And you're entitled to that opinion.
From what I've read, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the bastardisation of the 2nd Amendment went something like this...
George W. Bush is elected president. Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada worked on the legal team representing GW in the Gore v Bush case concerning votes in Florida and, in effect, who was going to be President. GW won, made Olson Solicitor General and tried to get Estrada on the judiciary of the Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. The democrats philibustered him for over 2 years and Estrada eventually withdrew, and so GW nominated Tom Griffith instead, who was slipped in under the Gang of 14 deal.
Edit: Continued (following computer glitch)...
It was Griffith (included in "The New Republic"'s list of Washington's most powerful, but least famous, people) who ruled in favour on appeal of a case ("Parker v DC") on behalf of six claimants over their constitutional right to bear arms. This was a truly momentous decision. The case was really about "Robert A. Levy v the 2nd Amendment". The mayor of DC's petition for a re-hearing was dismissed (by the same DC Court of Appeals), and the District of Columbia appealed to the Supreme Court. This is exactly what Levy and his six chosen plaintives wanted. They were after the 2nd Amendment all along. Only now did it become "DC v Heller", and a situation in which a ruling in favour of DC and support of previous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would overturn the ruling of Thomas B. Griffith, one of "Washington's most powerful, but least famous, people".
I've discussed the merits of that decision in isolation elsewhere, but it is important, I feel, to see it in context.
Is the 2nd amendment clear on what constitutes arms?
Someone said Tanks are fine.