I have not read the Heller decision in its entirety. I do know that there are Supreme Court rulings that Heller contradicts. I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded. I do know that views on how the Constitution should be interpreted have changed over time. I do know that it's not an obvious amendment. There is no such thing as we have lawyers arguing the meaning of the Constitution all the time. Nothing is very clear cut. Language is nuanced, intent is nuanced, and there are a ton of gray areas.

> I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded... Language is nuanced, intent is nuanced, and there are a ton of gray areas.

Can I ignore or rewrite the 14th amendment because I find it confusing?

> I do know that views on how the Constitution should be interpreted have changed over time.

Yeah, people started ignoring parts they weren't comfortable with and finding new parts in prenumbras.

Your argument boils down to, "I don't know, everyone. There are a lot of gray areas, so we better just agree to do what I want."

That is not my argument at all. I have an opinion on what the 2nd amendment ought to mean. I advocate that others share my position. I've acknowledged numerous times that others don't share my opinion and I've suggested that they keep vigilant to maintain their rights. That's the whole point of politics. This is a political issue and people advocate for/against positions all the time. Sometimes attitudes that once were accepted become repugnant.

We best not just agree to do what I want. That would be absolute power and that would be horrible. No one deserves that much power. No one should be so arrogant that they think they are always right or that their opinions are beyond reproach.

I welcome discourse and debate. It's necessary for a properly functioning society.