4 ms·

> To change or "rewrite" the constitution trying to deal with this subject could dissolve the US. As an American, this is a risk I’m willing to take.

School-Cotton 4y ago
Okay. In practice, how do you plan on achieving this? What steps can we take to “rewrite the constitution” (other than an actual revolution overthrowing the current political system, which… would require guns and even then would probably be impossible)
- paulcole 4y ago
  There are literally very clear steps to amend the Constitution. It’s not like Steve grabs a pitchfork and YOLOs his way to no second amendment. > 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. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm... It’s not as rare as you might be imagining. The last amendment was finalized in 1992.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. Given the structure of the political system in the US, it is impossible for a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to agree on any even mildly controversial topic. You’ll note that the 1992 amendment was about a boring and uncontroversial topic. The last one that had anything to do with a cultural hot-button issue was the repeal of alcohol prohibition, in 1933, when the political system operated completely different to how it does now. So, yes there’s a mechanism. But getting together enough votes to activate that mechanism is impossible in the actually existing reality of the United States. So, now what?
    - paulcole 4y ago
      > I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. It didn’t sound like you were. Let’s start with one state or 1 member of congress saying they want to amend the constitution. Then get a 2nd and perhaps a 3rd. You can probably see where this is going. It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Believing that is very defeatist. We can also just sit around and wait for the next school to get shot up and act confused again.
      - School-Cotton 4y ago
        > You can probably see where this is going. Yeah, I can. It will get to about 49 or 50 senators (at the absolute maximum) and then stall out. Many of those senators, especially in marginal states like Arizona, will then become subject to difficult primary and general election challenges, dissuading anyone from trying again anytime soon. > It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Provide even one counterexample, then. > Believing that is very defeatist. Yes it is. I’m a defeatist on this subject. Things don’t magically become possible because you really wish they were. Sometimes defeatism is the factually correct position. But you’re making moral/emotional arguments, not factual/logical ones. I’m also a defeatist on such subjects as whether I’ll live forever, or whether I can win the lottery and stop working, or whether Iran or Hong Kong will become a democracy anytime soon.
        paulcole 4y ago
        > Provide even one counterexample, then. I don’t need to. It should be obvious why it’s true.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    You're not really following this through to it's logical conclusion. If you want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, yes there is a process for this. So let's fast forward and imagine that, somehow, you've gotten enough people and States on board with changing the Bill of Rights, and to keep it simple the 28th Amendment simply says "the 2nd Amendment is hereby REPEALED". But then what? Pass laws that do, what, exactly? Confiscation? >It’s not like Steve grabs a pitchfork and YOLOs his way to no second amendment. Well ... the original founders of this country did, in fact, YOLO their way to a new one. They did it with guns though, not pitchforks.
    - paulcole 4y ago
      Confiscation is one option, yes. Voluntary buy backs another. Making essentially everyone who owns a gun feel embarrassed and like a social pariah is another. Choosing to buy a gun should be thought of as one of the stupidest decisions the average person can make. It’s called changing our culture and it doesn’t happen overnight. Like I said in another comment, another good option is to just say, “Welp, this won’t work.” Then acted surprised when the next school gets shot up.
      - remarkEon 4y ago
        Can you explain how you think confiscation would work? So let me get this straight. You think gun ownership is a major problem, and that to get people with guns to get rid of them your solution is to ... bully them? How does this bullying work in places that have high levels of violent crime?
        paulcole 4y ago
        > How does this bullying work in places that have high levels of violent crime? Slowly.
      - CapricornNoble 4y ago
        >>>It’s called changing our culture and it doesn’t happen overnight. So why don't we dump our energy into figuring out why we have so many socially-maladjusted young men who are lashing out violently? Then we can reduce the number of murdered children AND still keep our guns. I mean, even in developing countries that are awash in weapons you don't see lone-wolf teenagers gunning down schoolkids regularly; school attacks are usually due to organized terrorist movements. Something is seriously broken in our national psyche and we refuse to address it.
- Spivak 4y ago
  You don’t have to actually rewrite it, amendments to the constitution don’t have the be consistent with those that come before it. Prohibition and repealing prohibition for example. If you somehow had enough political will you literally dissolve the US then you have enough to amend the constitution many times over.
- pmlamotte 4y ago
  It's not necessarily rewriting the constitution, and could take decades, but ensuring liberal judges get a majority on the supreme court is all it really takes in order to reverse the 5-4 D.C. v. Heller (2008) decision that first affirmed the 2nd amendment grants individuals the right to handguns for private use outside a militia. It's congressional legislation from there. Roe v. Wade already showed it's possible to overturn an opinion that grants individual rights.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Indeed, you’re right. The Supreme Court is the only remotely plausible way policy on gun control, or any other cultural hot-button issue, can ever change in the US. However, given the present composition of the Supreme Court, it’s reasonable to assume that they will not do anything meaningful on this subject for decades, at least.
systemvoltage 4y ago
> The Bill of Rights feels intense today, but try reading it in the mindset of someone in 1791. A few years removed from Louis XVI selling Divine Right of Kings. Then suddenly “Hell no, also we’re gonna say and print whatever we want, you can’t search us, and everyone gets guns.” Source: https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1525640468129673216 https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1525640468129673216 Right to bear arms is one of the most profound ideas of the American constitution.

