Which only points out the fact that you have no idea what "status quo" means. Because you just got done saying... (Dead Corpse)
for what we have is, and what you wish for "isn't." (imardmd1)
Ugh... what a dumbass. I can hardly wait until you kids go back to school. (Dead Corpse)
Ah, let's see, back in 1950-52 when I took two years of Latin, what "status quo" meant was "the existing state of affairs"; or, to wit, in my quaint colloquialism, "what is, is."
If, now, "status quo" has been redefined from what I learned, and you have some insight on what that new definition is, perhaps you would share it with me to show what a dumbass I am? Please do.
for I have said nothing about upholding a status quo...
But, that is exactly what you are doing. Even your "what we have is" statement bolsters this fact.
The current legal fiction is a "living document" abomination of twisted juris prudence and outright lies. And yet you uphold this view and denigrate those wanting a return to the Constitution and it's founding principles.
Further, you do this to try and make "gun control" seem reasonable under a prefatory clause of "general welfare" in the Preamble rather than an actual defined duty in the operative clauses of the Constitution itself. You do this even though "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" in the Bill of Rights completely remove the Federal power from infringing our RKBA.
So yes, troll I named you and nothing you have done contravenes this opinion.