[Spiff]

"The current position of the United States ... is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote in two court filings this week. That right, however, is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

This is not directed at you, I'm just replying to your post:

Another question for the Bushcheerleaderbots:
What would your reaction be if a Solicitor General under a Democrat Administration rewrote the Constitution to say that the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bare arms was "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse"?

[Spiff]

I didn't think a Bushcheerleaderbot would answer you. I guess the answer is too difficult for them to accept.

But, here goes again. Maybe someone will answer:

Another question for the Bushcheerleaderbots:

What would your reaction be if a Solicitor General under a Democrat Administration rewrote the Constitution to say that the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bare arms was "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse"?