392
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
392 points (96.9% liked)
News
23310 readers
3405 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
Are you real?