First, @AbdulElSayed says that originalism is about the context. Originalism is textual; it is in opposition to contextualism. If you're going to argue against originalism, know what it is! Then he wants to limit the 2nd Amendment, which guarantees the right to arms, to the arms existing at the time. But he does want to limit the 1st to only the speech which existed at the time, allowing government censorship of the Internet; he does not what to limit the 4th from protecting your automobile; he does not want to limit the 5th from protecting your smartphone password - none of which existed at the time. Then, he claims that armed groups under federal control qualify as the people keeping and bearing arms to prevent federal tyranny! These easily correctible mistakes are what Republicans could be attacking him on, but they're too busy accidentally recording free campaign interviews for him. Also, they can't bring up that whole second point, because their candidate, Mike Rogers, believes that things like smartphones and automobiles are NOT protected by the Bill of Rights, and he supports government censorship of the Internet. This is why Republicans lose: when Democrats are wrong, they're either too stupid to know how to counter them, or they themselves are even more wrong.

Do they think "humanitarian" is measured by how many humans you kill or what