You have to get rid of one of the amendments to the Constitution - which one?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm not an anti gun nut but the vague wording of the 2nd is quite problematic. Has to be that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've always seen the Ninth Amendment's purpose as a statement against Inks-esque enforcing the exact literal letter of the law in all cases and not taking into account intent or further implications. It might not always end up that way but I don't have a problem with it in that sense.

The Tenth may have been abused by states trying to defend Jim Crow, but if it didn't exist there'd be some ambiguity in the Constitution and it's not likely courts would interpret things any differently. Saying the Tenth is bad because it was used to justify bad things in the past strikes me as Insane Troll Logic. If you oppose federalism and want a unitary system, then the whole Constitution needs to be re-written, not just repealing the Tenth.

The Second in my view is just a badly written amendment, and is just bad no matter what your opinion of guns are. I don't have a problem with DC v. Heller really, the idea that it doesn't apply to DC because it's not a state also strikes me as Insane Troll Logic (and a misreading of the 18th century definition of the term "militia"), the gun laws of DC weren't doing any good and saying that something that's completely legal in all 50 states needs to be legal in DC as well isn't a far reaching statement, and I wouldn't even care if there was an amendment that stated in more clear wording the government couldn't fully prohibit gun ownership. But the Second doesn't do this. It's also not that important since it was generally ignored due to the vagueness prior to DC v. Heller which as stated before wasn't a particularly revolutionary decision with big implications either and I doubt did much to affect how many guns are owned in DC. That's the real reason it should go and if you support gun rights replaced with something better.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The reason why I really dislike the 9th is that having an amendment as such defeats the point of having a written Bill of Rights at all: to actually define what rights are protected by the government. The Supreme Court, if sufficiently politicized, could interpret the 9th Amendment to mean literally whatever it wants it to mean. It hasn't been a problem so far, but it's still a terrible thing to have in a constitution.

Most constitutional scholars agree that the idea behind the 9th is to shift the burden of proof as to whether a violation of rights is constitutional onto the government rather than the individual. If someone sues against a law with the argument their "rights" are violated, the government can't simply say "Well there is no right to X in the Constitution so the law is valid", it must argue the Constitution explicitly powers it to do so. Perhaps not all that well worded, but I don't have a fundamental problem with this sort of idea. Or as some have put it, the Ninth is more of a guide to reading the Bill of Rights than one that establishes rights itself.