Quite the contrary. In this discussion it is you who carries the burden that all elements of the Constitution have been transgressed and simply not observed because you want to prevent remedial amendments. That is what you said.
In making your argument that none work, your argument fails if some do work.
How much of the right to bear arms do you really believe would exist if there were no Second Amendment? You are determined to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Shall we throw up our hands and submit to de facto amendment of the Constitution on virtually a daily basis by the bureaucracy, Congress and the courts or shall we avail ourselves of the constitutionally sanctioned remedy?
I suspect that you are motivated by propaganda emanating from the National Rifle Association. I don't know you personally and I might be entirely wrong, however, I have been posting here for years that much of the antagonism toward fixing the Constitution with the provisions of the Constitution that allow for fixing it come from the NRA, an organization riven by dissension but determined to sell the rest of the Bill of Rights to retain the second.
(Full disclosure: I fully support the right to bear arms even as I object to the selfish stance of the NRA.)
There is no danger to the right to keep and bear arms as expressed in the second amendment from the exercise of Article V-the arithmetic simply belies that fear.
