I’ve never claimed to care about the Constitution, which makes arguing with me weird. It’s come up before on the CR.
The Constitution is the Supreme Court’s problem. The belief that it’s meant to dictate the opinions of everyday Americans, and anyone who goes against it is a traitor is a relatively new thing. Even if the second amendment explicitly said “this means the right to automatic assault rifles,” why would I change my opinion? If a >200 year old document is outdated, I’m going to call it outdated. It’s not like it’s holy.
You have to use logic when you argue with me. Bringing proofs from the Constitution is totally meaningless in my opinion.