Symposium: Disrupting the consensus on Second Amendment doctrine would be a mistake - SCOTUSblog

A lot of people believe armed self-defense is an anachronism that went by the board along with men being the presumptive head of households, and believing that bacon and eggs make a healthy breakfast. That's why people think the Constitution is a "living" document... particularly when it comes to "interpreting" the Second Amendment. Personally, I think for every "anachronism" abandoned... there's a price paid, somewhere. Sometimes, perhaps it's worth it... other times, not so much. In the case of the 2A, I think the price would be far too steep.

I think the term, "living document' has been 'interpreted' to mean something than what it was originally intended.
The term actually meant it could have amendments added or removed - not to decide the amendments were to be based on the 'Fad of the Week'.

I think when someone suggests the constitution is a living document, they might have been a nagging child. You know, "can I go to the party?" No. 15 minutes later "can I go to the party?"