Pros and cons of first 10 amendments?

By one perspective, the "pros" are that they're a great idea, the "cons" are that they are ignored in too many ways.

By a less radical perspective, the "pros" are that they're a great idea, the "cons" are that they are not wrote as fully detailed as we'd like.

For instance, was the right to bear arms really meant to be an absolute, including the right to have a nuclear missile in your back yard? Or less dramatically, was it meant so that you could have the same arms as a regular soldier in the Army?

When you are guaranteed the right to a jury trial - did they mean a 12 person jury that has to unanimously agree and with the right to nullify fully acknowledged? Or would a three person panel of professional jurors employed by the state and deciding by 2/3rds majority with no nullification allowed meet the requirement of the amendment?

Of course, it's not our founder's fault, these "cons". They were writing in plain English, it's two and a third centuries of lawyers "interpreting" that's made it unclear. One suspects that even if each amendment was 10 pages long, that the lawyers and legislators and justices would still find "excepts" and "what ifs" in it.

I guess then that the biggest "con" of all is that a piece paper can't make politicians honor it, no matter the oaths they swear.