Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Crompsin
|
Ok let me be clearer.
If for 200+ years the right to bear arms was you could own firearms, and then one day you get the court stacked with one side who now decide it means you can own firearms if you are part of the national guard, how does that make any sense from a constitutional stand point?
The constitution isn't a work of literature to be discussed and reinterpreted, its the framework of the government. Changing it is hard on purpose. It should not be changed because a few unelected judges feel it means something completely different based on their own personal feelings.