School-Cotton 4y ago

Okay. In practice, how do you plan on achieving this? What steps can we take to “rewrite the constitution” (other than an actual revolution overthrowing the current political system, which… would require guns and even then would probably be impossible)

paulcole 4y ago
There are literally very clear steps to amend the Constitution. It’s not like Steve grabs a pitchfork and YOLOs his way to no second amendment. > 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. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm... It’s not as rare as you might be imagining. The last amendment was finalized in 1992.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. Given the structure of the political system in the US, it is impossible for a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to agree on any even mildly controversial topic. You’ll note that the 1992 amendment was about a boring and uncontroversial topic. The last one that had anything to do with a cultural hot-button issue was the repeal of alcohol prohibition, in 1933, when the political system operated completely different to how it does now. So, yes there’s a mechanism. But getting together enough votes to activate that mechanism is impossible in the actually existing reality of the United States. So, now what?
  - paulcole 4y ago
    > I’m familiar with how the constitution is amended. It didn’t sound like you were. Let’s start with one state or 1 member of congress saying they want to amend the constitution. Then get a 2nd and perhaps a 3rd. You can probably see where this is going. It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Believing that is very defeatist. We can also just sit around and wait for the next school to get shot up and act confused again.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      > You can probably see where this is going. Yeah, I can. It will get to about 49 or 50 senators (at the absolute maximum) and then stall out. Many of those senators, especially in marginal states like Arizona, will then become subject to difficult primary and general election challenges, dissuading anyone from trying again anytime soon. > It is absolutely not impossible for 2/3 of Congress to agree on a controversial topic. Provide even one counterexample, then. > Believing that is very defeatist. Yes it is. I’m a defeatist on this subject. Things don’t magically become possible because you really wish they were. Sometimes defeatism is the factually correct position. But you’re making moral/emotional arguments, not factual/logical ones. I’m also a defeatist on such subjects as whether I’ll live forever, or whether I can win the lottery and stop working, or whether Iran or Hong Kong will become a democracy anytime soon.
      - paulcole 4y ago
        > Provide even one counterexample, then. I don’t need to. It should be obvious why it’s true.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  You're not really following this through to it's logical conclusion. If you want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, yes there is a process for this. So let's fast forward and imagine that, somehow, you've gotten enough people and States on board with changing the Bill of Rights, and to keep it simple the 28th Amendment simply says "the 2nd Amendment is hereby REPEALED". But then what? Pass laws that do, what, exactly? Confiscation? >It’s not like Steve grabs a pitchfork and YOLOs his way to no second amendment. Well ... the original founders of this country did, in fact, YOLO their way to a new one. They did it with guns though, not pitchforks.
  - paulcole 4y ago
    Confiscation is one option, yes. Voluntary buy backs another. Making essentially everyone who owns a gun feel embarrassed and like a social pariah is another. Choosing to buy a gun should be thought of as one of the stupidest decisions the average person can make. It’s called changing our culture and it doesn’t happen overnight. Like I said in another comment, another good option is to just say, “Welp, this won’t work.” Then acted surprised when the next school gets shot up.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      Can you explain how you think confiscation would work? So let me get this straight. You think gun ownership is a major problem, and that to get people with guns to get rid of them your solution is to ... bully them? How does this bullying work in places that have high levels of violent crime?
      - paulcole 4y ago
        > How does this bullying work in places that have high levels of violent crime? Slowly.
    - CapricornNoble 4y ago
      >>>It’s called changing our culture and it doesn’t happen overnight. So why don't we dump our energy into figuring out why we have so many socially-maladjusted young men who are lashing out violently? Then we can reduce the number of murdered children AND still keep our guns. I mean, even in developing countries that are awash in weapons you don't see lone-wolf teenagers gunning down schoolkids regularly; school attacks are usually due to organized terrorist movements. Something is seriously broken in our national psyche and we refuse to address it.
Spivak 4y ago
You don’t have to actually rewrite it, amendments to the constitution don’t have the be consistent with those that come before it. Prohibition and repealing prohibition for example. If you somehow had enough political will you literally dissolve the US then you have enough to amend the constitution many times over.
pmlamotte 4y ago
It's not necessarily rewriting the constitution, and could take decades, but ensuring liberal judges get a majority on the supreme court is all it really takes in order to reverse the 5-4 D.C. v. Heller (2008) decision that first affirmed the 2nd amendment grants individuals the right to handguns for private use outside a militia. It's congressional legislation from there. Roe v. Wade already showed it's possible to overturn an opinion that grants individual rights.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Indeed, you’re right. The Supreme Court is the only remotely plausible way policy on gun control, or any other cultural hot-button issue, can ever change in the US. However, given the present composition of the Supreme Court, it’s reasonable to assume that they will not do anything meaningful on this subject for decades, at least.

systemvoltage 4y ago

> The Bill of Rights feels intense today, but try reading it in the mindset of someone in 1791. A few years removed from Louis XVI selling Divine Right of Kings. Then suddenly “Hell no, also we’re gonna say and print whatever we want, you can’t search us, and everyone gets guns.” Source: https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1525640468129673216 https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1525640468129673216 Right to bear arms is one of the most profound ideas of the American constitution.