Actually the text of the second amendment requires that states maintain a militia and details who is to man it. Look at the historical context and you will understand.
I know the historical context of the vote of this text. Don't you think it has changed ? Are you still in 1789-1791 ? are you independant only since a few years ? Nope.
NO.
Constitution is not an untouchable text. It can be interpretated with an evolutive look. Not necessary an exegetic. Nope, it is to be interpreted as literally as possible using the context of the time it was written..
Look : in France, an old law, from the Revolution, forbide the women to wear pants. This law was voted during the 1790's period. Never abrogated, because people forget it, in fact.
So, with your point of view, and to respect the historical context, this law, never abrogated, so, always here, should have to been executed, and then, french women would ne more be able to wear pants.
of course, it is not the situation, because society changes, and law is probably the domain where the evolution of society is the most important.
With an exegetic interpretation, the french law I mentionned would be still here, but forunatly, the evolutive interpretation does that this law is automaticly cancelled.
Your constitution was written in 1787. Things have changed this 1787. So, you can give a different interpretation of the Constitution. Nope, anyone who believes the constitution is a living document is reality challenged. IF something has changed so drastically that the original text is outdated, one must submit for amendment. The fact that various judges cannot grasp that isn't my problem at all..
The Human's and Citizen's Rights Declaration of 1789 claimed lots of fundamental rights. But the french constitutionnal council said, during the 70's, that these rights HAVE TO be read and understand with an actual point of view, to adapt them to the actual and modern society. So, some rights can be a little different from the original conception of 1789, but it's better, because there is an evolution, in the good way. That may hold true in France. But here in the USA the amendment process is what is intended to address necessary changes..
You have an interesting viewpoint. But I cannot agree with it because it would render the text of the constitution pointless. The evolution/interpretation folks simply don't realize that by not holding to the text, the document itself is in danger of becoming irrelevant. Take the ninth amendment. According to it, I have the right to smoke pot while consorting with animals. Or do I?