You know what would be a pretty interesting way to look at this would be?
Lets take every modern nation in the world (we can bicker about what “modern” means later), and lets create a database similar to the one you’re taking issue with for each of those nations.
We can be just as uncharitable (or is it charitable?) in our definition of “mass shooting”… The exact issue you’re having here right? You think that these statistics unfairly show the US in a negative light.
Well how about we take a look, by that same criteria, how many “mass shootings” these other nations have. Hell, we can even do it per-capita.
I really don’t care what other countries are or are not doing, the fact of the matter is other countries a) don’t have a 2nd amendment and b) have universal health care, it’s not an apples to apples comparison.
What I’m saying is, within the United States alone, there are organizations with a vested interest in making people afraid that they’re going to get shot when the actual risk is extremely low.
Agreed, unfortunately the founders did not see fit to add an expiration date and made it essentially impossible to update it given our current divisions.
If you read the founders thoughts, there was an idea that all laws should expire every 19 years.
But what they wanted and what they enacted are two different things.
Want a new Constitution? Great, get 34 states to call for a Convention, write one, then get 38 states to ratify the new one. Good luck!
Currently, 28 of the required 34 states would call for a convention. Buuut they’re all Red states. So the 2nd Amendment would likely be enshrined EVEN HARDER, along with taking the vote away from women and minorities, banning abortion, establishing a state religion, etc. etc.
Yeah, anyone who pushes for a Constitutional Convention these days hasn’t done the math (or has ulterior motives). Anything we’d end up would be far worse than what we have.
Worse AND, since there’s no real process for running a Convention, I could see a scenario where the old one is thrown out, but we can’t seem to agree on a new one either, leaving the country adrift.
You know what would be a pretty interesting way to look at this would be?
Lets take every modern nation in the world (we can bicker about what “modern” means later), and lets create a database similar to the one you’re taking issue with for each of those nations.
We can be just as uncharitable (or is it charitable?) in our definition of “mass shooting”… The exact issue you’re having here right? You think that these statistics unfairly show the US in a negative light.
Well how about we take a look, by that same criteria, how many “mass shootings” these other nations have. Hell, we can even do it per-capita.
How do you think that would look?
I really don’t care what other countries are or are not doing, the fact of the matter is other countries a) don’t have a 2nd amendment and b) have universal health care, it’s not an apples to apples comparison.
What I’m saying is, within the United States alone, there are organizations with a vested interest in making people afraid that they’re going to get shot when the actual risk is extremely low.
The second amendment isn’t some magic incantation, Jesus Christ.
Brain rotted.
No, it’s the law of the land in the United States, you’re free to not like that fact, but it doesn’t change it.
The Constitution has always meant to be a living document.
It should evolve as reality changes for us, but people in this country are too brain-rotted and ammosexual to fix it. Wonder how that happened…
Agreed, unfortunately the founders did not see fit to add an expiration date and made it essentially impossible to update it given our current divisions.
If you read the founders thoughts, there was an idea that all laws should expire every 19 years.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/thomas-jefferson-on-whether-the-american-constitution-is-binding-on-those-who-were-not-born-at-the-time-it-was-signed-and-agreed-to-1789
But what they wanted and what they enacted are two different things.
Want a new Constitution? Great, get 34 states to call for a Convention, write one, then get 38 states to ratify the new one. Good luck!
Currently, 28 of the required 34 states would call for a convention. Buuut they’re all Red states. So the 2nd Amendment would likely be enshrined EVEN HARDER, along with taking the vote away from women and minorities, banning abortion, establishing a state religion, etc. etc.
https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/article-v-convention/
Yeah, anyone who pushes for a Constitutional Convention these days hasn’t done the math (or has ulterior motives). Anything we’d end up would be far worse than what we have.
Worse AND, since there’s no real process for running a Convention, I could see a scenario where the old one is thrown out, but we can’t seem to agree on a new one either, leaving the country adrift.