I’m sorry that you’re so afraid of our government that you have become unnecessarily paranoid. We are the government and elected and appointed officials work for us. And I don’t expect that you have read and studied the Constitution much either, nor read the letters written by the people who wrote it.

The First Amendment isn’t dead yet, but the Republicans have been working hard to kill it. Same for the other amendments. Since when is it OK to discriminate against women and gay people? They have every right to be protected as do men and heterosexual couples. Rights and protections are not subject to the will of the majority, especially when religious reasons are [mis]used.

I’m also very sorry that you don’t understand that discrimination is wrong under any circumstances no matter what gender, race, or sexual orientation people have when they’re born. As for Alito and Scalia–give me a break. They decided that corporations are people. That’s enough trouble to keep us in a big mess for a long time.

Back to guns and the corporate thugs of the NRA–shootings and deaths have gone up since the insane ruling against the cities of Chicago and DC. So the NRA defends the right to shoot and kill people when the local authorities are against it and pass laws to protect their citizens.

States rights, yeah, sure, except when it’s inconvenient to the dogma and corporate propaganda. Hypocrites.

You write that: “When the Constitution was written, the weapons were muskets and rifles, not hand guns. Hand guns were relatively rare, especially as concealed weapons.”

It’s refreshing to here a liberal point of view that no longer espouses the “Living Constitution.” I’m all for a theory of consitutional interpretation that freezes the application of all rights to those instruments available when the Consitution was ratified. We just need to apply it uniformly. Here’s a (non-exhaustive) list of where we can start:

Don’t say things the government doesn’t like on the internet. The First Amendment obviously doesn’t apply, given Mr. Gore had not yet invented the internet when the Bill of Rights was written.

Let’s lynch Rush Limbaugh; he says things on television and radio that the government doesn’t like. Of course, radio and television weren’t around at the time of ratification. (While we’re lynching, however; let’s get Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews in there, because I don’t like them).

Hope you don’t like your car. Given the severe budget crisis we’re in, I think the government should take it to fix the deficit. Cars didn’t exist when the Constitution was ratified, so we don’t need to worry about that pesky Takings Clause.

Your local police department will be over for a visit tonight search the hard drive on your computer. They won’t have a warrant nor even any probably cause to believe you’ve done anythign wrong, but that doesn’t matter; computers weren’t invented when the Constitution was ratified.

Of course, we can forget about abortions; I don’t recall any Planned Parenthood Clinics in the writings of 1791.

Gay marriage; well I guess that’s out unless you can find some evidence of them occuring at the time of ratification.

The problem with your analysis is that it is result oriented. We can’t selectively apply consitutional protections to those rights we like and deny them to those we don’t. You should read Alito’s plurality and Scalia’s concurrence in McDonald, ignoring the result. Then read the dissents in the same manner. Ask yourself which reasoning would be correct if it were applied to a right you cherish. If you are honest with yourself, I think you can only come down with Alito and Scalia.