>Hell, you don't even have to change the constitution. Just make acquiring a firearm a lot more difficult than just going to a store and buying it.

You do realize that those purchases require background checks right?

Criminals ain't using gun stores.

>Make it so you need to have three personal references that the seller can contact to make sure it's not a mistake selling you a firearm.

Hell no. That's beyond an invasion of privacy. And again, criminal background checks.

And it won't do a damn thing to prevent criminals.

>Make it so you need to have a gun safe to store the weapon before you can get one.

Only if the government provides a gun safe to each and every person, free of charge.

Otherwise, it's a tax on a right and that's abhorrent.

>The ease of firearm acquisition and ownership is making the country less safe, but because gun perverts will not consider any gun legislation that does not stop 100% of gun violence for all eternity, nothing changes and people keep getting killed that did not need to be.

First of all, there's hundreds of thousands of defensive uses with firearms every year.

Second of all, everything you said does not appear to do a damn thing to actually lower crime.

Third of all, calling your opponents "gun perverts" does not do you any favors.

Fourth of all, the right to self-defense is absolute. Banning firearms infringes on our rights to bear arms and our rights to self-defense.

Well, there's an actual process for how that's supposed to happen. The Constitution defines how it's actually to be amended and it's meant to be as hard as possible.

It's not meant to be done on the whims of the populace duped into believing misleading statistics from a media hellbent on spreading fear for ratings or from statists obsessed with accumulating power.

And let me ask you something--would you be so willing to ditch the protections for the 1st Amendment? After all, the Constitution is not infallible.

I'll put it more plainly then.

The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court says that while some limitations are acceptable, others are not.

You cannot ban firearms. It's completely un-Constitutional. And beyond that, it's asinine to punish and infringe on the law-abiding who have done you no harm.

The Supreme Court ruled that while some limitations are permissible, common use semiautomatic firearms do not fall under such a category.

What part of shall not be infringed was unclear?