• The_v@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is has always been the glaring issue with pure democracies.

    That’s why constitutional republics were created. It’s supposed to be a counter to the negative side of democracy. The constitution is supposed to be continuously updated and refined with the changing needs of the Republic.

    FYI the last constitutional amendment to the U.S. was in 1992. That is 34 years ago. Unless something changes radically in the next few years, historians will refer to that date as when the U.S. Constitution died.

    • Sunflier@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Actually, the last time the Constitution was amended was in 2020 when Virginia became the 38th state to pass the Equal Rights amendment. But, of course, conservative ciquanery kept it off.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      The constitution is supposed to be continuously updated and refined with the changing needs of the Republic.

      Does a fairly daft bit about everyone having guns that needs removing. You can get on that.

      That law was added when guns were so imprecise it was difficult to hit the broadside of a barn from inside the barn. It wasn’t designed for guns with fire rates in excess of one round every 5 minutes. Back then if somebody went on a shooting spree you could just walk up to them and punch them while they were in the middle of reloading.

      • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Exactly, bullets weren’t even invented yet when they wrote the Constitution, but “conservatives” believe all these modern weapons are exactly what the founding fathers wanted to protect.

      • DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        That law was added when guns were so imprecise it was difficult to hit the broadside of a barn from inside the barn.

        That’s blatantly false. Timothy Murphy killed a British officer during the Revolutionary War at a distance of 300-400 yards. They absolutely had the capability of precise marksmanship at the time the constitution was written. Repeating rifles were not a foreign concept either. They weren’t common yet, but there was no reason for them to believe the technology wouldn’t be improved.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          The founding fathers weren’t visionaries, they were just people who lived in a particular time period and wrote laws appropriate to that time period. I don’t think they would necessarily be all that upset if someone was to travel back in time and tell them that people 200 years later wanted to change the rules because they no longer worked. So whatever they motivations may have been at the time are irrelevant.

          • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            I mean they literally said they expected the constitution to be rewritten ever couple decades. They absolutely were visionaries and envisioned exactly the type of changes modern-day conservatives abhor.

          • DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            They weren’t idiots either. They weren’t stupid enough to think technology was static and would never improve, firearms technology was literally improving during their lifetime. They wrote the constitution the way they did deliberately. The constitution was meant to be a living document, true, but the only reason to change that amendment is, simply put, fascism.

            • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              The reason is people dying because in america if someone gets upset they have a gun within arms reach. How many shooting deaths every year do you need to see before you would consider it a problem? Because apparently 14,000 gun deaths in a year is not even close to a problem for you.

        • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          It’s not blatantly false, it took the most famous master marksman of the revolutionary war three shots to hit a stationary target. Those weapons were imprecise, objectively speaking.

      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        Own a musket for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball-sized hole through the first man, he’s dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbor’s dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grapeshot, “Tally ho lads” the grapeshot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Well given the fact that the US navy don’t appear to be able to secure a narrow stretch of water maybe we’d have a chance.

          Although given the fact that the prize would be the United States perhaps it’s not worth it.