Which brings me my deep thought of the day. Is the Constitution a "living document" or should it be interpreted according to the wishes of the founding fathers? For example, when the guys in white wigs stated that we have a right to bear arms, were they stating that all people at all time should be free to carry weapons? At the time they were dealing with, you know, making and defending a new country. Probably not dealing so much with the meth-addicted crazy dude breaking into the shed next door with his big ol' gun in order to steal my neighbor's priceless scrap metal.Shoot - here comes another deep thought. This question painfully reminds me of our religious debates. Is the Bible a "living document" or should it be interpreted literally as stated by its first century authors? What was culturally influenced? Is it the letter of the law or the heart of the law that should be upheld?
It's an interesting parallel between two documents that so many people in our country rabidly attempt to keep out of the same discussion.





