The 2nd Amendment isn’t as cut and dry “minimal gun restrictions” like some organizations want you to believe. I think the ACLU’s interpretation is defensible
Except they don't defend it. If they did they would be advocating against standing armies. If it's believed to be a collective right to promote the common defense then the scale of the US Military is a major affront to that. But realistically we are so far removed from what the founders envisioned we we should do a total redraft.
An army, like a militia, would fall under "collective right". So I don't see how their stance is against standing armies.
Re: redraft, I go back and forth. I think if we want to be textualists then we need a redraft because the founders couldn't possibly have envisioned the modern world. The idea of redrafting isn't that radical -- Thomas Jefferson wanted it [1].
But pragmatically, I don't think we'll ever redraft it. Both liberals and conservatives would have to agree to a redraft (they won't) and then agree on what the new draft would be (they won't). The only way to modernize the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to interpret it using a modern lens. "What would this document mean if it was written with today's world in mind?"
