Off My Chest
RULES:
I am looking for mods!
1. The "good" part of our community means we are pro-empathy and anti-harassment. However, we don't intend to make this a "safe space" where everyone has to be a saint. Sh*t happens, and life is messy. That's why we get things off our chests.
2. Bigotry is not allowed. That includes racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and religiophobia. (If you want to vent about religion, that's fine; but religion is not inherently evil.)
3. Frustrated, venting, or angry posts are still welcome.
4. Posts and comments that bait, threaten, or incite harassment are not allowed.
5. If anyone offers mental, medical, or professional advice here, please remember to take it with a grain of salt. Seek out real professionals if needed.
6. Please put NSFW behind NSFW tags.
view the rest of the comments
A lot of people don't understand what is involved in changing the Constitution. Because the 2nd Amendment is part of the bill of rights, changing it is a heavy lift.
First, you have to get 2/3rds of the House to agree. That's 290 votes. In a body that is struggling to get a 218 vote simple majority on most things.
Then you need a 67 vote majority in the Senate, a body hamstrung by the 60 vote filibuster.
Assuming you get both of that, it still has to be ratified by 38 states in order to take effect.
Alternately, 34 states could call to re-write the ENTIRE constitution... Something which the founders wanted to have happen every 20 years or so...
But then that still needs ratification by 38 states...
The 2nd amendment clearly doesn't give a individual the right to own a firearm. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
It actually does, from your own link:
"the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”"
The whole idea of a "well regulated militia" is an armed populace, with privately owned weapons, able to stand up virtually instantly for the security of a free state.
The difference between "self defense" and "civil defense" is negligible. The intent was to guarantee private ownership of weapons. The utility of which to be determined elsewhere.
It is a deliberately onerous process to prohibit easy changes to the rules.
Yup!