It seems like common sense to make guns have the same requirements as cars. You need to pass a short course and get a license. I don't understand what is unclear about the 2nd 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.”

Right there, in the text: "Well regulated".

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well regulated, as in well maintained. Additionally, it is a conditional clause providing the context for its existence. Taking this legal approach has never worked in court. The Constitution was written to be changed for a reason but we are afraid to or it is opposed.

[–] stankbucket@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a matter of fear. It's a matter of not being able to get the votes. It's not a simple majority to make a major change like that and it should not be.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The fear is from the politicians that have historically been voted out for supporting the legislation. It is also why a Constitutional Convention would likely be an absolute shitshow and never be ratified.

[–] fruitywelsh@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Part of it is the wording is "(justification for the amendment) (actual limitation on the governments power)" so the reason the government shall not infringed on the right to bear arms is because that supports the creation of well regulated militias necessary to secure a free state.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

And you can, it seems, I mean if you want to, you can amend it...