I'm not saying anything should be done unconstitutionally. Have the discussion, then make some sober choices. If that means some changes may take place immediately and still be constitutionally permissible, then perhaps those changes are implemented first. If some changes require amending the constitution and could garner appropriate support to do so, then those steps could follow. Over time, changes occur. But before we can really figure out what can/can't and should/shouldn't happen, we need to admit things aren't perfect and there can be legitimate opinions that don't align with ones own. Have the discussion and reconsider ones stances. It's how we improve. Of course, we may determine no changes are needed, but to enter the discussion without an honest willingness to reassess ones own perspective is to stagnate, wither and die.
You forgot to say, like Obama does, Reasonable changes. I think that means, you want to infringe but I should find it reasonable. Guess what? I would be more impressed if I saw an amendment be proposed, then I could evaluate and see if I found it reasonable. No, I am not at all inclined to take it to a judge to decide if it is reasonable. The second amendment simply codifies what is in natural law, in our Constitution, Thank you James Madison. I for one will watch carefully any change proposed and urge my countryman to do the same. I find nothing to suggest it requires modification, but I would listen.
