(solomongrundy)
"Er, you only have the right to bear arms because the Constitution was re-written. That's why it's called the second amendment."
You're incorrect, actually.
One, the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights are not an example of the granting of rights, but of acknowledgement of rights that already exist, and are ours simply by way of our being human (those of a theistic mindset would call them "god-given rights", but that's a discussion for another time). The Second Amendment doesn't grant us the right to defend ourselves; it merely specifies how we may do so (by "keeping and bearing arms").
Two, the amendments in the Bill of Rights were adopted at the same time as the rest of the Constitution. It wasn't "re-written" in the sense you seem to be suggesting; it was more like a "first draft vs. final draft" sort of thing.
(Goomy pls)
"Fine. Have your Amendment II.... but use only weapons that existed in colonial times, like muskets and cannon and really inaccurate pistols. No AK-47s or M16s or rocket launchers for you."
Fine. Have your Amendment I, but use only those forms of speech and the press that existed in colonial times, like megaphones, hand-operated printing presses, quill pens and parchment, and snail-mail delivered on horseback. No Internet, television, telephones, or electric bullhorns for you.
Two can play your game, Goomy. Also, "weapons that existed in colonial times" included cannons, and no, they weren't all in military hands. Shall we allow citizens to own their own artillery pieces? In colonial times, it wasn't unheard of for citizens to own their own warships (either as-is, or as merchant ships that could easily be made battle-ready). Shall we allow citizens living on or near one of our nation's coasts (or in Hawaii) to form private navies?