It still doesn't sit right with me. By your reasoning, it's perfectly rational that the politicians and judges play word games and engage in creative semantics with regard to the constitution, and it is the responsibility of the electorate to be constantly amending the Constitution and re-wording it to counter that.
Your assertions that everything is as it should be and there is no reason to consider anything "broken", if logically extended, culminates in a determination that until there are no longer enough firearms in the hands of private citizens to take back the government by force, everything is hunky-dory.
I'm not sure I would call it rational, but I would call it predictable, and I believe this behavior was predictable (and practiced) by the Framers themselves, and that they provided the people themselves with ample powers (and checks) to deal with it as they see fit.
and it is the responsibility of the electorate to be constantly amending the Constitution and re-wording it to counter that.
Amending the Constitution is one way to do it. But there are other ways. Ultimately, though, it does take the will of the people, in some form, to make things happen.
Your assertions that everything is as it should be and there is no reason to consider anything "broken",
To say that the system is in good working condition is not the same as saying everything is "as it should be." I don't even pretend to know how things "should" be. But I can see that the system is in working condition.
if logically extended, culminates in a determination that until there are no longer enough firearms in the hands of private citizens to take back the government by force, everything is hunky-dory.
It hasn't been taken away from us. This is it.