We are supposed to 'interpret' the Constitution.
Congratulations. We now have a winner in the game, "let's see if there is a hole in CC's argument." This is the only one that is there. So, either you are an originalist, and take the 2nd as it is stated... usage can be regulated, or you
interpret the Constitution and become a hypocrite if you argue against interpretation in other ways. Now, that does not mean that you must agree with how things are interpreted, but unless you want to be a losing contestant on DP's favorite game show,
Hypocrisy Check!, you must remember that since you have interpreted, there is nothing wrong with interpretation. In fact, by commenting that the "
Necessary and Proper Clause" is "invulnerable" in Federalist 44, Madison states that it would be impossible to list all rights that take into consideration all of the nation's present and future concerns. Hamilton, of course, also believed in the evolutionary process of the Constitution. See, Chuz, this is why your 9th and 10th Amendment arguments fail. Both Madison, the author of the Constitution, and Hamilton, the foremost defender of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers agree with me... and with YOU, in the fact that Constitutional interpretation was an edict by the founding fathers.
So, as I said, you can be a staunch originalist, and agree with my position, or agree that some degree of Constitutional interpretation is valid, and prove my position wrong... but... then you would need to be careful about integrity when arguing Constitutional issues. Oh, and just as a side note. By poking this hole in my position, you allow me to demonstrate that the government can regulate gun usage in other ways, through Constitutional interpretation.
Now, what have we learned here? We have learned that EVERYONE interprets the Constitution. EVERYONE. They do it to different degrees and to suit their own positions. NO ONE is true originalist. If you are, then you must agree with my position.