> This distinction is mostly philosophical and historical Not in a court of law, where it matters. We can be dismissive, but this distinction has true and leg

> This distinction is mostly philosophical and historical Not in a court of law, where it matters. We can be dismissive, but this distinction has true and legal significance. As I mentioned in one of my notes, this is the reason the government of New Zealand can decide to confiscate weapons while, in the US, it is so close to impossible that it is. > laws, even constitutions, can be changed, and regularly are Laws and the US Constitution are two different things. The US Constitution can be changed, yes, but it virtually impossible. This is particularly true of REMOVING rights in the Bill of Rights. In order to make any change you need --by law, as spelled out in the constitution: 2/3 majority vote in the US Senate. AND 2/3 majority vote in the US House of Representatives. AND 3/4 of State Legislatures approve it (via direct vote or ratifying convention). The other way is: 2/3 of State Legislatures ask the US Congress (House and Senate) to hold a constitutional convention. AND 3/4 of State Legislatures approve it (via direct vote or ratifying convention). In other words, it is just-about impossible, particularly given today's political climate. There's a practical element to this. Proponents of enhanced gun control (or gun confiscation) are wasting a ton of time, energy and money in an exercise in futility. It would be far more productive to focus on addressing the real causes of gun violence than to try and remove constitutional rights from people who have never and will never harm anyone.