Oh yes, please explain to me how the US would go about changing the 2nd amendment right now given how the legal mechanisms for doing so work. It’s basically impossible at the moment.
An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
Altering the constitution is an extremely tall order in today’s US politics. It hasn’t been done successfully in over 30 years and the one prior to that was over 50 years ago.
The Republicans can barely even vote in a house speaker right now when they have the required majority to do so. Good luck getting a change to the 2nd amendment through. It’s just not going to happen.
Well nothing you’re saying is going to happen. So again, feel free to explain to me how – realistically – people are going to manage to change the 2nd amendment.
Bonus points for doing it without name calling this time.
To give you an actual answer, interpreting the 2nd Amendment as granting an essentially unrestricted right to firearm ownership to all Americans is a very recent concept, only being solidly established in 2008 in the SCOTUS case of DC v. Heller, which struck down a firearms regulation law dating from 1975. Justice Stevens called it “unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench”, and suggested that a constitutional amendment should be enacted to explicitly overturn it.
That, and Republicans have clearly established that precedent means essentially nothing now, so appointing a SCOTUS majority that favors some amount of gun regulation is also a completely valid path forward, and probably more reasonable than an amendment.
So, the realistic option is to keep Republicans out of the presidency for a good decade or so. It’s not fast, but Republicans persisted for nearly 50 years to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s doable.
Yeah I would agree that basically packing the court or waiting out more retirements from right wing judges is about the only realistic path forward, and like you’re saying that could take decades.
People in these kinds of discussions being like “WHY CAN’T WE CHANGE THIS OVERNIGHT?” really ought to better inform themselves of how this stuff works. It’s not that simple.
Sure, none of it is real and we can change it. The problem is that “we” includes all the other people, and what is “real to us” is what we make of it.
If the people collectively decide to abide by our current system of government, laws, and voting in order to not rock the boat, then trying to forcefully change that gets you labeled a terrorist or a criminal.
But if enough people agree with you, then it starts getting closer to being a new thing.
Oh yes, please explain to me how the US would go about changing the 2nd amendment right now given how the legal mechanisms for doing so work. It’s basically impossible at the moment.
As if that was a new issue. The 2nd should have been repelled after the first mass shooting happened.
Altering the constitution is an extremely tall order in today’s US politics. It hasn’t been done successfully in over 30 years and the one prior to that was over 50 years ago.
The Republicans can barely even vote in a house speaker right now when they have the required majority to do so. Good luck getting a change to the 2nd amendment through. It’s just not going to happen.
Hence what I said, that should have been taken care of decades ago.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Well nothing you’re saying is going to happen. So again, feel free to explain to me how – realistically – people are going to manage to change the 2nd amendment.
Bonus points for doing it without name calling this time.
To give you an actual answer, interpreting the 2nd Amendment as granting an essentially unrestricted right to firearm ownership to all Americans is a very recent concept, only being solidly established in 2008 in the SCOTUS case of DC v. Heller, which struck down a firearms regulation law dating from 1975. Justice Stevens called it “unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench”, and suggested that a constitutional amendment should be enacted to explicitly overturn it.
That, and Republicans have clearly established that precedent means essentially nothing now, so appointing a SCOTUS majority that favors some amount of gun regulation is also a completely valid path forward, and probably more reasonable than an amendment.
So, the realistic option is to keep Republicans out of the presidency for a good decade or so. It’s not fast, but Republicans persisted for nearly 50 years to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s doable.
Yeah I would agree that basically packing the court or waiting out more retirements from right wing judges is about the only realistic path forward, and like you’re saying that could take decades.
People in these kinds of discussions being like “WHY CAN’T WE CHANGE THIS OVERNIGHT?” really ought to better inform themselves of how this stuff works. It’s not that simple.
deleted by creator
Sure, none of it is real and we can change it. The problem is that “we” includes all the other people, and what is “real to us” is what we make of it.
If the people collectively decide to abide by our current system of government, laws, and voting in order to not rock the boat, then trying to forcefully change that gets you labeled a terrorist or a criminal.
But if enough people agree with you, then it starts getting closer to being a new thing.
Wait, so your plan is for the people without guns to use guns to stand up to the people who want/own guns and the US gov, all to ban guns?
Laws aren’t real, but the time you will end up spending in jail will sure feel real.
deleted by creator
Are you real?