I'm not letting the courts get away with anything. Courts don't always do what I say they should do.<quoted text>Well- parenthetically speaking- words strung together don't get much more ambiguous than the 2A. We don't arm prisoners or toddlers (on purpose)for example, so, what part of "shall not be infringed" are you people letting the government get away with?
I have my own thoughts on how judges should interpret laws, but other judges feel different and there is precedent. If I were a judge, the language seems pretty clear to me ... I don't have to like it ... I don't have to agree with it ... that's how a good judge should operate ... just interpret the law without your own thoughts on the subject coming into the equation ... be like Spock ... no emotional attachment or interest ... it's hard to do, but that should be the first thing every judge strives to do, IMO, when interpreting laws.
I'm pretty sure states would not allow toddlers or prisoners to be armed, btw. This is Hyperbole.