• Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gun owners that are dumb enough to make gun ownership their only compass to decide who to vote for even if it goes against their general best interests would have voted Republican no matter who was there as a candidate.

    There are a lot of single issue voters out there, who will vote for whoever takes their stance on their one issue regardless of anything else.

    Frankly, this is one Democrats need to drop - any bill they might pass is either a violation of citizen’s constitutional rights or isn’t going to do much to curb actual gun violence. At the same time “Democrats want to take away your constitutional right to bare arms” is one of the easiest wedges to draw people to vote for ever-shittier Republicans. And most of the people doing the shooting don’t particularly care if their gun is owned legally or not.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Constitution has been amended in the past and could still be amended and it wouldn’t be the first time that an amendment removed a right to ownership.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right, but that requires, you know, amending the Constitution. Which requires 3/4 of the states sign on. 3/4 of the states are not going to sign on to throwing out the 2nd Amendment. 2/3 of states wouldn’t sign on to that. I don’t think you could even get 1/2 of the states to sign on to that.

        Especially because no Republican is going to vote for it, and neither is anyone representing a rural area. And we’re talking state legislatures, and Dems aren’t great at expanding their influence in state legislatures.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is there a threshold of sensationalism of such events that changes the number of states required to ratify the thing? That would change the number of supporting Congressional members?

            I’m amazed you still believe this is feasible despite the lack of support for such a measure.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The number of states required doesn’t change, but maybe people will someday realise that the number of deaths by guns in the USA is ridiculous and they’ll vote for people who want to solve the issue.

              • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                How likely is it any such shift is going to approach the 2/3 point necessary?

                I find it more likely voters will continue to reject such absurd hyperbolic appeals.