We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.Scalia, DC v. Heller.
It's also not your place to reinterpret the US Constitution and trash centuries of legal precedent. Remember, Judicial review is a custom, not an actual Constitutionally created power. And the same source for Judicial Review says that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 [1803])
