I don’t dispute your point. My intention was to demonstrate the importance of interpretation more generally and perhaps note how that relates to the competing concepts of “original meaning” and that of a “living,” or evolving meaning.
To the extent that the Constitution has been amended, the amendments ARE the Constitution. The document itself allows for changes; however, those changes arguably require a formal process (as opposed to being merely re-interpreted).
[Link]
Very little here is actually in dispute because Kulindahr and I agree that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee free, unrestricted and unregulated access for anyone of any qualification (or lack thereof) to firearms. It seems to be his position that Congress is not only entitled but perhaps has shirked its responsibility to create a more universal standard of regulation of access under its right to "regulate the militia."
I think the dispute has only ever been perhaps my (mis)understanding that Kulindahr supported the notion too frequently touted by gun advocates publicly or nationally, which often is a message (undoubtedly NRA inspired) that even those few regulations that do exist, let alone
any sensibly proposed ones to curtail excessive domestic violence, are either illegal/unconstitutional, or a slippery slope to complete confiscation which should be opposed in either case, and that this position is expressly supported by the 2nd Amendment. So I think I do owe Kulindahr an apology for misunderstanding his position for so long-- although it has certainly from my angle seemed like it took this long to get a coherent picture of it out of him.
With regard to the "malleability" of the Constitution, of course an actual change in meaning requires formal amendment, but I do not believe the discussion has (at least it was not my intent) been about the mechanics of our government but rather about the
rigid position that has been discussed here, and can certainly be witnessed in the greater gun debate nationally, that certain picked-and-chosen elements of the Constitution should
never change (with or without Amendment) because, and forgive me for phrasing it this way, "the Founding Fathers said so." And whenever a particular position seems to accept or reject even the discussion of certain changes predicated on what the Founding Fathers intended in the 18th century, I think we have to grapple with the fact that these were not perfect people who gave us a flawless, already perfect, "already progressed enough" set of laws or liberties that we could photograph as a statue and use for the rest of time. And human bondage is an incredibly easy example of why what the Founding Fathers enshrined into law should not be handcuffs against changes going forward in anyone's mindset.
