Regarding the second amendment - it's not really "an implicit right" since it is, after all, an amendment to the original. Clearly therefore, it could be amended further or even removed entirely. So constitutionally, it would seem to be a straightforward process to change.
It's not "an implicit right" at all. It's an explicit one. The question is what that right actually constitutes, not whether it's there. (JFTR, I'm sympathetic to interpretations that emphasize the "well-organized militia" party myself; but given the extensive arguments by constitutional scholars and legal experts, I don't think any interpretation is prima facie correct.)
Amendments to the US Constitution have exactly the same status as the original text. Both can be changed by amendment – that's what "amendment" means. The fact that the Second Amendment is an amendment has no bearing on how it would be changed.
The process (processes, actually; there are two, though they differ in how amendments are proposed to the states, not in how they're ratified) of amending the US Constitution is not "straightforward". And for a hot-button political issue like guns, the chance of getting three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify any change is vanishingly small.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
