“The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”

An oxymoron diametrically opposed to the laws of nature and of nature's God where the individual's unalienable rights are the basis of lawful government, Article IV, Section 4 U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment thereto. In a relationship of individual sovereigns, what or where is the lawful nexus (any operation of natural law) that transfers inalienable right from the master, to an intangible construct servant, complete with ability, authority, power, and right to dictate and outlaw an independent third party sovereign's non-harming lawful action ? ONLY ! ! ! in an tyrannical theocracy or other despotic malady can such a scenario or concept exist.

contradiction of the largest kind...how unrealistic

How can one's own person not be considered an extension of his home? This is an obvious contradiction.

Poorly written. Why is it that Constitutional text is so often vague enough for misinterpretation?

Archer, I know your question is somewhat to make the masses think as well as being rhetorical, but for the rest: A functional and enduring constitution is a common law instrument defining the governmental structure (checks, balances, offices, etc.) and setting certain general, principled and limited categories to where such tools as codes, conventions, ordinances, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. are used to define law. It is the vague generality that John Adams addressed with: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” It is in the artisans’ (politician) job to use the tools at hand to define the absolute - the natural law. It is the tools that are to be NON-vague so as to eliminate miss-interpretation. When the entire system is based on natural law, it is the procedural common law that determines fact and law as naturally exists (science, math, fiscal, etc.) When the political system turns to ‘Legal Positivism’ the tools become the law and there is a never ending need of more and more and more and more ‘laws’ to slow down misinterpretations. The greater abundance of and more specific the tools, the greater the indication that natural law has been abandon in favor of legal positivism. This quote for example exposes when a legal positivist attempts to write law into a constitution. The de jure and pure constitution is a general natural law document without the more defining legalisms associated to said tools. The blending of a constitution and defining tools makes a mongrel system to everyone’s detriment. This comment is really to vague to do the subject any justice but I hope it helps someone.