What a pity that in all their supposed legal interpretations of the Constitution, the judges of our court system--up to and including the Supreme Court--fail to look at the actual grammatical meanings within the very Constitution they purport to respect and enforce. If the SCOTUS had bothered to look into such expert analysis of the language used in the our 2A, I would think many, many cases that set precedent (incorrectly limiting 2A rights in particular) would have been decided much differently.
That's because it's not so much what it was intended to say, to mean...it's about what you can make it mean.
I would definitely expect that to be true of career politicians... I guess I've been more idealistic than realistic in my expectations of judges though. I unrealistically thought...maybe hoped...that judges would want to do what is right, not whatever they can to justify their own agenda. Sadly, the more I learn about our legal system and its history, the more i realize that I had it pretty much backwards.
I would definitely expect that to be true of career politicians... I guess I've been more idealistic than realistic in my expectations of judges though. I unrealistically thought...maybe hoped...that judges would want to do what is right, not whatever they can to justify their own agenda. Sadly, the more I learn about our legal system and its history, the more i realize that I had it pretty much backwards.
My only disagreement is that the term "well regulated" has changed in meaning over the last 200+ years.
At the time the 2nd Amendment was created, "well regulated" meant "...the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
This info from:
Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"