Passing an amendment to ban guns is different from, for example, passing an amendment to give women the right to vote. Giving women the right to vote is giving

Passing an amendment to ban guns is different from, for example, passing an amendment to give women the right to vote. Giving women the right to vote is giving a group a new right. Banning guns is taking away a right from a group. Arms is one of the power granted to the people by the Constitution. Asking the people to give up this power is as idiotic as asking Congress to give up its power. Just because some people prefer not to exercise this right (arms) does not mean they can take it away from those who prefer to exercise it. Just like you can not take men's right to vote without a civil war. Just because some men does not want to vote does not mean you can take away other men's right to vote. All men must agree first, or there will be civil war, because you're infringing on another men's right. Also of note, the Constitution specifically DENIED the government the power to outright ban guns. The government can regulate it, but the government can not outright ban it. >A well regulated militia... Meaning the government can regulate arms. >...arms shall not be infringed. Meaning the government can not outright ban arms. So again, can guns be banned? Yea, but only if everyone 99% of the population agrees. Which is never going to happen, because we all know the gun owners will never agree. And if the gun owners disagree, then the government and those who agrees are infringing on gun owner's rights. At which point, they will exercise their 2nd Amendment right and there will be civil war. Again, guns will never be banned because guns owner will never agree to give up their fundamental rights.