Yep, right there in Art. I, Sec 8, Clause 1 next to the "general Welfare".
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison
And where is President Madison's regard for the term "general Welfare" in the Constitution of the United States? As the "Father of the Constitution" he approved of the phrase in Art. I, sec 8, clause 1 without caveat, had he reservations that was the time for him to change the document and obviate the need of us today to argue the point
Since all the founders such as he were all knowing and prescient - as many on the Right claim - and the they made the document without ambiguity, must we take all phrases in their literal sence, as we are told we must in re the Second Amendment?
Would that not at least suggest that "general Welfare" and "shall not infringe" be taken to their extremes?
No, the idea for understanding what the founders were referring to is to understand the "culture" of the time. This understanding offers insight into what they meant by what they were saying. The culture identification and understanding concept is fully documented as a way to understand not only other modern cultures but previous historical cultural manifestations from our own past.
Try putting someone from today's culture back in the 1700s, essentially they'd have to learn a new language to understand and be understood without some extreme miscommunications.
Basically what "general welfare" and "shall not infringe" may have been interpreted much differently then as it is today by some.