Some states would gain, the rest would lose nothing.

Remember that not forcing the second amendment ,as it is currently understood, won't prevent any state from allowing ,or continuing to allow, ownership of firearms. It would only give states which do not want that the option to choose what they want. Currently there are fifty states for those who want to live with guns but no state for those who want the safety of no guns to live in .

Some states would gain, others would lose nothing

Remember that not forcing the second amendment ,as it is currently understood, won't prevent any state from allowing ,or continuing to allow, ownership of firearms. It would only give states which do not want that the option to choose what they want. Currently there are fifty states where those who want to live with guns can choose to live but absolutely no state where those who want to live in the safety of no guns can choose to live. 

Better result alternative path

I have just noticed yesterday night that there is an alternative path to the sufficiency argument I made in the earlier post that could lead to better result. I noticed that instead of questioning the current interpretation for the second amendment regarding the type of arms allowed to the public,I can build on it with that sufficiency argument.What could help even more in that regard is that those two arguments (limitations on arm types and my sufficiency argument )are not necessarily mutually exclusive and can be independent of each other. If the view for the currently allowed arms to the public is based on their being common or descendants of arms that were common at the time of the second amendment then that still wouldn't contradict the argument that the intention was to allow the creation of a militia that is equipped to fight on the same scale open to others and the government. That is because at that time wars can be fought and won in a big part depending on these types of arms. Like I said earlier "necessary" in the second amendment imply sufficiency.So if the second amendment was about arms that were commonly held by the public during that time then it follows from that that based on the second amendment itself the second amendment has been no longer applicable for a long time because these arms are very far away from empowering the creation of a militia that is sufficiently equipped to stand to any military with explosives, tanks, missiles ,airplanes and other military weapons. In other words, if the intention behind the second amendment was to prevent any law making common public arms that can make a public militia sufficiently equipped for a military battle illegal then it came with its own time limit which had expired a long time ago.

It was a mistake from me in the preceding post if I made the inability of legislators to deal with the issue of applicability of the second amendment on our time sounds less significant than it is. My point was that if the supreme court believe that the second amendment still apply on our time then I don't see what makes their interpretation of limiting the type of arms sounds to them as stronger than that of giving the right to obtain military kind of arms. Since allowing such capability seemed out of question to me my point was that if you are not interpreting the second amendment correctly anyway then why not choose the path that is less harmful to people?

 

But what if that highest court says:

You people want us to interpret the second amendment according to what we truly believe and do our job of being only the interpretation entity correctly without assuming the power of the legislation body? How about if we interpret that according to what we truly believe it meant not caring about the mess that could happen and without encroaching on the legislation field in order to cover for the sever shortcomings of your legislators, so we can show you how undependable they are in that respect?

 

I don't understand how could any sane legislator accept taking the risk of keeping such a statement like that of the second amendment the way it is despite the extreme difference of type of arms and their capabilities between then and ,starting from ,probably, a century and half later or earlier.