Conservatives of today believe in a strict adherence to the Constitution but only to some segments of the Bill of Rights. Liberals believe that the Constitution is a living document changing and refining, especially socially. To show their love of carrying weapons supporters of the Second Amendment often fail to support a living Constitution. So where in the Amendments to the Constitution do Conservatives cease to adhere to the changing of law? The fourth or tenth or twelfth 20th or 27th? Or at the writing of the Constitution. How could you support the second but not the eighteenth? Unfortunately, special interests hold sway on much of this argument.
In political terms, a strict constructionist believes that the laws spelled out in the Constitution of the United States are not malleable; they are not subject to change to fit with current cultural climates or ideals. Some believe just the opposite; that the Constitution is “a living, breathing document”, that it is meant to be shaped to fit what society deems appropriate for the times. They proclaim that the founding fathers of this country could not have possibly written a set of laws that could apply to a civilization living more than 200 years later. http://cortezchurchofchrist.com/articles/strict-constructionist-vs-living-constitution