounter13]

My ‘duh’ reference was to liberals thought process for removing 2A.

Since you have read so much: how did the Framers decide that they could ratify the new constitution with only 9 states when the then-current constitution (i.e. The Articles) specifically stated that changes had to be approved by ‘all the states’?

[PerConPat]

LOL...Maybe you should read more... James Madison in The Federalist #40: “...in all great changes of established governments, forms ought to give way to substance; that a rigid adherence in such cases to the former, would render nominal and nugatory the transcendent and precious right of the people to ‘abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

I am not trying to change your mind or tell you that your position is wrong. I don't fear a COS, especially if the state applications are structured to not allow for increases in federal power. I acknowledge that there is no guarantee that humans will abide by any document, including the Constitution itself. Who knows?

The Confederacy certainly was of the opinion that there was no need to concern itself with a "rigid adherence" to a formerly ratified laws, so I see your point of view. This discussion is made moot, IMO, by the final action by RI in 1790. Might have been a another matter if RI had refused to sign on the doted line.

I like Madison's take.