Larry, for some reference, I am a gun owner and support gun owners retaining the right to own and retain ownership of their firearms. I do not support those who want to ban all guns, I think the ban on assault weapons is pointless (about 1% or less of all firearms related deaths are related to a so-called assault weapon) and the medias obsession with this issue has been highly biased. I think Australia's approach is both dangerous and laughable in the US (good luck implementing that) and the left's assault on gun ownership is motivated by insecure self-righteousness moral aggrandizing hiding pea-sized testicles. I have hunted a good part of my life, in the past been a member of the NRA, was/am an Eagle Scout where responsible gun ownership is emphasized.
With that as a backdrop, your assertion that you're not aware of a law that fits your criteria (and I'm not aware of a law that fits your criteria) is related to the fact that you consider any restriction is an infringement. The SCOTUS disagrees and has consistently with your interpretation. You want to interpret the amendment literally when it suits you and even insert inaccurate terminology (NO LAW INFRINGING, which is not a direct quote) but when the law is interpreted so literally to include an infant (yes, that's ridiculous but it is a literal interpretation) you dismiss it. It's not appropriate to play both sides. Oh and show me where the constitution bans a 10yo from gun ownership. I know plenty that are both more responsible than you with a gun and are better shots.
Your interpretation is an extreme one, as defined by the fact that fewer than 3% of the public are NRA members and not all NRA members support no gun laws whatsoever. There isn't really an interpretation more extreme
I do realize that the NRA's fear is the chip-away problem and, as a result, I understand their unwillingness to budge further than from where we are. As you may remember from prior posts, I have consistently pointed out that gun violence in the US is nowhere near as bad as it was in the 80's and 90's. There has been a steady decrease in gun violence for over 30 years (with a small but concerning recent uptick), gun violence is largely confined to concentrated areas (hence Jeff's unwillingness to board a flight to North Minneapolis where a white liberal lawyer will be shot just as fast as a white racist pig). As a result, I don't support any changes beyond closing up some loopholes and better enforcement of the laws currently on the books. Clearly, the trend for over 30 years has been positive. The media's emphasis on this issue of late has been primarily agenda-motivated.
John, an amendment usually starts as a proposal by 2/3 of the House and Senate (or a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of state legislatures which has never occurred). It then goes to the state legislatures. Once approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures, the amendment becomes part of the constitution.