The constitutional amendment process is damn near broken. It should be made (slightly) easier. And before people say that an easier amendment process would enable religious fundies recognizing the United States as a Christian nation, or whatever else...

I appreciate the point that a looser amending process could enable all sorts of amendments, including some I don't like, and we should defer to our wise framers. But I'm tired of the lack of nuance--"deference to the framers" is a semantic stop sign. You can't even get to suggesting what a revised amendment process should look like before you get dug-in heels. I'm a big fan of the revolutionary generation, but this tack encourages a dogmatic obedience to an imperfect system. As it stands, a bare majority in the 13 least populous states can stop an amendment that otherwise receives broad national support. That amounts to 2% of the population. I'll literally quote Scalia when I say, "It should be hard to amend the constitution... but not THAT hard." Some amendments that received broad support and came close to ratification include the equal rights amendment, DC statehood, and child labor restrictions during the early part of the 20th century. Ironically, the latter policy was accomplished by a judicially active court granting expansive commerce clause power to Congress to regulate child labor laws. That's another argument for a somewhat looser amendment process: Advocates for certain rights pursue a Supreme Court remedy--framing their proposals as being reflected in the constitution rather than needing to be explicitly added--which encourages judicial activism. And if one claims to be wary about "policies being enacted that we're not a fan of" then would they not prefer a slightly more sensible amendment process to a non-elected body of Justices reading this right or that between the lines of the constitution?

This argument is independent of the pragmatism of amending or repealing the second amendment. There are probably millions of second amendment absolutists.