I rarely come to agree with Karl Rove (Bush's chief of staff for the entire eight years). He is from Alabama and I will admit that politically.....he knows how the system works). Yesterday on one of Sunday talk-shows....the subject of the Charleston shooting got brought up. Karl got challenged. Karl got witty. Karl then says.....if you want to stop all these shootings, why not just amend the Constitution and delete the second amendment?
It was a brilliant suggestion, and puts the view into a different prospective. Let's say that an effort started up and a year down the road.....enough votes occurred state-by-state.....to revoke the second amendment. What happens next?
Fifty separate state legislatures and the DC Congress would meet and argue for months and months over the 'new' rules. As soon as you felt the smoke cleared slightly.....some nut would come out and shoot a dozen people....scarring the public to either suggest bringing back the second amendment or making more stringent rules about guns. People would start to question why cops need automatic rifles or pistols. Some people would question the military for the need for automatic rifles. Some legal nut would sue the federal government claiming a free and happy life could only be guaranteed by having guns for protection.
In this regard, Karl has it correct. Go ahead and start to screw around with the Constitution.....like they did in 1919 to make alcohol illegal. It took around a decade for everyone to admit.....that was a big mistake. Dissolving the second amendment? It'd likely take less than three years for the public to admit that this correction didn't really help matters.