The idiocy of Tom Sherman

In article
,
Andy Evans wrote:

Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk
around in public without encountering people with guns I know
what I'd choose.

The government's ability to freely impose any anti-Constitutional
controls on the population they prefer?

I'm in the UK - I guess one benefit of not having a constitution is
that it doesn't get out of date. We had a lot of daft laws in the
nineteenth century but they all got repealed as they became archaic.
I mean, the death penalty for stealing a sheep, defacing London
Bridge or impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner. I think not, but the US
Constitution predates the repeal of all these. Not quite so easy to
change a constitution.

On the other hand, you have Magna Carta which bore a strong influence on
the US Constitution. I don't know to what extent Magna Carta is
considered a working document in daily jurisprudence, whereas the
Constitution here is.

A core discussion in US legal circles is the extent to which the
Constitution- which comprises a tiny fragment of the mass of US law- is
a "living" document that is changeable and interpretable to account for
developments in technology and society versus being immutable and
absolute. Also part of this is the extent to which the Constitution
should be interpreted in terms of the discernable indent of its framers
versus a literalist interpretation (e.g., that Americans only have the
rights that are spelled out explicitly in the Constitution).