An Anonymous Coward writes:
A gunman fired upon thousands of people attending a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip Sunday night, in a brutal attack that is blamed for at least 58 deaths, police say. In the mass shooting and panic that ensued, 515 people were injured. At least one of the dead is an off-duty police officer who was attending the concert.
Editorializing: Interesting how media always emphasize ISLAMIC terrorists, but downplay domestic terrorism as psychologically disturbed individual lone-wolfs.
I've reread your post and your replies, and I have previously studied the US constitution. You are correct that it does not grant rights, however it does grant power to the government, including the power to remove freedoms from individuals (which it does regularly, for example removing the right to liberty from people conviced of crime, removing the right to free movement by enforcing land ownership rights, and so on). Prior amendments to the constitution have never removed text, they have only added additional amendments that supersede them. For example, the 21st amendment both repealed the 18th (which remains part of the document, but now one with no legal force) and added an additional term relating to state and city laws. An amendment that repealed the second amendment would do something similar, specifically granting the Federal government the right to pass laws that restricted gun ownerships.
This is a hypothetical, because stricter gun laws have been dropping in popularity in the USA since the '90s [gallup.com], so it's unlikely that such an amendment would pass, but that's irrelevant. My question is whether you actually believe that a civilised country needs individual ownership of firearms (when the US is a great case study of the fact that they do nothing to prevent abuses of power by the government), or whether it is purely a legalistic argument (the government of the USA may not remove any rights from the people unless the people explicitly, via the constitution, permit it to do so). If it's the latter, presumably you would have enthusiastically backed the right to own other humans as slaves, right up until the point that the thirteenth was passed.
Based upon this latest reply, filled with straw men about slavery and rights government can revoke, no, you did not comprehend the core issue of "powers not possessed cannot be delegated", which renders any so-called law that violates said principle void.
If I'm again wrong, and you merely disagree, fine. State that and your reasons why. Trying to feign lack of comprehension as disagreement is telling.