At least Justice Stevens, for all his constitutional taffy-pulling, finally came to the realization that to enact the gun laws he and other liberals want, the Constitution would need to be altered.
It is a bit unclear how rescinding the 2ndA would get us to that goal since the Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for going on 146 years, that the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA, thus the RKBA in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.
Next problem, where are you going to find the 38+ states required to ratify a new federal amendment, surrendering the rights of their citizens to complete federal control?
Correct!
The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments entail rights that are inherent and, therefore, absolutely unbridgeable. These rights preexist per the imperatives of natural law. They cannot be granted, taken away, or transferred by the state. Their natural expressions and exercises can only be illegitimately suppressed by the state. There is no assertion whatsoever in the language of their enumeration that the ratification of the Constitution, let alone congressional decree, granted them. In other words, the language of their enumeration, including that of the Fourth and Fifth in terms of their essence, assumes their prior existence. The duly administered warrants of probable cause and the duly administered deprivations of due process per criminality do not violate them.
This is not to say that the other rights are not inherent in some sense. Rather, like certain aspects of the Fourth and Fifth, they are rooted in the others and require additional explanation or specification.
Now, of course, this doesn't mean that one may say or do whatever one bloody damn well pleases, which routinely confuses the stupid. Rather, there is no natural right to violate the life, liberty, or the property of another in the first place.
Moreover, the suspensions of free expression and exercise vis-a-vis crises strictly go to the wellbeing of the body politic of the social contract.
Regarding their preexistent nature, the above is most especially true about the language of the First and Second. Observe:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The plain language of the Second Amendment's main clause, as the Federalist Papers evince and the Court has affirmed, firstly pertains to the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights are predicated on the imperatives of natural law regarding the inalienable rights of the people endowed by God (or nature if you please), not by governments. This inherent right of the people precedes the security of the several states, just as the militias of the several states precede the existence of Congress. It's important to keep in mind that under natural and constitutional law the right to keep and bear arms and the existence of the Militia are ontologically rooted in the people themselves.
