We need to Amend the Constitution..., the 2nd Amendment in Specific:

[Stuart G]

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Why? Times have changed. Back then, NO POLICE DEPARTMENTS, NO STATE POLICE, NO FBI, no communication available,.(we
wrote letters, didn't have phones to call police instantly)...etc. etec.

Times have changed completely.

....We did it with slavery, the right to vote, (for women and for 18 year olds) etc. ..........Here is the point.............

.....WE CAN DO IT AGAIN TO SAVE LIVES...THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT......................

..............................381 MASS SHOOTINGS THIS YEAR...(SO FAR)....F**K THE GUN LOBBY.
..................................LET'S SAVE LIVES.. INSTEAD..!!!!

............please pass this on to as many as you can..

[PJMcK]

1. You're right, of course

I'm in my mid-60s. This change isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

It sucks but there it is.

Fun fact: There are more guns in the U.S. than there are people and they are owned by a disturbingly large percentage of our population.

[SoCalDavidS]

2. Sure Thing

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.

Please explain how this is even remotely possible.

[unweird]

4. We reassert our true majority strength and outvote them

Most people do not endorse reckless disregard for the future. Given enough information they will come to endorse the prudent course. We just need to share the word and help everyone to get their voice and vote heard.
Most polls seem to indicate a hard thirty percent support for all things autocratic and welcome their adored fascist overlords. But that leaves sixty plus percent on the table. We are in that sixty percent, let’s let it get its voice in Washington. Sixty percent should be translatable to sixty seats in the senate. Let that be our benchmark for knowing we have achieved our truer representation. Till then let’s work our asses off to make it so.

[onenote]

16. Please tell me you know it doesn't really work like that.

"Sixty percent should be translatable to sixty seats in the Senate."
Try checking the numbers state by state.

[unweird]

27. I realize the realities of our times and the systemic challenge we face but take strength in our num

We have much to overcome in political disparities but at core we do so from a position of true strength. We are vast in number and will not be denied.

[kelly1mm]

19. Thats not how the Senate works, at all. But even if that were the case please list the 38 states

that would ratify a change to the 2nd amendment.

I'll wait ......

[unweird]

30. We are not there yet, truly. But we are waking up. And in the waking we are compelled to act.

We are a slumbering giant of a people whose numbers can and will overwhelm the voter suppressions and gerrymandering.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

22. Did you by perchance take Civics in school?

Because you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Senate actually works.

[unweird]

32. I was being aspirational

I aspire to see our system of governance truly reflect the will of the people for the the benefit of the people.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. You do realize that it only takes 13 states to reject any change to the Constitution, don't you? nt

[unweird]

33. Forgive my aspirations

I was having a moment of clarity where we break through the barriers and achieve a truly democratic representative government.

[Amishman]

64. we don't have a majority, neither side is remotely close

Only about 2/3rds vote.

Those that do are pretty evenly split between Republican, Democratic, and independent/other. We have a slight numbers advantage over the Pubs, but they have a geographic advantage because of our clustering in urban centers.

There is no Democratic majority waiting to be tapped into, nor is one likely any time soon. The 'demographic inevitability' that we believed was coming 20 years ago has failed to materialize. We have lost ground with hispanic voters and it is independent voters that have seen the steady growth, not us.

I hate to be such a downer, but a key factor in making successful plans is setting reasonable goals and expectations.

[SlimJimmy]

42. It's not really possible

Just a wishful thinking thread. With that said, I don't think we need to remove the 2nd amendment to have reasonable gun control.

[SoCalDavidS]

46. Yeah, I Get That

Seems like most of the threads on DU these days, are Wishful Thinking threads.

[inthewind21]

62. And

a complete lack of any knowledge of government or how it works.

[Initech]

3. Yeah good luck getting the gun humpers on your side.

It may take a war or multiple wars to get rid of the second amendment.

[AndyS]

11. There aren't that many of them. Only about 30% own guns and only

one in ten of them is batshit crazy.

[Polybius]

12. But 3 out of four people in Congress would vote against this

And good luck getting 38 states to ratify.

