They just never imagined that technology would allow the governmemt to have more advanced weapons than the people.
You are absolutely correct, ma'am, and in most ways the changes haven't been for the better. Again, the principles of freedom we were founded upon never change, though. Regardless of what we've become, and what we will become in the future, we are still "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (if they'd left it 'property', it would've solved a whole lotta problems!)".
"As for the rules changing, what about the Instant Replay before making a call in football? Why is there sudden death in pro-football, but not in college games? Again, I am not being a wise-guy."
I don't think for a second you're being a wise guy...it's a very good question. Rule changes in sports are always debated, and no matter what the oputcome, some fans are always disappointed. So what good are the rules then? That's open to debate.
The difference is that football is a sport, not our Constitution. If the instant replay rule is changed, it affects the way a game is played. It directly affects the relatively few players and owners, but to everyone else it's just water cooler and sports page discussion. If the AWB is extended, especially now, when the stage is better set than at any other time in my memory to start rolling back ridiculous gun laws, everyone's rights have been affected in a way that that we'll likely never be able to correct. The momentum of the left toward total registration/confiscation of firearms will be bolstered. We simply can not play fast and loose with our freedoms, as the NFL plays fast and loose with the rules.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Now, which one of these weapons is evil? Which one is going to cause you to pick it up, walk out into the bank lobby, and start shooting people?
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution for the present but more importantly for the future...that's why they set it up the way they did, because their knowledge of history and human nature made it clear the inexorable progression of governments towards tyranny, no matter how well intentioned.
Inanimate objects are not evil, and innanimate objects don't cause people to commit crimes. They only facilitate the darker ambitions of evil people in pursuit of power and wealth.
As it only takes a few charismatic individuals with power and the weapons of the time to take control, the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment of the Constitution, precisely so the masses of people in years to come would have the means to protect freedom.
Take away the technology, the cars, the televisions...strip these accoutrements away, and look at the majority of people in the country who make it work and how they live...I would contend that this society we call America is not really so different than it was back then.
So that argument gun grabbers use to justify gun control is not only wrong, but it is a deliberate attempt to destroy the foundation of our freedom based on the lie that like computers, the Constitution is obsolete.
But the truth is the Constitution is a timeless living document, always has been, always will be, as long as human nature is what it is.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is that the citizens, AKA the militia, can successfully thwart the ambitions of tyrants who would seek to take over our country or restrict our rights.
The way to thwart such attempts is to have the citizens armed THE SAME AS the armies of such would-be tyrants. It's hard to imagine our wonderful men and women in the military turning against US, but who knows how it would be presented to them--especially with a Clintonesque administration of the future (with the corresponding selections of commanding officers, etc.).
Bottom line: we get the SAME weapons soldiers get. Hint, they aren't packing black powder, single shot rifles as were the army and the citizens of Revolutionary times. The details--the changing specifics--are not static. The purpose is.
But those rules weren't changed by a referee on the field. The ref gets to make the call on wether the reciever came down with one or two feet inbounds, not that two feet or one foot are required for a completed pass. The Judical branch is like the referee, it has to decide if a violation of the rules has occurred or not, it does not get to change them itself, any more than the referee can.
Their are procedures for the governing body of a sport to change the rules, often requiring a vote of representatives of all the teams, just as their are provisions for amending the Constitution. The rules can't (in general) be changed unilaterally by the Commissioner, just as the President can't change the laws, nor can Congress, by itself, change the Constitution.