Today, we live in a crowded world. Crime is rampant. Police have limited powers, and extremely limited numbers. Police are completely unable to protect us. They can only investigate, solve, and attempt to put criminals into prison.
Because of this, it is up to the individual to protect ourselves. We can do that in a wide variety of ways. We can have a whole bunch of guard dogs around us all the time, to keep criminals away from our homes. We can do like many of the rich liberal activists do, the ones who make such a big fuss about how the common people shouldn't have weapons. That is, we can hire licensed bodyguards, who carry weapons, to protect us (Rosie O'Donnell immediately comes to mind). If we are very wealthy, we can live in a gated community, protected by a private security company, behind great big fences. Or, we can do what the vast majority of US citizens do. Nothing at all. We can sit back and hope beyond hope that the police will catch all the criminals before they get to us. Of course, this is a hopeless sort of hope, as violent crime continues.
The Constitution is designed to protect our rights. One of those rights is the right to defend ourselves from crime, tyranny, and invasion. The Constitution is not designed to say that ONLY the rights and powers that IT defines are ours, but it is designed to spell out specifically what the Government CAN do. In fact, the US Government is not supposed to do anything that the Constitution does not specifically give that government authority to do. Unfortunately, the government has usurped the authority of the states and the individual to such an extent that it is possible now for us to discuss whether or not the government has the authority to tell us that we can or can't own weapons for self defence.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 2nd Amendment means that gun ownership on an individual basis is protected. So, if someone says that the 2nd Amendment does NOT protect private ownership of guns, then they are trying to revise history as well as over 200 years of legal precedence.
I don't believe that the Constitution needs any sort of re-write or update. It needs to be enforced and applied. The separation of powers outlined in it needs to be strictly enforced. Those areas where the government is not specifically given power to act need to be forcefully restricted. Such things as massive and oppressive regulation by governmental agencies without either Congressional oversight, judicial review, or even executive enforcement need to be cut completely out of our society.
Remember, the 10th Amendment says that any power or authority not specifically reserved to the Federal government is reserved to the individual states. Since we have completely given up on this, allowing the Federal government to tell us who and how we can marry, what we can do with our own land, how our children will be schooled, how fast we can drive on the highways, who businesses can or can't or must do business with or hire, what businesses must pay employees, what businesses may or may not charge for goods and services, or whether or not a state can make decisions about land within its own boundaries, we have now gotten what we asked for. We live in a socialist society now, filled with entitlements. We are forced, by the government, to give charitable contributions in the form of taxes. Of course, the vast bulk of our taxes go to pay the millions of government employees who interfere with all aspects of our lives, but that is what socialism is all about.
if we wanted to update the constitution, we'd need states support, not just one or two. that would take forever though and enforcing the constitution is a different matter because no one person can enforce the entire constitution