I didn't say the "living document" was a "liberal" idea, I said it was a "progressive" creation. The only time I mentioned 'liberal' was when referring to 'liberal interpretation' and meant is in it's literal sense, that the constitution is being interpreted liberally, as in the definition of 'liberal' = not literal or strict.
I stand by that it is a "progressive" creation, it was first coined by Prof. Howard McBain in 1927. He put forth the ideas of "living document" interpretation prior to that, including when he ran for president in 1912. [wikipedia].
The "Progressive Era" was between the 1890's and the 1920's and is marked by such policy as "The New Deal", and the "2nd Bill of Rights". If you read the 2nd Bill of Rights, it is clearly the ideas of what the Progressive's in both current parties want today as well. This "Living Constitution" idea and policy, started to effect the courts and judges under Wilson and FDR during the "Progressive Era". This was also the era, because of the related policies, that government grew leaps and bounds in size and scope. It brought you the IRS, Social Security, Welfare programs, and other enormous monsters that still live on today.
I would be the first to admit, that there are "progressives" on both sides of the isle these days. They may fight over different visions and desires, but make no mistake, there are progressives on both sides. However, the left is the side that seems to embrace it, and promote it, and mock those who don't consider themselves progressive. It was Hilary Clinton who came out and said it several years ago, when asked how she would describe her political viewpoints, and she responded that she would consider herself a "New Progressive". The Progressives have thoroughly infiltrated the Democrats/Left political organizations. They have also infiltrated the Republicans/Right side as well, however they haven't openly came out of the closet on the Right side yet, they still hide it, so as to grow in numbers and power like they did in the left. Their goal is similar, and that is why voting for either of the 2 major parties will not change a thing, because they are all corrupted, and they all want a giant government, with everyone dependent on them, they have little restriction in what they can do, and are in essence the 'big-brother nanny state'.
I agree with you on the 2nd amendment deal, all arms should be allowed, no argument on that, that would be an original intent interpretation of the Constitution that I'm talking about. Regan may have banned owning them after 1986, (I'm sure it was because he was 'thinking of the children' LOL), I can't dispute this. But keep in mind, that prior to that even, full automatic weapons, while not banned, were so heavily regulated that they might as well have been (especially in some states). They were regulated dating back to, 1930's, just after the progressive era prohibition act brought about organized crime and massive gang wars that happened in the 20's. Prior to that time, you could mail order a Thompson sub-machine gun in the mail, with no registration, tax stamp, or background check required.