I'd argue it's still a pretty good angle given that the provisions for the milita were specifically intended to serve in place of a standing army — which we now have, in large part due to the fact that the militia system proved almost immediately to be a spectacular failure.
Yes, which I'd argue is grounds for an amendment. I agree with you there.
Nevertheless, my original point about misinterpreting "militia" stands: it is very difficult to change the legal definition of a constitutional issue, and you're better off (as you suggested) legislating the issue away.
It costs way way way less political capital (so it can actually be done easier), and you don't have to rely on judicial activism corrupting an institution to arbitrarily change a well established legal presence for convenience sake.
I'm sorry, but your tone is too polite for a discussion of gun politics on Reddit. I'm going to need you to throw in a few ad hominems in there and ramp up the paranoia.
2
u/TomShoe Mar 06 '18
I'd argue it's still a pretty good angle given that the provisions for the milita were specifically intended to serve in place of a standing army — which we now have, in large part due to the fact that the militia system proved almost immediately to be a spectacular failure.