Ah, I get you now. You want to conflate what the constitution says vs what the libtwits say it is.
IOW, you now want to move the goal post from your original ignorant argument now that I have proved you wrong...to what the "reality" of liberals on the bench.
"FRind" take your trolling down the street, I have no time for the likes of you.
Let me reiterate something to you, the people who bear arms will preserve your idiotic underserved freedom, no matter how undeserving you are of it....it's how we roll.
The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret law vis a vis the Constitution. Somehow over the years, that court has found that somewhere in the 14th amendment to the Constitution there is “right” to privacy and incumbent on that right is a women’s “right” to have an abortion. That is the law of the land. Some how the that Court determined that Government could condemn your property, not for a road or a school building, but for a project to improve their tax base. That is the law of the land. The could in the future determine that you do not have a right to own a fire for self defense, when that happens, that will be the law of the land. As far as my underserved idiotic freedom is concerned, I spent 25 years in the service of the American people in out Navy and have owned many fire arms, antique and modern over my life time. What I am saying is that the Court can in fact radically change its interpretation of the Second Amendment and depending on who replaces Scalia may well do so. If you are incapable of seeing that fact, then you have absolutely zero concept of modern reality.