Although the Second Amendment was the example given, the OP dealt with the Bill of Rights as a whole. (And I’d question if he intended limiting his inquiry to Federal acts violating rights, or meant to include the extension of those rights as against state acts through the 14th Amendment.)
In my opinion, the proper procedure should be to enact amendments that spell out exactly what you intend to except from those protections, not to construct a reasonable but arguably unconstitutional set of exemptions that are, to quote friend Bricker quoting Mr. Justice Douglas, “penumbras and emanations” of what the law says.
For example, taking the Second Amendment, if it is our wish corporately as a nation to permit the restriction of the right to bear arms in manners that keep gang members and Mafiosi – or even felons – from owning them, say so. Any intelligent layman can pick up the Second Amendment and read that it is unconstitutional to prohibit a citizen from carrying such weaponry as he reasonably believes himself to need. Period. That may not be what we want to do, but that’s what the Amendment says. If it’s not working, fix it. But don’t ignore what it says.
If there are reasonable grounds for censorship, then rewrite the First Amendment to say so. For example, troop movements in wartime, or, even better, strategic plans. A newspaper that unearthed and published the plans for Operation Overlord on May 30, 1944, would arguably be committing treason – but it would also be exercising its constitutional right to publish what it learns. I need not rehearse the arguments on why child pornography is bad here, I think. But where’s the clear exemption of them from the guaranteed freedom?
Another interesting fact I learned about 20 years ago, as the Army base near my home town was expanded: it’s illegal (I don’t know the statute involved, but I was told this explicitly by people whose business it was to know such things) for a landlord to hold property open to the public and exclude soldiers from whom you will rent to – even if the intent is to rent to low-income persons forced out of affordable housing by the increase in rents available as Army troops seek places to rent. That is arguably a violation of the Third Amendment!
One can go on at length. Establishment Clause and free exercise cases are always fun for several pages of impassioned argument. But the point is, the Amendment doesn’t say what we want it to mean – and the proper course is not to interpret it out of shape, but to change it.
Moot in what sense? Do you mean if the Second Amendment were repealed, and political obstacles to gun control overcome, more gun control than we have now still would be practically impossible to enforce? Or what?