In Maryland, did they actually take away any guns particularly?
When the first amendment was written, the press was quite rudimentary by today’s standards. TV, radio, and internet were not envisioned. Maybe the government is allowed to regulate all news that isn’t physical printed. Also, it should be able to ban automatic printing presses. The printing presses of the timer were manual, one press one page. Nowadays the printing presses can spew thousands of pages with a single press of a button.
It isn't ridiculous to question whether eighteenth century political and cultural standards should always apply to a 21st century state. The Constitution isn't holy writ. Somehow much of the rest of the world manages to have free, democratic states without a 2nd Amendment or its thesis that a free state requires an armed and violent populace and a lack of any regulation on firearms.
The appeal to the text and original meaning of the Constitution is not about giving deference to 18th century attitudes over 21st century ones, it’s about resolving a dispute amongst two contemporary views. If everyone agreed that the framers were out to lunch on the 2A, it would be trivial to change it. But people don’t agree that the 2A is obsolete.
If you saw the word “arms” in a contract, would you think it was limited to a particular type of gun. If someone sells just automatic weapons, are they not an “arms dealer?” Like in a contract, if both sides agreed to change the word “arms” to something narrower, they could do it. But just like a contract, where the sides don’t agree, one is entitled to have the contract enforced as written.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Because if it doesn't, then the entitlement you're describing doesn't exist as far as it's concerned.
Courts change the followed interpretation of law all the time without amending the written law.
Often the written law only gets amended when the difference between the definition on paper and the definition in common practice can no longer be bent any further, after decades of plain conflict in language.
They should not do that either. That’s an usurpation of the legislature’s powers and an affront to democracy.
However I am not sure how that would even work, given the law is in language and language must be interpreted to elucidate meaning from it in the first place. Even if you fixed the first interpretation as sacrosanct, you would then have to interpret that interpretation each time.
But note, at the time of the founding, it was perfectly legal for private citizens to own armed warships. These ships had dozens of cannons that could fire over a mile (thus sieging a city). Canons moreover could fire grapeshot, causing massive casualties to groups of people. These weapons were far more destructive than an AR-15.
Not your own one. Jefferson did get his wish granted in some ways however. Possibly by a malignant genie with a keen sense of irony.