Forgot to change name!

[Aegon]

It's law. If there was no "correct" way to interpret legal text aside from plain, literal reading then about 50% of lawyers in every practice should be out of a job. It's always interpretive. The Constitution should be no different.

That is only the case when the legislators write unclear laws. Nothing in the constitution is unclear.

All that argument tells me is that you'd be a bad lawyer.

I'd also argue that the document is old and based on an INCREDIBLY different society. Itd be rather asinine not to keep it up with the times and the way we've progressed. ...The document was written at a time where the only firearms people had access to were muskets and black people were enslaved. It changes a lot. Not taking it literally is a valid method of analyzing the document.

Irrelevant. The Constitution provides for the means to adapt to future circumstances: the amendment process. Not contorting the language to mean what it did not mean when it was written and as amended.

But it's all about historical relativity. Regardless of what the writers meant then, it's imperative to ensure that the document remains relevant. Going by the literal reading of the Second Amendment is asinine today, for precisely the reason I provided: guns have changed. If you read the Constitution, it has to be through the lens of the current day, otherwise you're enforcing 1789 law in 2018. Which is stupid.