Just Fred wrote:

Lot of back-and-forth discussion going on here.  That's fine.  My only point has to do with the framers of the Constitution not being able to anticipate the weaponry that is made, promoted, and sold to the public, and whether or not it is a good idea.  What seemed like a good plan in 1780, may not apply to the American culture and society that has evolved in 2015.

Carry on.

As Jeerleader pointed out, I don't think you will get 38 states to say they want to limit the rights of their citizens, let alone getting 66.67% of the House and Senate to send a proposed amendment to the states.
 

Goose wrote:

And?

It means that the argument that because the Constitution has a mechanism to alter it, the utopian goal of removing guns from the citizenry can be realized, is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

According to that thinking I could become a multi-millionaire in the next couple days; all I need to do is buy a lottery ticket and win!
 

Last edited by Jeerleader (5/26/2015 8:05 pm)

Rongone wrote:

"It can not be done legally (constitutionally).". Jeerleader

I was merely pointing out that it is possible that it could be done (and has been done previously) legally & constitutionally.

Just sayin'

And all you're doin' is just sayin' . . .
I'd be more interested in citin' and provin'.
 

It all might simply be a matter of time, and right now isn't the time I suppose.  There was a time when people couldn't imagine black slaves be considered US citizens or women having the right to vote.

All cultures and societies evolve over time.  Gun rights is the hot-button issue for many right now, but I have no doubt that at some point enough people will look back at what we've done and say, "What the hell were they thinking?" just like after 100+ years enough people decided it was time to let women have the right to vote.

 

So we have now changed the topic from gun control to removing guns from the public ? 

Actually Rongone DID explain and defend his statement. The Constitution CAN be amended. It does not mean that an amendment would not allow for gun ownership, but rather better quantify it and qualify it. The Supremens have actually allowed certain gun restrictions to stand so the case of Constitutionality of gun control has had precedence of already allowing certain restrictions.