Originally Posted by TerminatorX5

this is an interpretation of the amendment, not the amendment itself... it stands as a law of the land but without dissent that decision would not have come to life...

say, you have a nice, shiny pair of pants... as you wear it, it develops a hole... you patch it up... keep on wearing it... another hole... patch it up again... and again... at the end, you have something that looks like it used to be a piece of clothing, but under so many patches it is hard to determine what was the original design... it is not the 2nd amendment that guarantees us the right to bear arms but the DC vs. Heller that provides such a guarantee... our forefathers are being abandoned... that is sad...

the comparasions are not doing justice, i don't like the patches, the barnicles on a hull of the ship - but if the original text is outdated that we needed a court decision, than maybe we should pass a new amendment? and vote on it...

the laws have been patched so many times, that the original idea is long gone... since we are working off the interpretations of the original amendment and not the amendment itself, why do we keep referring back to it as it was an original?