I don't think Jeerleader was saying amending the constitution was hilarious, he was saying amending the constitution to remove an enumerated right was.

I agree with him when he said that a constitutional amendment to restrict or remove the 2nd amendment is only analogous to the 18th amendment, which prohibited the manufacture or sale of alcohol and removed rights of citizens.  And of course this was repealed with the 21st amednment.  All the other constitutional amendments basically expand or clarify the rights of the people or address constitutional procedures.

This is why getting an amendment passed to revise the 2nd amendment is very unlikely.

I agree that it's unlikely. In Fact, I don't see much chance of any meaningful gun regulations being enacted.
Americans want unfettered access to weaponry, the cost in human suffering be damned.

My more recent interest is in attempting to understand the passion that some people feel towards guns. I have been unable to grasp it. I mean, I own a few guns. But to me they are just things. To others they are the embodiment of the sacred.  Look at the National news section of the exchange. There are three gun threads on the first two pages. These threads have gotten 583, 243, qnd 304 views respectively. No other threads even break 100 views.

I just don't get it.

Just Fred wrote:

Perhaps the issue for some, including me, isn't about gun ownership per se, but instead the type of weaponry made available to the public.

That's understandable but you are up against longstanding legal doctrine.  In actual practice the Court has looked at the usefulness of the weapon in conflict as the primary protection test.

That modern weapons are more lethal isn't a point in favor of regulation, it is a point in favor of citizen possession and use protection / immunity from regulation.

I understand that your position is that we are on the cusp of discarding that and writing a new amendment to repair all these defects but knowing where we are now, will inform you on just how far the journey is ahead of you.

 

Rongone wrote:

My reasoning countering your definitive statement was summed up concisely and clearly in post #44.

Mmmkay

Rongone wrote:

The problem is that Jeerleader stated unequivocally that it was not possible to do this:

"It can not be done legally (constitutionally).". Jeerleader

What exactly is “this”?  Is “this” what I was talking about or what you have assigned my words to be?

Had I mentioned “via a very unlikely constitutional amendment” in my answers to your question perhaps you would have a point.  When you asked:


“what (is) the process you see as coming to fruition to take away firearms from law abiding citizens in the U.S. Describe that process that you fear. How would this happen? Which government agency would have the responsibility for collecting these weapons? Exactly how would they do it? Do you think that a countrywide confiscation program would ever work?”


You left choosing the “process” I wanted to address completely up to me. 

The process that I, “see as coming to fruition to take away firearms from law abiding citizens” was a process that would come about under some sort of emergency powers claimed by the executive. I went on to mention “EO” three times.  That assumes that the nation is operating under an un-amended constitution (as far as gun ownership is concerned).

My statement "It can not be done legally (constitutionally)" was in reference to the “process” I laid out.  That you have picked it up and wrapped your ‘constitutional amendment” straw man with it, is your exercise in mendacity not mine.

 

Rongone wrote:

Saying it "can not be done" is much different from admitting that it would be difficult to accomplish or unlikely to come to fruition seems to demonstrate a certain manipulation of reality to support your point of view.

Most people would agree that amending the constitution is a long and arduous process, but to intimate that it "can not be done", well, that borders on arrogant ignorance, or, at the very least, misrepresentation of factual information.

Sweet merciful Jesus that is sad . . .   
Please, just stop embarrasing yourself.
 

Jeerleader wrote:

Rongone wrote:

My reasoning countering your definitive statement was summed up concisely and clearly in post #44.

Mmmkay

Rongone wrote:

The problem is that Jeerleader stated unequivocally that it was not possible to do this:

"It can not be done legally (constitutionally).". Jeerleader

What exactly is “this”?  Is “this” what I was talking about or what you have assigned my words to be?

Had I mentioned “via a very unlikely constitutional amendment” in my answers to your question perhaps you would have a point.  When you asked:


“what (is) the process you see as coming to fruition to take away firearms from law abiding citizens in the U.S. Describe that process that you fear. How would this happen? Which government agency would have the responsibility for collecting these weapons? Exactly how would they do it? Do you think that a countrywide confiscation program would ever work?”


You left choosing the “process” I wanted to address completely up to me. 

The process that I, “see as coming to fruition to take away firearms from law abiding citizens” was a process that would come about under some sort of emergency powers claimed by the executive. I went on to mention “EO” three times.  That assumes that the nation is operating under an un-amended constitution (as far as gun ownership is concerned).

My statement "It can not be done legally (constitutionally)" was in reference to the “process” I laid out.  That you have picked it up and wrapped your ‘constitutional amendment” straw man with it, is your exercise in mendacity not mine.

 

Rongone wrote:

Saying it "can not be done" is much different from admitting that it would be difficult to accomplish or unlikely to come to fruition seems to demonstrate a certain manipulation of reality to support your point of view.

Most people would agree that amending the constitution is a long and arduous process, but to intimate that it "can not be done", well, that borders on arrogant ignorance, or, at the very least, misrepresentation of factual information.

Sweet merciful Jesus that is sad . . .   
Please, just stop embarrasing yourself.
 

 

My last word on this subject and dealing with your childish reactionary rhetoric:

Look in the mirror.