• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Constitution has been amended in the past and could still be amended and it wouldn’t be the first time that an amendment removed a right to ownership.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right, but that requires, you know, amending the Constitution. Which requires 3/4 of the states sign on. 3/4 of the states are not going to sign on to throwing out the 2nd Amendment. 2/3 of states wouldn’t sign on to that. I don’t think you could even get 1/2 of the states to sign on to that.

      Especially because no Republican is going to vote for it, and neither is anyone representing a rural area. And we’re talking state legislatures, and Dems aren’t great at expanding their influence in state legislatures.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is there a threshold of sensationalism of such events that changes the number of states required to ratify the thing? That would change the number of supporting Congressional members?

          I’m amazed you still believe this is feasible despite the lack of support for such a measure.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The number of states required doesn’t change, but maybe people will someday realise that the number of deaths by guns in the USA is ridiculous and they’ll vote for people who want to solve the issue.

            • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              How likely is it any such shift is going to approach the 2/3 point necessary?

              I find it more likely voters will continue to reject such absurd hyperbolic appeals.