[NickB79]

21. So, 8 million Americans crazy enough to start a civil war

30% of the 250 million adults with guns (80 million) and 10% of them batshit crazy (8 million).

That would be larger than the standing militaries of the US, Russia and China, combined.

[BootinUp]

5. K&R

[EnergizedLib]

6. Sadly, wishful thinking

I agree with you, though. If we got rid of the Second Amendment, 10th Amendment and Electoral College, we’d finally be a 21st Century nation and in step with the times, a much better nation.

[Polybius]

13. What's wrong with the 10th Amendment?

[EnergizedLib]

15. In my view

Things are better when done at the federal level, not the state level. The 10th Amendment impedes progress and allows for the justification of discrimination against citizens.

Leaving things up to the federal government and allowing it to can really take this country in a better direction, whereas the 10th Amendment is outdated.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

24. And you really believe that the states would ratify such a change to the BoR?

You really think the states are going to give up their legislative powers to the Fed. Govt.?

[EnergizedLib]

25. I'm not saying what would happen

Rather, what should happen. In my opinion, the 10th needs a repeal or a great deal of reform.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. Sorry, but I cannot agree with you on this subject,

that would give the Fed. Govt unfettered power to ride roughshod over states rights, and think about this, the repukes would just love to have that power to tell all liberal leaning states what and how they can run their states and if a Dem held the branches of Govt, the red leaning states would just tell DC to fuck off, they're not abiding by their mandates.

[EnergizedLib]

28. You don't have to agree

The problem is, their side wants to do this already with a national abortion ban, while not wanting to comply with us even though the federal laws supersede state laws.

The reason the 10th Amendment ever was even ratified was to get slave states to join the union.

The federal government has given us:

- Civil Rights, Voting Rights

- The New Deal, Social Security and more

- The Great Society, Medicare, Medicaid, Fair Housing, Gun Control Act of 1934 and 1968

- The EPA and other necessary agencies, CFPB being a more recent one that’s done lots of good

- EMTALA

- Americans With Disabilities Act

- Violence Against Women Act

- Assault Weapons Ban

- Obamacare

States Rights has given us

- Slavery

- Jim Crow

- Segregation

- Bans on contraception

- Bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage

- Bans on sexual activity between same-sex couples and sodomy

- Forced birth

Don’t mind me, I care more about individual rights, human rights, than states rights. I want those rights protected and for states not to encroach on individual rights. The most Draconian policy, it seems, comes at the state level.

[CTyankee]

56. Well, here in CT we are STRENGTHENING our right to reproductive choice and for those who come to

our state from antichoice states seeking an abortion. I would like to see more incentives for businesses to come here and I think that will happen. Pro-choice business owners and shareholders can play a role here. Those business owners want a state with sane, forward looking legislatures, not crazy gun and antichoice legislatures. They want a stable business environment. We can do this.

I was a third generation Texan who wouldn't move back for anything in the world.

[EnergizedLib]

58. The thing is, though

Why should human rights vary state by state? This is the United States of America, United coming before States. We must all be Americans and must be free everywhere. Otherwise, are we really free?

[CTyankee]

59. It is a tragedy for our country (and has been since slavery was brought to our shores).

And my answer to your question is "Tragically, no."

[EnergizedLib]

60. Exactly

We must be free everywhere in this country, all must be free, or we’re not a free country, and that’s why we must restore Roe.

[cbabe]

7. Equal rights amendment first.

[FakeNoose]

8. Totally agree with you, but it's not going to happen by Constitutional Amendment

The politics of enacting any Amendment for any reason - it's impossible to get 75% or even 67% agreement to anything.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to re-define the meaning of "well-regulated militia" - just that phrase and nothing else. Maybe it's possible to clarify that term by Executive Order? I don't know.

Something needs to be done, that's for sure.

[Polybius]

14. Even if you do that, there's that tricky last part

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There's nothing that can be done without a Constitutional Amendment.

[EnergizedLib]

18. The problem

Is that the Second Amendment has been perverted into what it is today, a perception of unfettered gun access and ownership, which is not at all the case.

