The court’s members ignored the present-day reality of Chicago, where 258 public school students were shot last school year — 32 fatally.
That was with the gun ban in place. And the court is not a legislative body.
Fascinating that the total failure of a policy is used as a justification for the continuation of a policy.
I would hope it unnecessary to point out, but we're not talking about a 'policy' - it's a Constitutional prohibition against government infringement of a basic right. The court (as intended by the Framers, anyway) has no role in making policy in any event.
Proceeding from that flawed logic...
False premise. The 'plain language' reads "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." While explicitly predicated on the necessity of a well-regulated militia to the security of a free state, it plainly does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms...", it says "the right of the people". So your the NYT's plain language argument loses.
Chicago’s entirely sensible ban
Your The NYT's subjective notion of what 'makes sense' is just that. But that subjectivity is one of the many reasons the Constitution exists. It was 'entirely sensible' to the British Parliament to tax the colonists without representation.
Chicago can't choose to selectively amend the Constitution on its own whim. To pick & choose what parts it likes and what parts it doesn't. This is also true of so-called sanctuary cities, which have also explicitly chosen to selectively ignore Federal law*. There is a mechanism to amend that Constitution; it's been used successfully many times. If it's OK for Chicago to ignore the Second Amendment and San Fran to declare itself a sanctuary to illegal immigrants, what's to stop, say, Cleveland from ignoring the equal protection clause if it wants to?
I don't own a gun, never have, wouldn't wish to absent some pretty good and presently unforeseen reasons specific to my circumstances. But I have the right to purchase one if I decide I should, and I want it to stay that way. I would want it to stay that way for my children & their children. They can choose not to 'keep and bear arms' but I want them to continue to have the freedom of that choice. I doubt the Second Amendment will ever be repealed, and certainly hope it isn't.
*It's the bitterest of ironies that the Federal government has chosen to ignore those self-same laws.
Reason for edits: I assumed dan_l agreed with the NYT. Maybe not.