It always confuses me how people quote the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution to end the argument without further discussion, as if it's impossible to - you know - amend the constitution somehow, if one wanted to.

If people want to keep guns for their own reasons, they're allowed to have those reasons and should argue them. But the fact that the constitution was once amended to allow them to is not, by itself, a reason to keep doing so. That's just circular reasoning.

The Second Amendment isn't like other amendments. It's deeply and intrinsically embedded in the cultural and political identity of half the country, which makes the 2/3rds majority required to even hold a Constitutional Convention impossible, because those states will never vote to touch the Second Amendment. It has a multi-million dollar industrial lobby, all of the police, all of the military, and one of two effective political parties behind it. It's written in such a way that it justifies itself as existentially necessary, so that even attempting to amend or repeal it legally is certain to lead to civil war - a war millions of Americans have been stockpiling arms in anticipation of ever since the last one ended. Any Senator or Congressperson bringing it up is committing career suicide, and should they succeed, they'll have to spend the rest of their life avoiding open windows.

And then there's the problem of what to do with all of the guns already in the country. No one is confiscating them without a fight, regardless of what the law says.

So yes, it's technically possible in the same way open-heart surgery on yourself with a ballpoint pen is technically possible. Practically speaking, though, it means a lot of pain and a lot of bloodshed, and it's easier to regulate around it because at least then the US doesn't turn into Northern Ireland.

The thing I never understood is why the jurisprudence puts more emphasis on the "right to bear arms" part than in the "a well regulated militia" part.

there's a lot which has been written on the subject, from all perspectives.

you can find whatever explanation will satisfy your political leanings.

> as if it's impossible to - you know - amend the constitution somehow, if one wanted to

in the real world, where everyone has to live, the constitution isn't seeing amendment any time soon on any subject, and the 2nd certainly isn't being removed.

suggesting that it's somehow a plausible option is isn't a productive use of your life, or anyone else's.

I'm not saying that amending the constitution is a plausible option, I'm saying that "because the constitution says so" isn't a plausible argument because despite the implausibility it is actually possible to amend it - as evidenced by the fact that it has been amended before in at least 2 different ways.

I simply quoted it for completeness.

Feel free to debate it endlessly or amend the Constitution, etc. We have a lot of pre-existing material.

In the meantime, I’m simply trying to have a discussion on using technology to lessen an immediate problem where we should be able to get a little more consensus.

This is little more than a band-aid, which will almost inevitably be decried as prejudiced - rightly so. It does not treat the root cause and increases institutional control in a realm where measures are becoming increasingly draconian to scratch out crime. Why increase surveillance, institute predictive crime models, and so on while crippling human rights when it's well within the realm of possibility to actually provide a curative modality over the long run without further compromising privacy?

What if your brand of extremism gets you pinned as a probable criminal? How would you like that? Your search history and your playlist parsed into an AI, the way you move spells criminal. No due process. Would that be good for you?

I like how we just went full Minority Report.

No where did I imply that.

"Machine learning, cameras, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_locator "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_policing

Even if your proposition isn't initially designed as such, it will almost inevitably trend towards that. Tweaks to optimize sensitivity turn into increasingly thorough surveillance, suddenly the scope grows. Parkinson's law. Viola, our quaint police state is amplified into some chimeric synthesis of 1984 and some other jackbooted caricature. You can find these trends elsewhere, y'know, basically anything the government is allowed to touch. The old adage "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile."

Call it slippery slope all you want, it's happened time and time again.

Or we can work to eliminate the egregious discrepancies of wellbeing, and give these people something to work for so their risk analytics aren't weighing zero.