I appreciate your responding to what I was questioning. I kind of choke on equating "politicians" with "leadership", but let's let that pass.
"What you think was unexpressed or not expressed clearly by the Founders was, at the time, not necessary to express."
"There was an understanding of what the words meant before lawyers got their hooks into them."
Yet some State Constitutions of the time did express the following (emphasis added): The Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Constitution of Massachusetts 1780 states: Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. The Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of Connecticut (1818) states: Sec. 17. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state. The Declaration Of Rights in the Constitution of North Carolina : December 18, 1776, states: XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; The Declaration Of The Rights Of The Inhabitants of the Commonwealth Or State Of Pennsylvania in the Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776 states: XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;
The Declaration Of The Rights Of The Inhabitants Of The State Of Vermont in the Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777 states: XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State;
The Ohio 1802 Constitution states: sec 20. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State;
The Declaration of Rights of the 1796 Constitution of the State of Tennessee states: XXVI. That the freemen of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.
Article I of the Constitution of the Indiana Constitution of 1816 states: Sect. 20. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state;
Article I of the 1817 Constitution of the State of Mississippi states: Section 23. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.
When they wrote what became the Second Amendment they understood that people might again find it necessary to "alter or to abolish" and "to institute new Government" and that arms might be necessary to do so. I think they did not want to offer an option of constraint posed by words like "defence of themselves, and the state" and so forth. But it would have been kind of self-defeating to include words like "so the people can alter or abolish the government established by this Consititution and institute a new one as necessary".
So they left us the words they left us.
And my response to what I'm questioning is: We cannot expect those currently in official positions of leadership to openly and officially come out with such clarity. (They might but we shouldn't expect it.) However, we can expect it unofficially and should expect it from those who are not in official positions of leadership. And folks like us, need to keep the idea alive.
I apologize for creating the impression that I thought that ‘politicians’ and ‘leadership’ were one in the same. They surely and demonstrably are not.
I understand your position but I still think (although I may be wrong) was that within the colonies/states, they were explicit because the States have a wider latitude to act. Otoh, the Federal government was only given limited powers. To say (in the BoR) then that the feds could not act when they were never given the power to act was unnecessary. That is why I (of late) believe the BoR was a mistake. Rather than clarifying and protecting our rights, it has done more to obfuscate and diminish the rights that were not enumerated.
I apologize for creating the impression that I thought that ‘politicians’ and ‘leadership’ were one in the same. They surely and demonstrably are not.
I understand your position but I still think (although I may be wrong) was that within the colonies/states, they were explicit because the States have a wider latitude to act. Otoh, the Federal government was only given limited powers. To say (in the BoR) then that the feds could not act when they were never given the power to act was unnecessary. That is why I (of late) believe the BoR was a mistake. Rather than clarifying and protecting our rights, it has done more to obfuscate and diminish the rights that were not enumerated.