I read a number of news stories recently that gun store robberies are on the rise, and the gun store owners are not happy about that.
Obviously, people have realized that the cost of guns is infringing on their right to own them, so their actions are in defense of the Second Amendment and should not be opposed.
The store owners really have no complaint because if they do not allow the guns in their stores to be just taken, then they can no longer claim to oppose any type of gun control as the price of the guns controls who can obtain them.
The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but it would appear that as it is not in the Constitution that people have to buy them not simply keep and bear them, charging people for them is an attack on the Second Amendment as it introduces a post ratification restriction.
If the Founding Fathers wanted people to have to pay for guns, wouldn’t they have included that?
Or is it acceptable in this case, and this case only, to be able to change the will of the Founding Fathers as written?