There’s a great deal of posturing going on right now in the Supreme Court between between folks representing the NRA and folks not representing the NRA. At issue is the second amendment, which, many strict constitutionalists argue, provides the right for all people to own and keep guns.
I don’t know where Scalia falls on the issue, but he’s been quoted as saying he doesn’t believe the Constitution is meant to be a fluid document. Instead, the founding fathers knew what was up, and the Constitution needs to be interpreted exactly as they intended, way back in 17-whatever.
But this got me thinking. If the constitution gives us the right to bear arms, doesn’t a strict reading also automatically limit the arms we can bear? I mean, if our freedoms are dictated by 17-whatever standards, doesn’t it also make sense that our personal weaponry should be?
Blunderbuss, anyone?
