Hello victoriaz,
The principles are sound and timeless. The founders did not believe technology would remain static. All of history refutes such a premise. If it needs revising with the times that is what the amendment process is for. Surely if it truly needs adjusting that process will bear fruit. The slippery slope is not original intent, it is diverging from same. How do you suppose we got here?

The colonists had cannons. They had the most sophisticated weapons of the times. They did not kill each other any more than we do now. The equivalent of a musket today would be an M4A1 carbine that shoots fully automatic 5.56x45mm NATO with a 30 round magazine. AK-47s that are fully-automatic are illegal without special licensing. They are therefore no different than any other semi- auto hunting or sporting rifle.

Look, dead is dead, and hammers kill more people than rifles every year. Killers are the problem, part of the human condition. They have been and always will be. Now do you want to be at their mercy or do you wish to meet force with force?

I would write more but Eudaimonia and khalling have already addressed several of your assertions.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Not a huge difference at all, rather it is a specious argument.

The Founders also did not have the Internet, so, by your logic, Freedom of The Press only adheres to The Printing Press.

You are conflating, perhaps purposefully, the *letter* of the law and the *intention* of the law.

The *intention* of the Second Amendment was that the people not be infringed from being armed in a manner relative to a soldier in a standing army.

By that *intention*, AK47's and AR15's are *consistent* with original intent.

The Constitution cannot be a "living document" if you expect us to have a nation we can securely live in and pass onto our children.
Do you think it's a good idea to build a house on shifting sand? Why? Just because sand is a "living, changeable" thing doesn't mean there's no security in building on it right?

The Founders of this nation fully understood Human Nature after studying all the previous empires for most of their lives. They understood that Human Nature defaults to tyranny if left unchecked. Why do you think they created a Republic and NOT a democracy? Because democracy ALWAYS ends in the same way: chaos and tyranny. Shortly after the Greeks came up with 1 vote per person, the fraudsters started scheming And over time, the democracy broke down. Why? Human nature.

The Constitution can be amended and individual states can "experiment" with other forms of government, IF the People choose to. And based on the outcome, if the people don't like the results, they can go back to the way government was prior to any experiment. One of the Founder said this, apologies I don't recall at this time who said it.

Look around you, CA, MI, IL, & NY have been "experimenting" with Socialism and guess what? It doesn't work. And when the stupid politicians refuse to listen to their constituency, the people will vote with their feet. Why do you think people flock to conservative states?

"Living and Breathing" is also a specious argument.

A Constitution is a social contract and no contract is "living and breathing."

Is your mortgage "living and breathing"?

As I stated in another post as a suggested amendment:
"As languages are living and breathing, and contracts are not, this Constitution shall be interpreted with its original intent, and not with any passing trend or use of language or rhetoric."

I find "living, breathing document" malleable. there of course were some compromises when framing the Constitution, and most in here are well-read on issues regarding this. "original intent" when used by most Constitutionalists, lie in laying out natural rights and their protections. sophistications in weaponry are smaller incrementally compared to world govt alliances, military weaponry and equipment compared to the time when the Constitution was written. Where are your concerns regarding that? does a "living breathing document" mold around rounding up japanese americans, taking their property and putting them in concentration camps? The Constitution does not allow for that. It was ignored. I'd rather there were clear lines drawn between the actions of the US at any time and how far we would be moving away or toward the "intent of the framers" I don't want a Constitution that may "allow" and a government saying don't worry, that's not our "intent"