...and you are saying what? That even though these statements (which are given here implying that it was common practise but without documentation so I am accepting them for the sake of the arguement) go against the clear language of the Constitution, that it was a good thing?
Did our nation immediately, upon adopting the constitutiopn, change over to fully complying with it? or did it take time? Clearly, it took time and we are better for it.
That does not mean that violating the constitution is a good, or proper thing...it just means that that is the way it rolled out.
Based on your statement, and your reasoning as you are apllying it to the second amendment, you could equally then apply that same reasoning to justify today that whole list of items that you just mentioned. Would you? Do you?
If not, then my statement to you is that you cannot have it both ways. If you would, well, then at least you are consistant, but, at least from my own perspective and IMHO, still wrong.
No, that it was a constitutional thing.
The Founders created a federated republic, meaning that each state was autonomous as to the rights they protected and the laws they wrote. A citizen was free to move to another state if they were unhappy with either.
If a state wanted to prohibit flag burning they could, without some centralized government telling them they couldn't because it was protected "speech". It that a bad thing? If a state allowed a prayer at high school graduations, is that a bad thing?
The 14th amendment destroyed federalism. The Bill of Rights now mean what five justices say it means. If they say nude dancing is "protected speech", but political ads 60 days before an election are not, then all 50 states must comply.
And you want these same justices to define your second amendment rights?
No, it is used as evidence to show that from the beginning that the states were not bound by the Bill of Rights.
Again, many cases made it to the supreme court during the first 50 years after the ratification of the constitution - it's not like it took 150 years for anyone to bring a case before the court.
Check out Barron v Baltimore in my previous post - in a decision from John Marshall's court in 1833 expressly ruling that the Bill of Rights do not apply to the states.
This may be the crux of our disagreement with RP: the rights exist, formally recognized or not ... RP contends that the BoR only applies to the feds ... what we then see is a gap where the BoR cannot help trampling of those rights if they are trampled by a non-federal entity, and as the states may not explicitly protect those rights, the states are free to trample thereon, and citizens cannot appeal to the feds for aid.
Which, of course, can only be resolved one way - a method purused some 230 years ago.