>>112439323people commonly misuse "the founding fathers wanted" phase. It doesn't matter much if the US that modern people want is similar or different from what the founders wanted.
there are multiple schools of thought in jurisprudence. some want to interpret laws however completely disregarding what the writers of those laws intended. this usually leads to complete breakdown of the rule of law, as can be seen in every 3rd world hellhole, and increasingly in the US. the other school of thought in jurisprudence, is that if you disagree with a law, you should try to have it revoked or amended; not just reinterpret it to suit your short term goals.
the correct way to use, "the founding fathers wanted", is to define what the drafters of the constitution meant by the words that they were writing.
so, silly example with the 2nd Amendment:
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.What does this mean? based on the context when it was written, and the fact that american civilians could own the most advanced military grade weapons that existed at the time, including artillery; it probably meant the negative-right to own weapons.
But if you don't give a fuck about what the drafters of the laws meant when they wrote them; you can reinterpret it to mean almost whatever you want. It could men the positive-right to bear arms (i.e. that the government is legally obligated to provide citizens with free weapons). It could mean the right to own the furry arms of grizzly-bears and pandas.
