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.