this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
236 points (92.8% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3402 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 5 points 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_sylvis@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How likely do you believe that is?

Are you aware of what's required to bring about such a thing?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I dunno, you tell me how many people, especially children, need to die for people to wake up

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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_sylvis@midwest.social 0 points 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.