Not only that, but it's the bill of rights, if you can take away the second amendment what's to stop authoritarians from taking the first as well? Or modifying it to preclude certain religions from the establishment clause?

[–] NOPper@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I see what you're saying, but the 18th amendment would like a word. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to be a living document that adjusts as time goes on. Preferably to make this a better country for everyone.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When was the last time Congress passed a new law, much less an amendment? They're bought and sold by corporations to ensure that nothing, but the bare minimum to keep the government limping along, will ever get done

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So from what I can tell there’s a system which allows for change but there is insufficient will from many areas as to why change hasn’t happened. So let’s compare Australia’s mass shooting with the American population. From what I read there was 18 million people in Australia in 1996 at the time of the mass shooting that killed 35 people which lead to gun reform. If you were to take the same proportion against the US population it would be the same as a shooter legally buying guns and then killing around 580 people. Do you think change would occur if this happened? Very disturbing if that’s the limit of peoples tolerance of such crimes.