No I get your point and the point of my post is that Americans disagree with your sentiment, otherwise it would be repealed through constitutional means. In fact, if there was any point it could've been repealed it was in the 1950's, before any of these mass shootings occured. Almost 60% of Americans supported total gun prohibition then. Today only about 26% do. 

If it was bad for the public people would agree and support such an amendment. All power is derived from people, and in order to do this one must trust the people make reasonable decisions. Otherwise, we might as well go back to monarchies or oligarchies. If anything though the constitution protects people from mob rule, because a majority can't vote away the rights of a minority to the federal or governments. 

Observing America as I have over the last couple decades it seems that the constitution is a superb code of laws but is being violated all the time. The only difference now is that it is being done overtly and especially since the introduction of the PATRIOT act. The bill of rights seem to be more of a historical document than a legal statute at this stage.

but dont you know that the 2nd amendment is a individual right, its a collective right....  but the 1st amendment is umm.. an individual right... groups of people dont have the right to free speech.

dont you know this.

Key word is "initially". Lincoln basically ensured that the states can not terminate the contract. It's not a contract anymore.

No offense but I'm glad that you don't have any power. The people need weapons to be able to resist their government if the need ever arises. All tyrants strip the people of firearms before abusing them. The American government is currently a farcical misrepresentation of the intents of the founding fathers and I shudder to think what would happen if the people were entirely unable to resist their will. I am a firm believer in the decentralization of power as it makes it difficult for corrupt individuals to misuse theirs. You do realize that if guns were banned that criminals would still have access to them and if not, they would simply use explosives or other weapons.

The first amendment only applies to journalists. Don't you know this?

And most Americans disagree that prohibition would be an answer to anything. Case closed. We have power, and we decide what happens legally by voting for our representatives whom represent our views as close as possible, but also when making laws they're supposed to be properly educated on the matter and consider disadvantages of making a law.  And I wasn't referring to this when I mentioned the protections the constitution DOES give us. 

Anyway, if what you say is true, certainly there will be an amendment to the constitution. But, from the various statistics I've read on the topic, and the consideration of disadvantages of disarming an entire population, as well as the practical concerns of trying to take over 300 million lethal weapons from over 100 million persons I disagree that prohibition is a solution to anything, but especially to guns and most Americans agree with me. Therefore, new legislation that does ban guns outright or a constitution amendment is not in sight because of valid reasons and because of valid considerations. It will remain so if things are done legally and the government doesn't overstep the power it was given. 

the founding fathers could have never invisioned high powered assault journalists!

1A it is out dated

Weren't Germany and Italy developed nations when the fascists seized power? Want a more recent example, how about Yugoslavia? Sorry but saying "not here, not now" doesn't make the problem go away. No offense but your belief that the public should disarm and hand all power over to an increasingly corrupt government is absolutely ludicrous.