| the-pi-guy said: >Its the SECOND Amendment for godsake Amendments can be changed. The government can make changes to amendments, and the supreme court has reinterpreted the constitution at different times and came to different conclusions about what the second amendment exactly means. |
How likely do you think it is that you can get three-fourths of U.S state legislatures to agree to change the Second Amendment to be more limited. Especially given that this is the issue that is pretty much the most polarized in the country? How likely is the current court (or a forseeable court in the next few decades) to limit rather than expand the scope of the Second Amendment?
Earlier in this thread I was told that I was naive for recommending social and cultural changes/movements that would fundamentally halt the source ideologies and motivations for mass shootings. Nearly a dozen people upvoted the person who called me naive.
Yet every single one of the recommendations I provided don't require a constitutional amendment, nor are they topics that have strong polarization (at least yet.) They can also be applied locally or regionally and have a strong effect.
It seems almost as if there is no consciousness of the political landscape in the recommendations surrounding gun control in this thread.
When the policing issue is brought up for example, it is suggested that gun control that doesn't criminalize people can be constructed. That is true, I provided an example of that myself, but which currently existing bill won't criminalize more people? Almost all of them come with more criminal penalties attached.
The Second Amendment (and the Heller interpretation) are likely here for the next few decades, given the Supreme Court's ideological slant. Any near-term solutions need to be within that framework. If anything, advocates of strong gun control better hope the Supreme Court doesn't touch this topic because they are far more likely to expand the scope of the Second Amendment than limit it.
And while some things like universal background checks and licensing might be able to get past the current Supreme Court, it is highly doubtful that more aggressive gun control than that will.
In the meantime, is it not possible to actually solve the social and cultural problems that lead to these shooters being motivated to kill other people?
I know one can say "we can do both", but given the political, logistical, and institutional realities in this country it doesn't seem like we can.
A large enough minority of adults are willing to kill to keep their guns. It just is farfetched to think that is going to change anytime soon.
