It was in the NYT and it was by Justice John Paul Stevens [1]. I don't think it's stupid and certainly doesn't seem like a ploy for attention.

Repealing the second amendment does not mean banning firearms altogether. Writing a new amendment with better scope might be an option, or relying on congress to enact sensible limits might also be an option. But I do agree with you that such an amendment would be received as "[the left] wants to take our guns." That's the challenge of politics: you have to meet that criticism head-on and be clear about what sort of policies would get changed. This is no different from debating critics of socialized medicine who quickly throw up their hands and say "Death Panels!"

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens...

You're probably right given who it was that it wasn't a call for attention. However, the more respectable, more established someone is, the worse it makes this. It's hard to brush off the claims that the left wants to take away their guns when it's not just a bizarre fringe. I do think this is qualitatively different from arguing for socialized medicine - in this analogy that would be equivalent to talking about increased mandatory background checks, increasing the ability of police to seize guns, etc. The analog of arguing for repealing the second amendment would be to actually propose making things called "death panels."

I know that the slightest thing gets misconstrued by the other side (regardless of what side) but you don't have to serve it to them on a silver platter!