What non-sensical double-talk, Al! You mean we need a third party to fix the obvious? There should be no controversy when it comes to much needed gun control to take at least assault weapons off the market and ban such war weapons from sale and public use. The only problem is dishonest, non-caring Republicans standing in the way, with all the dummies still voting for such an outdated cult! Voting for Trump in 2016, after his p-grabbing brag, should be more than enough to turn every decent voter away from such a low-scum. And after we have seen all the damage and chaos Trump has caused, most of them still intend to vote for him? My goodness, how irresponsible can they be?

Despite the sometime accomplishments of progressive judges, it’s not supposed to be the function of the SCOTUS to make or modify laws; that’s to be done by “the people”, through congress.

The current situation re firearms, immigration, regulations, and a host of other issues leads me to believe that an influential third party is necessary.
Necessary to wrest the country from the iron grip of the extremist influenced two major parties.
A relatively small number of right wing ideologue crazies, and lunatic lefties, have pretty much paralyzed congress, and it’s hard to imagine a solution other than a major third party.

All politics is local.
Congress members, if they are honest, vote according to the wishes of the majority of their constituents.
It’s the right of everyone else to disagree with extremist wishes.

So, a third party is needed to satisfy the wishes of centrists like myself.
Al

Al: And interpreted in such a manner that an 18-year-old looney can buy an AR-15 assault weapon on his way to an elementary school in Uvalde and blow apart 19 innocent little kids and 2 teachers, while hundreds of police officers were gathering outside the classroom, afraid of this guy’s deadly weapon? The Texas Republican authorities even refused to increase the age limit to 21 after this horrible massacre, never mind banning entirely such weapons only meant for war! Do you really think and believe that the amendment drafters had that in mind? We know what has happened, over and over and over again, – and nothing is being done! Read my blog entry again, and try to open your mind!
Jorg

What is wrong, is assuming that an interpretation by a majority of the SCOTUS, who are learned scholars, is wrong.
The term “the people”, as used in the Constitution, means the American population in general, keeping in mind the social structure at the time.
I don’t know, but I wonder if proper English grammar was a little different two centuries ago. I leave that to scholars.

Instead of complaining about a legal decision, it would be more productive to set forward ideas on how to go about amending the amendment.
Set forward those ideas without insulting those you disagree with.
You don’t change people’s minds by insulting them.
That just comes across as arrogant, although that may be fine with the majority of those who read your blog.
Al

Al,
Reread what I wrote, with an open mind! Your interpretation makes absolutely no sense, neither grammatically, nor logically, or socially.
And it shouldn’t be necessary to dwell more on the disastrous results of the wrong interpretation. Haven’t we had enough mass massacres yet?
Jorg

Read some history.
The 2nd Amendment specifies that all people should be free to bear arms.
Your interpretation is incorrect.