• Pergle@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      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.