“Women had no official, direct influence on the framing of the Constitution.”
Silliness. Women influence, even control, their menfolk directly and constantly, and have been doing so since the Garden of Eden. The Constitution and amendments didn’t arise from smoke-filled backroom mancaves without womens’ significant input. And my wife told me it’s ok to say that.
“From that, I conclude rubbing the noses of those who are “scared of guns” in endless citations of the exact text of the 2nd Amendment while we wave our guns around “just so they’ll get used to it” runs the very real risk of galvanizing a “Prohibition” mindset in women; if for no other reason than them “not being consulted” when the “hallowed words” of the 2nd Amendment were transferred from heaven to paper...”
Open Carry isn’t waving guns around in order to desensitize the gun-scared, and quoting the Constitution to the Constitution-ignorant public, and women in particular, won’t make women go all single-issue anti-gun in order to change the Constitution. They’ll still vote their conscience (and pocket book) in as complex a manner as all other voters.
My piece of paper in my pocket is not so I can carry concealed, it’s so I won’t be charged with a felony concealed possession if something goes wrong (my fault or others’) that exposes, with or without my permission, my carrying. Legal Open Carry would eliminate that specific tacked-on charge by zealous anti-gun prosecutors (a bigger and more immediate worry than women voting en bloc to eliminate the 2A).
Then neither you nor your wife know anything about the history of the Constitution.
Smoke-filled backroom mancaves: no. Committee meetings held in the environs of Philadelphia, attended by state delegations that had to arrive by horse after many days in the saddle: yes.
If you can find ANY quote from ANY of the voluminous writings of the framers crediting their "womenfolk" with ANY significant contribution to their work on the Constitution, I'd love to see it.