[novembermike]

That's only an argument for a constitutional amendment. The justice system can interpret a law in light of modern technologies (I don't think anyone argues that the first amendment gives you the right to use a printing press but not an electronic printer) but they have to follow the intent of the constitution.

[15155]

Which, as a firearms enthusiast and pro-gun individual: I wish groups would attempt to make.

If you want to curb private firearm ownership: please, introduce a constitutional amendment instead of trying to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks.

Then, once said amendment fails to get even a fraction of the support necessary, we can go back to business as usual.

[Retric]

Such an amendment could be passed fairly easily. Don't forget banning beer passed and vastly more people care about beer than guns. Guns are mostly political theater at this point where neither side wants change they just want to drum up support from there base.

[wyclif]

Such an amendment could be passed fairly easily

I laughed out loud when I read this. You are very, very naive. If this is representative of your understanding of how US constitutional law works, you shouldn't be commenting.

[15155]

Propose the amendment!

How are you going to get it ratified?

And once it is ratified, how are you going to contend with state constitutions?

And once those are out of the way, how are you actually going to pry firearms from the hands of their owners?

There are orders of magnitude more private firearm owners than sworn persons in the United States, and these groups largely overlap.