This site should not be confused with restoreconstitution dot org, which is an Orwellian type of site, turning everything on its head, calling further erosion of the Constitution a restoration of the same. They operate on the assumption you call a lie the truth a sufficient number of times, and most people will accept the lie as truth. That's how error always operates. Let's not fall for that. 

Instead, let us consider the original text and contemporaneous statements, pro and con, about its intent, all in the context of that time. At the same time, let us denounce each and every later attempt at deviating from that, be that by Justices, legal scholars, or agitators of every kind and stipe. 

Let us especially dismiss all arguments our Constitution is evolving with the times, as that is merely an attempt to rewrite it in the image of the writer and current drift of thought, which is precisely against which the Constitution was meant to protect us. This is not to say we cannot change the Constitution, only that the Constitution itself sets out how to accomplish that. It is not to be done by activist judges or by unconstitutional legislation or executive action. 

One glaring example of the erosion of the Constitution is the right to own and bear arms. When looking at the time this was decided, it is obvious the Revolutionary War was the backdrop, and the intent was to make sure the citizenry again would have the necessary weapons of war to fight off a tyrannical government of the future. That possibility was real to the people of that time. It wasn't about hunting or self defense: it was all about weapons of war. That seems to be completely lost on the current generation. And that's because our leaders, from Justices to community leaders, have completely let us down. The only real question should be: which weapons of war, if any, are too dangerous for the citizenry to possess? Atomic weapons, perhaps; but what about fighter jets and missiles? Terrorists/freedom fighters (depending on your perspective) already use most weapons of war. Why should the US citizenry have less of a right to them, especially when their right to have them is enshrined in the US Constitution? In a sense, we have never lost that right, but we are behaving like sheep by adhering to unlawful restrictions on our right.