[sanatanadharma]

9. Yah, well that will never happen they said ...

Not in chronological order

... and then slavery wasn't
... and then Senators became elected
... and then women got the vote
... and they you couldn't get alcohol
... and then you could
... and then you had to pay income tax
... and then the Prez couldn't get reelected the 3rd time
... and the DC residents would count in Presidential elections
... and then 18 year-olds got the vote

[onenote]

17. Ending slavery took a civil war.

And none of the amendments you cited addressed any of the original bill of rights.

Try to understand that just because the Constitution has been amended in the past doesn't mean that any amendment you might like has an equal chance of being ratified today.

[H2O Man]

37. Amendment 21 reinforced

Amendment 1, allowing my extended family to gather, drink, and express their political opinions.

[onenote]

39. That's quite a stretch

given that the 21st amendment allows states to ban the transportation or importation for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors.

[H2O Man]

40. Not really.

They were bootleggers.

[sanatanadharma]

45. The Constitution is not limited by the 2nd amendment

The amendments are not more sacrosanct than the heart of the Constitution.

The point is 'change happens'.
I do not believe the people among USa have an unlimited willingness to accept escalating death and destruction for the benefit of a few who do.

[ripcord]

10. With the current balance of state governments

We are more likely to come out of the process with stronger protections for gun owners.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

20. Congress can make laws to regulate the militia.

[LudwigPastorius]

29. Which 38 states would ratify a gun banning amendment?

Keep in mind that Republicans control 32 State Senates and 30 State Houses.

[Stuart G]

31. Guess what? 2/3 of the population of the United States would vote for such an amendment.

Maybe even 3/4 of the population. But 38 states would not ratify such an amendment.

[LudwigPastorius]

35. I know. It was a rhetorical question.

The only answer would appear to be continually pass gun control legislation, sue the hell out of the manufacturers, and replace the SCROTUS with pro-ban justices.

It would take years, but I sure don't see any practical alternative

[SoCalDavidS]

47. This Country Couldn't Give A Shit What The Majority Of It's Citizens Want

Hence why we allow the Electoral College to decide Presidential elections.

Also hence why Abortion is now about to be illegal in half the states, despite popular opinion.

[Captain Stern]

68. I think you're being overly optimistic

I don't think 2/3 of the voters would support that.

I don't even think 2/3 of Democrats would support it.

Heck.....2/3 of the folks on this site might not even support it.

[48656c6c6f20]

34. Please stop calling the subterranean untrustworthy

Out of the depths of "I need my pacifier" underworld. They are sleeping peacefully with the knowledge that GunMurka exists and that is just fucking peachy to them.

[SYFROYH]

36. I don't support getting rid of the 2nd

The 2nd amendment is not an impediment to reasonable gun control

[CTyankee]

38. It's a horrible anachronism in this day and age.

It has been used continually only to defend out and out murder of citizens. It has NO place in a modern democracy and has been used in doing nothing good for the people.

[SYFROYH]

51. I dont know what you mean by this:

You:
It has been used continually only to defend out and out murder of citizens

[CTyankee]

55. Probably should read "murder of citizens."

The Second Amendment should go. It is an anachronism. Modern democracy does not thrive with an armed citizenry. The fact that someone has obtained a gun legally does not matter to the innocent victims. This happened in my family. The shooter obtained the gun legally. However, he got drunk and was angry and depressed. His legal gun was accessible and kept loaded. He shot and wounded 2 family members and killed a third and then turned the gun on himself. The person he killed (beside himself) was a young woman (my niece), newly married, in his home to help her grandmother, who was dying of cancer. He had no record of any prior crime.

This happened in the United States of America, the state of Texas. Similar scenarios are played out so often here in the U.S. it is sickening.

Someone needs to convince me that this guy needed a gun. Good luck with that.

[SYFROYH]

61. I won't try to convince you your niece's killer needed a gun.

Your niece's death is not acceptable.

[CTyankee]

63. I'm afraid that's wrong. It is considered "the price you pay for a free country" to some people.

While they say that's "too bad" they think it's just a sad thing that sometimes happens and then they hasten to add "but we shouldn't have gun control because of the bad guys." The thing is, this "bad guy" was a "good guy" until he started shooting. If it weren't for the gun...

