You should visit the Philippines sometime. They make MAGA look like Mandami. Saudi Arabia is also very conservative.
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
20 points (70.8% liked)
Off My Chest
2016 readers
118 users here now
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.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Try living here. I feel like I'm in a zombie movie.
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!
You are in your own bubble and haven’t seen enough countries then. Iran links church with state. Afghanistan overthrew the democracy that the western world attempted to install. There are a glut of totalitarian regimes in Africa, Southern Asia and Central Asia that are monoculture. Russia, Belarus and even Vietnam are oft considered more conservative.
The US is one of the most diverse countries in the world. Consider your perspective, why do you fear guns so much? Do you see them all that often? What do they connote to you?
To me, they demonstrate that we still have utility against an oppressive government. Remember when Trump said “we have to take their guns?” They only want the “right people” to have guns, their people. Because then they have all the power and can force us any way they see fit. And yes, they have tanks, and yeah, they have bombs, but did you see how well that worked in Afghanistan? And it’s not like we’re all clustered in one place.
Comparing the US with third world countries is one thing. But compare the US to any civilized country, and the US loses on most good parameters, and "wins" on the bad ones.
I've come to realize what conservatives really fear is agency. They don't want to see themselves as capable of changing the world around them, they don't want responsibility. They spend so much time and money prognosticating what could happen, or could be true, and avoid thinking about what things should be like. Making the correct predictions is the most highly valued thing, and making an ethical statement is tantamount to declaring that you are above society, that you follow a personal code instead of the social code, that you are disruptive. They can't imagine a different world, so all attempts at change are seen through the lens of fear of loss.