NYT: Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

[sc94597]

KylieDog said:

sc94597 said:

KylieDog said:

Kasz216 said:

Maybe in another 40 years he'll realize there are things called constitutional amendments that are supposed to be used to change things in the constitution that no longer are of use.

Like everyone needing a gun?

Sure, if they follow Article V. That's of course nowhere near likely to pass, so politicians choose unconstitional means to rid Americans of the second amendment. 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

You clearly missed the point.

No I get your point and the point of my post is that Americans disagree with your sentiment, otherwise it would be repealed through constitutional means. In fact, if there was any point it could've been repealed it was in the 1950's, before any of these mass shootings occured. Almost 60% of Americans supported total gun prohibition then. Today only about 26% do.