[SYFROYH]

66. It is true that would be criminals depend on civil liberties to...

…conduct their crimes and avoid justice.

I don't think of it as the price we pay for liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

[CTyankee]

69. What kind of statement is that?

"So sorry about your dead daughter but it's the price we (YOU) pay..."

Not even her fellow Texans said that to my brother....think about what you just wrote here...

[SYFROYH]

70. I didn't write the sentence you put in quotes.

[CTyankee]

71. Of course. I was paraphrasing what I thought you meant.

Is it the "price we pay" to keep our "constitutional right to keep and bear arms"?

Because that was how I was interpreting what you did write.

[Mad_Machine76]

44. The current SCOTUS interpretation of it is

They are actively overriding gun safety/control laws in states that have opted for more restrictions and regulations.

[SYFROYH]

52. The June Bruen decision only makes NY not consider subjective

They can still have lots restrictions on who can carry.

[Mad_Machine76]

53. For now

Who's to say that SCOTUS won't have more rulings that restrict gun safety laws/control even further?

[roamer65]

41. Definitely would not get 38 states.

Sad, but true.

[SoCalDavidS]

48. Probably Wouldn't Get 25 States, Let Alone 38 nt

[Stuart G]

49. i think it would get 38 and more. Here is why. Hundreds of inocent people are killed each year.

Just think about all the mass shootings. One after another after another...so on.

If the change were something that all states could follow, without a lot of worry. it would pass.
Large cities like New York, Chicago. L.A. would find a dramatic reduction in shootings. Somehow,
sometime and someday we will pass some kind of law. I don't know when or how, but it will happen.

Make it so...whoever is boss here....JUST MAKE IT SO!!!

[onenote]

50. If that's the case, why haven't those states tried to pass gun control legislation

Why haven't they amended their own constitutions, which often contain a parallel provision to the Second A? Why don't the elected members of Congress from those states vote for gun control measures?

[Mad_Machine76]

43. I agree

it is ridiculously vague and unworkable in this day and age. If any of the amendments need revision, it's definitely this one!

[Hortensis]

54. We NEED to elect a working Democratic majority because that's POSSIBLE.

It's very doable. We just have to DO it.

Tomorrow 6 states will have their primaries, and we'll get an idea of how many of those who say they want stricter gun control laws there are serious. And how many satisfy themselves with complaining without action. Obviously, those who can't bother voting would also be worthless for the sustained commitment required to amend the constitution

[BannonsLiver]

57. Everyone here in the forum will be dust or worm food before our constitution is ever touched again.

Completely impossible in todays climate.

[Stuart G]

65. Anything is possible..Anything..Here are 2 political events that I believed were totally impossibl

Event Number 1 An Afro American elected to be President of the United States of America.
Event Number 2 A total and complete idiot elected to be President of the United States of America.

Neither of these events I saw as possible. Even though I knew about them. Event Number 1. because the person elected
was my Senator at the time. He was a senator from the State of Illinois.
He is bright, very honest, kind and good natured. I never thought that he could be elected to be President.

Event Number 2. ..Most people who follow politics knew about the complete idiot. We knew his background, his attitude his lying nature, his history, and who & what he is/was...That fellow is a total con artist who lies about everything. I never thought he could be elected to anything. But it happened.

So, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE...AND I MEAN ANYTHING...

EXAMPLE NUMBER 3....EXTRA, EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!

.......SOMETIME IN THE EARLY 80s I took a course on the history and the working of ....COMPUTERS

THE INSTRUCTOR SAID THAT SOMEDAY...IN THE FUTURE...WE WOULD ALL BE OWNING COMPUTERS, AND FURTHERMORE, HE SAID THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO WALK AROUND WITH THEM IN OUR HANDS..
.AND THAT THEY WOULD BE SMALL ENOUGH TO CARRY IN ONE HAND......AND . ......I THOUGHT THE INSTRUCTOR
WAS TOTALLY NUTS!!!!

Well, guess who turns out to be nuts?.............not the instructor......but Stuart G ...of Democratic Underground

[BannonsLiver]

67. I just can't get there Stuart. Too much division.

It’s a very high bar to change our constitution. A big process that requires a lot of people who can’t stand each other to agree.