The point was that until enough of the US supports gun control for the Constitution to be amended, there's not really any changing whether or not the US law supports gun ownership, and that majority support does not currently exist.

Congress could not simply pass a law to ban speech because it is protected by the Constitution. To ban free speech, you would have to modify the Constitution. To modify the Constitution, you would have to have much more support for it than currently exists.

Yeah, I know all this. What's your point?

I'm sure Petzold and everyone in this thread knows that gun control laws are hard to change -- what you're talking about has nothing to do with the actual question at hand, which is whether they should be changed.

I don't generally assume that people not in the United States have expert knowledge on the finer details of constitutional restraint.

Just because you know everything already doesn't mean that everybody else does. My apologies for trying to be informative.

To add to this - IMO, The Bill of Rights is a list of "inalienable" rights. While I suppose The Constitution could be eventually amended to remove a right - it would not be the correct thing.

That is to say - it should be impossible to remove a right that is not granted, but is simply innate.

Who would ever agree to removing the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 6th. No one. So why would they agree to removing the 2nd?

I don't understand what people don't get about the fact that one has an absolute, irremovable, and inalienable right to self-defense.

> While I suppose The Constitution could be eventually amended to remove a right

Which was indeed the purpose of the 18th, which was quite the grand mistake.

The 18th was not on The Bill of Rights, and by the way, the 21st repealed it.

Understood. My point was that the Constitution has been amended to remove rights. It may eventually be done again, and I agree that would likely be a mistake, but it has already been done.