Like prohibition it's time to amend the second amendment.

[onenote]

136. Wrong.

There are two ways to amend the constitution. The first way (and the only way that has been used in nation's history) is for Congress to approve the amendment by a 2/3 vote of both houses and then send it for ratification by 3/4 of the states. The states don't get to "work on details" after the fact. The amendment that is approved by Congress at the start of the process is the amendment that the states consider.

The other way, never used, is for 2/3 of the states to call on Congress to commence a Constitutional Convention -- a process that many Constitutional scholars view as terrifyingly risky since it could, in theory, open the entire constitution to revision. The changes would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, but this process has never been used and its almost impossible to imagine in being used.

The fact is that the legislation that was defeated today -- a terrible result -- was constitutional. An amendment wasn't needed. But 60 votes were in the Senate and a majority would be required in the House and while the first should have been achievable, it wasn't, and the second was never going to happen. For legislation that didn't require the Constitution to change. The notion that we are anywhere close to revising or repealing the Second amendment by a 2/3 Congressional vote and votes of 3/4 of the states, when we can't get 60 votes in the Senate or a simple majority in the House for a change in the law that is constitutional, is pure fantasy.

We are far better working, as the President indicated, on electing legislators that will make changes that don't require a Constitutional amendment or in getting states to pass common sense gun laws that are within current constitutional boundaries, than in some quixotic quest to rewrite the Constitution.