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.
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with changing the Bill of Rights, and to keep it simple the 28th Amendment simply says "the 2nd Amendment is hereby REPEALED".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.
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.
>>>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.
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?
> Choosing to buy a gun should be thought of as one of the stupidest decisions the average person can make.
Yeah, we're not at that point. We aren't remotely close. Recently polling shows the country split almost 50/50 on support for stricter gun laws [0]. If we ever do reach the point where popular sentiment reflects your quote then you've _already_ won, and changing laws to ban guns isn't much more than an afterthought.
If somehow you managed to push through a gun ban before the country has changed, you're going to see a revolt. What do you do when police departments refuse to enforce the law? Probably entire state governments as well? Are you going to send in the army to go door to door confiscating guns? Assuming that the soldiers are willing to follow orders...
Barring a major flip in US culture - which doesn't appear to be remotely likely in the near future - the only possible outcome of a ban on guns is civil war. That isn't dramatic right wing propaganda. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the US constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. You may not like the fact that it is, and you may not think that it should be _but it is_. If we reach the point where constitutional rights are meaningless then the entire US system of government has failed, and its demise won't be a pretty thing. I hope you're smart enough to realize that a US civil war in the modern era would be incredibly bad for everyone and would probably result in the deaths of millions.
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?
> 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.
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.
> 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-governm...
It’s not as rare as you might be imagining. The last amendment was finalized in 1992.