Code words for a "living" constitution.
Well, you're the one who used the word "change", as in, "If the definition of "the people" changed, then it was easy to implement." I've told you, these were prescient men who had a remarkably good grip on having a vision of the future under the new, untested, unprecedented form of government. They knew growth of their idea was inevitable, but still had to be cognizant of political sensibilities at that time.
"You get the idea, I'm sure...."
Yes, that you're spreading sand and tap-dancing. I repeat, none of your quotes said quote-unquote "all the people".
Well, if "whole people" and "whole body of people" doesn't mean "all the people" then what does it mean? I guess words no longer mean what they once did...
If you're going to call me on this pedantic point to make your case, then you've already lost it.
In which case, see you on the next go-around!
CA....
Again, "the people" meant "a particular group". When the second amendment was written, it meant enfranchised white males in a certain age group. The Founders could have written exactly that into the second amendment, but instead they allowed for the composition of that particular group to change over time.
Your implication is that politics drives the definition of the constitution. I'm saying the meaning of "the people" was expanded via amendment to the constitiuon, not a redefinition by the courts or Congress.
"Well, if "whole people" and "whole body of people" doesn't mean "all the people" then what does it mean? I guess words no longer mean what they once did..."
Where did you get the phrase "all the people"? No Founder or statesman ever used that phrase. You simply made it up, so you're the only one who knows what it means. Maybe you'll tell the rest of us?
I am saying "the people" meant the same thing as "the whole people" and "the whole body of people". In 1792, it did not mean everyone. And if you're saying that "all the people" is everyone, and that "all the people" is the same as "the people", then you're wrong.
"If you're going to call me on this pedantic point to make your case, then you've already lost it."
The point is essential to the case. Whether the second amendment protects an individual right or a collective right depends on the definition of "the people" does it not? Certainly if "the people" means every person then the second amendment protects an individual right.
What if "the people" doesn't mean every person? Oh well, that's just a pedantic point. Why is robertpaulsen focusing on such idiocy? We all know the U.S. Supreme Court will just gloss over that phrase.
Move along. Nothing to see here.