Arms to the framers didn't include weapons of mass destruction. They do to us, and that just shows the shifting values and definitions.
To the framers arms were single-fire rifles and pistols.
If we go by the idea, like justice Thomas claims, that we should ONLY apply the constitution as it was originally intended then yes every free MAN could own a single-fire rifle or pistol, with women's sufferage we might be able to include women (but it would have to be worded a little differently).
But we don't look at the constitution that way. We have to apply it to modern times, which will not be 100% agreed upon.
If we are going to adapt it to modern fire arms, then we could adapt it to the modern conventions of what militias are. Both are taking it out of the context of the framers.
In 1789 everybody belonged to the militia, sure. But in 1790 as it shifted towards a regular army, that changed the definition of the word militia. What about the well regulated part? Should any one who wants to own a gun then be force to go through some training and indoctrinating? I don't know, I am just pointing out where interpretations pick and choose. Whether for or against the public right to own a gun, you are now changing the meaning.
As far as the idea that it was allowing the people to revolt, I have to disagree. The reason why the constitution was given so many ways to change and granted so many rights to the individual states (including the power to raise a militia, as implied by the norms of the time) was to make popular revolution unnecessary. It could be done on the state level, which was thought to better recognize the need of the people and be better organized to threaten the federal government; discouraging the abuse of it's power. This is very clear in the writing of the times from federalists (as to why it was included) and anti-Federalist (who called for protection of states rights).
The question isn't whether or not the Constitution should be interpreted, that would be impossible, it's to what degree and in which direction.
In the end we have to use reason and the general ideas about freedom and democracy which made up the spirit of the constitution to figure out how to live together.
Calling for one solid interpretation or another is irrelevant and unrealistic.
(Continuing the fight for Radical Moderatism.)
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
