New York Times' "Another Stab at the U.S. Constitution."

Not surprisingly, it is with a totalitarian bayonet.
A borrow from Sipsey Street:

From Kurt Hofmann: New York Times hosts call to 'get rid of the right to bear arms'

Here is Melynda Price, who is an associate professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law, presenting touchy-feely wrapping paper on the federal government's fist. She blogs at http://ivorytowerinterloper.blogspot.com/

I came of age when the word “drive-by” entered the American lexicon. By high school graduation, I lost one cousin to gun violence and another was incarcerated for a gun crime. I know many harmed by guns and even more who feared the possibility. I always wonder if, but for the Second Amendment, there would be a more radical commitment to compromise and peacefully working through easy and difficult issues.

The process of compromise is exactly what the Framers were engaged in and is exactly what seems absent today. What if terms like “black-on-black crime” were instead “black-on-black reconciliation” or “black-on-black-let’s-talk-this-out-like-the-human-beings-we-have-always-known-ourselves-to-be.”

I am not naïve enough to believe that doing away with the Second Amendment would do away with gun violence, but I know firsthand the impact of guns and gun shots on children. This nation was constructed and reconstructed in the aftermath of violent and bloody conflicts. Still, the Framers believed that not only the Constitution, but also the peaceful way the document was created, would penetrate the Americans' minds and change they engaged. The Constitution would be the only weapon needed unless there was an external enemy.

Despite the Supreme Court’s repetition of outdated mythologies of kings and castles in Heller v. District of Columbia, I am not sure this amendment envisioned the kind of gun toting that is permitted across this country in the last decade. The Second Amendment acknowledged the vulnerability of a nation in its infancy, but could not predict a world where some would move through life feeling more like targets than citizens. Now a mother watching her own fragile creation grow into black manhood, I would worry less if it were more difficult for him to find himself facing a gun held by boys or men who look like him or by those whose job it is to serve and protect.

Go and read Kurt's analysis, but he has one statement I would take issue with: "Those who would nullify the right to keep and bear arms had best be prepared to kill--by the tens of thousands--to do it."

Wrong. They had best be prepared to kill -- and to die -- by the millions. For we do not intend to go gently into that totalitarian good night.

From Hofmann's piece:
Sunday, not surprisingly, the suggested "fix" was to "Get Rid of the Right to Bear Arms," as University of Kentucky College of Law Associate Professor Melynda Price advocates:

I always wonder if, but for the Second Amendment, there would be a more radical commitment to compromise and peacefully working through easy and difficult issues.

As dubious as that notion is, it pales in comparison to Professors Price's misunderstanding here:

The Constitution would be the only weapon needed unless there was an external enemy.

That, of course, is about as close as possible to the exact opposite of reality. The Framers included the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms precisely because words on parchment--no matter how noble--are no "weapon." The Constitution only protects the rights of the people to the extent that the people are willing and able to enforce that document's limits on governmental power. Enforcement of such things tends to require something stronger than harsh language.

Which reminded me of this: The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. -- Judge Alex Kozinski, dissenting, Silveira v. Lockyer, denial to re-hear en banc, 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2003.