Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
21. The poster didn't seem to be trying to protect guns.
Wed Mar 24, 2021, 08:24 PM
Mar 2021

The Constitution does in fact provide a means for repealing the Second Amendment and replacing it with an amendment that reflects the modern reality of guns.

But because that process requires that 3/4 of state legislatures approve the changes, we are stuck with a second amendment that defines a time when guns were top loaded muskets or pistols that required many seconds to prepare to fire one projectile and were used by people for harvesting wildlife and protection, given the remote nature of their homes from other people, in many cases.
Many modern guns can fire dozens of projectiles in a single minute, a concept that the Founders never considered, but were wise enough to allow future generations to amend the Constitution to conform to the modern realities of those generations.

Herein is the rub. Under current realities, there is no way that the Constitution will be amended to have a gun ownership component that matches the current reality of guns. Now why is that? It happens because the people that want sane gun regulation that matches constitutional wording simply are not as passionate about their goal is the people that are ok with people owning guns that have no purpose outside of war. I often read breathless OPs here on DU about the large number of people that show up to a gun reform protest, or to a BLM protest, but if only 30% of those people vote, nothing at all changes. So the issue isn’t whether the majority of us want sane gun laws or police that pay with their jobs and freedom for targeting certain citizens, the issue is whether we collectively have the determination to vote 100% in ALL elections. A case before the House now about whether to seat a republican I believe illustrates the problem that we have as progressives. I can promise you that the republican maxes out every vote that she could get, but there were most likely hundreds or thousands of people who would have voted for the Democrat that didn’t bother to vote. A similar situation occurred in Virginia in 2017, where a Democrat lost a House of Delegate seat via a game of chance (a blind drawing) after a deadlocked election - when progressives there learned their lesson and made it a habit to vote, Democrats took control of all of state government, and this week, Virginia became the first southern state to ban the death penalty through policy change.

It is not the gunners that are stopping us from enacting sane gun laws that reflect the modern nature of guns, it is us that are holding us back from that because we don’t in mass vote like voting is religion.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

unfortunately qazplm135 Mar 2021 #1
Ask any one of these dipshit 'militia' types if they think we should disband the U.S Armed Forces. Aristus Mar 2021 #2
EXACTLY! bluestarone Mar 2021 #3
Correct, sir, on all counts! (nt) Hugh_Lebowski Mar 2021 #8
Weren't they all? OldCicero Mar 2021 #4
I don't think so. But... El Supremo Mar 2021 #6
The whole concept of amending the Constitution was so that it would Blue_true Mar 2021 #17
Frankly, an amendment is what it will take. Like repealing prohibition OldCicero Mar 2021 #24
Yes. I agree. Blue_true Mar 2021 #32
Prohibition was also an amendment MichMan Mar 2021 #44
Although they are full of rube chit, the gunners will say that back then there were quill pens, yet Hoyt Mar 2021 #5
See the dick act of 1903 EX500rider Mar 2021 #25
Makes you and most here too old to own gunz, even under gunners' Hoyt Mar 2021 #28
Of course that's not true either EX500rider Mar 2021 #30
Nope, it clearly is. Do Gungeoneers have an emergency signal that Hoyt Mar 2021 #31
Feel free to point even one time in US history when you had to be in a militia to own firearms. EX500rider Mar 2021 #35
Racism has always existed, but it ain't right. Gunz and racism are highly correlated. Hoyt Mar 2021 #36
"Gunz and racism are highly correlated." In your mind I suppose they are. EX500rider Mar 2021 #38
If only you gunners could be happy with that. GOPers used to post that photo on Discussionist Hoyt Mar 2021 #39
And there is the nonsense, thank you. EX500rider Mar 2021 #56
Most of them are. Most racists do own guns. Hoyt Mar 2021 #57
That just a feeling you get or do you have any studies to produce? Let me guess... EX500rider Mar 2021 #58
Yes.. Deuxcents Mar 2021 #7
So change it. The constitution explains how. Nt hack89 Mar 2021 #9
We can stop gunners without going to that extreme. People are tired of coddling selfish gun owners. Hoyt Mar 2021 #11
I agree the 2A allows strict gun control hack89 Mar 2021 #13
What I don't have a grasp on is why you gunners fight so hard to protect gunz Hoyt Mar 2021 #14
But I don't fight you. That's what you refuse to understand hack89 Mar 2021 #18
The poster didn't seem to be trying to protect guns. Blue_true Mar 2021 #21
That's why muzzleloaders are the only firearms not subject to federal gun control laws. sop Mar 2021 #10
I read that 2nd amendment sometime ago and it also Ka-Dinh Oy Mar 2021 #12
Why don't you show us your copy of the 2nd amendment. former9thward Mar 2021 #26
I do not have one and it was quite awhile back. Ka-Dinh Oy Mar 2021 #33
Actually it says no such thing. Nt EX500rider Mar 2021 #27
I thought it did. I stand corrected. Ka-Dinh Oy Mar 2021 #34
If you want to go by the actual Constitution, multigraincracker Mar 2021 #42
The second does not mention guns, pistols or rifles. multigraincracker Mar 2021 #15
In many red states, you can't carry a sword. But gunz are fine. Hoyt Mar 2021 #37
Or knife with a 3 inch blade, brass knuckles, multigraincracker Mar 2021 #41
The second does not mention guns, pistols or rifles. multigraincracker Mar 2021 #16
British intended to seize colonists' guns moondust Mar 2021 #19
Repeal it, then. Dial H For Hero Mar 2021 #20
"The United States still seems willing to tolerate a significant degree of instability and violence HUAJIAO Mar 2021 #22
Yet,the majority of single homicides, which far outweigh mass shootings, is perpetrated by black men MichMan Mar 2021 #45
Mass shootings are random, therefore more concerning. Elessar Zappa Mar 2021 #47
I doubt the families of the victims feel differently in either type MichMan Mar 2021 #48
No, not really. White people wanted guns so they could terrify everyone else. hunter Mar 2021 #23
Exactly. And that's why they still want/need them. Hoyt Mar 2021 #29
Governor Reagan was the first to ban multigraincracker Mar 2021 #43
Exactly.... This seems to be one of the forgotten reasons for the 2nd Amendment... HUAJIAO Mar 2021 #53
Read the first ten amendments closely and you'll see a theme emerge jmowreader Mar 2021 #40
The 2A comes directly from the British Bill of Rights of 1689 hack89 Mar 2021 #46
Thomas Jefferson wasn't involved in writing the constitution Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #50
He did let Madison know that he would oppose the ratification of the constitution if a Bill of Midwestern Democrat Mar 2021 #52
Very true Dem4Life1102 Mar 2021 #55
THANK YOU for that... seems to be a forgotten part of history HUAJIAO Mar 2021 #54
imho, the constitution is a living document. Maxheader Mar 2021 #49
Founders were not in a huge rush to start up a standing peacetime army... Tommy Carcetti Mar 2021 #51
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The 2nd Amendment was wri...»Reply #21