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.