[ClearCase_guy]

Well, much of the Constitution has been re-interpreted over the years and there are many parts of the document which are now thought to "not say" the thing that they say.

Technically, your reading of it is correct. I think any court is likely to say that you are right and I am wrong.

But I will say this:
Government ought to protect We The People from fraud and coercion. Our God-given rights should be protected by the government. The constitution is a document which limits government so that government cannot become too powerful while it "protects" us -- because then the solution becomes the problem.
The First Amendment specifically limits Congress. It says it right there: "Congress shall make no law ..."
But that's followed directly by the Second Amendment: "The right shall not be infringed ...". Clearly this is a universal protection, not a limit on Congress or on any other particular body. It blocks ANYONE from infringing on our God-given right to self-defense. The power of government (the courts) should ensure that NO ONE infringes the right.

Now, having ranted on that point a bit, I will admit once again that any court is likely to say that you are right and I am wrong.

[impimp]

Well when it comes to the states being bound by the constitution, the courts initially thought I was right and you were wrong. Then the legal principle of “incorporation” (google it) kicked in over the past 100 or so years and things have swung so that you are right and I am wrong.

I am opposed to incorporation and I think that the states should be allowed to restrict any rights that the want to restrict.