> There's never really an explanation as to why "we have to treat these things like infallible perfect works" when they're not, and even their authors told us they're not.

They are not, though. The constitution can be changed and has been changed many times in the past. I assume they think (or justify their decisions by saying that at least) that it’s not their job to pass legislation or enact constitutional amendments without any input from the states/congress which seems like a reasonable viewpoint.

> "we have to treat these things like infallible perfect works"

They don't treat the law as perfect, they just believe they don't have the leeway to reinterpret the law as they want in contradiction of the text. The law doesn't work if justices can read between the lines to get what they want.

Without arguing for or against firearms control, would you argue that the definition of a "well-regulated militia" has changed in the last 240 years?

SCOTUS certainly hasn't interpreted it "as written", but has been happy to "evolve" it.

the whole point of the people bearing arms, is to enable the people to regulate the activities of a militia directed by a tyrant, example being rebellion against the occupying redcoats, the commision of the war of independance, and succesion of the republic.

> would you argue that the definition of a "well-regulated militia" has changed in the last 240 years

That's a good question. And the answer is yes.

At the time it was written, that phrase would roughly mean well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined. Not regulated in the way we use the term today, to refer to something governed by regulations.

The prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment does not require a well-regulated militia to be in existence in order for the right to be protected, it expresses the motivation and then declares the right uninfringeable:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Maybe you'd be happier if it said:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms while they are members of a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed."

I am sympathetic to both sides of the jurispredential pragmatism/literalism question, but don't get your eggs twisted about what the 2nd amendment says, as only the most alien of consciousnesses could find ambiguity in its terse declaration.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of the free State.

So maybe we need the well regulated Militia, because that seems absent, though the Constitution says it is necessary.

The US already has an organised militia, it’s called (in honour of a Frenchman) the National Guard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903