It always blows my mind how blindly and willingly the American people accept that mass shootings just happen once in a while because the founding fathers wrote a vague sentence on a piece of paper some 250 years ago.
Constitutions are supposed to provide a framework for the government's actions. A constitution is supposed to be a very practical document. In the United States, however, it has become a sacred text, as the founding fathers have evolved into godlike figures with a superior moral authority that never existed in reality. That is why the US constitution is rarely changed or even amended, unlike the constitutions of most other democracies.
I understand that the fundamental scepticism against the government and a general focus on the individual is part of the American culture. But the second amendment is, just like many other parts of the US constitution, impractical and must be changed.
Not who you were replying to, but: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."
Or, at the very least, revive the uniform legal understanding that existed for over 200 years after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment: that it doesn't place any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. There's a reason that the Supreme Court unanimously held in 1939 that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun: because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of "a well regulated militia."
Poll
