"...when they don't THEY are breaking the law of the land....wouldn't you agree? Both sides do it, "

Agree to what? That they are, or that they shouldn't? You ask this abstract, generalized question as if there was a simple answer. You also phrase your critique as if YOU were the judge about how to interpret the Constitution. "Both sides" don't do 'it', whatever 'it' may be at the time, in the same way.

   My position, as if it wasn't already obvious, is that "strict constructionist" views in places like the 2nd amendment don't take into account 250 years of change in society. The Constitution is an amazing, well-designed document which has generally served us well, but conservatives are using its vaguer parts to obstruct and cling to 'rights' that the Founders never dreamed of. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but when THIS batch of conservatives...both in congress and on the court, creates and defends rules to favor business at the expense of the public interest, I see "breaking the law of the land" more as 'finding loopholes in the law of the land'....THAT'S what I mean by "both sides don't do it in the same way".

I simply see no value in just ranting on with slogans like "both sides do it" and "less government is better government"....we NEED government, and blanket condemnations do little to get into the roots of the problem(s).